1999
DOI: 10.1080/10683169908414994
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effects of the cognitive interview and other methods of context reinstatement on identification

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
5
0
2

Year Published

2002
2002
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
(18 reference statements)
2
5
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In agreement with the literature, when a lack of effect or an effect not in favour of the CI is found, this will either be related to objects (Geiselman et al, 1984) or more frequently to persons (AlonsoQuecuty & Hernández-Fernaud, 1997; Clifford & Gwyer, 1999;Finger & Pezdek, 1999;Gwyer & Clifford, 1997;Memon et al, 1997). This seems to indicate that the technique has greater potential when it comes to increasing the memory of actions than 'static' details, something that seems to be confirmed by other studies (Akehurst et al, 2003;Milne & Bull, 2002).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In agreement with the literature, when a lack of effect or an effect not in favour of the CI is found, this will either be related to objects (Geiselman et al, 1984) or more frequently to persons (AlonsoQuecuty & Hernández-Fernaud, 1997; Clifford & Gwyer, 1999;Finger & Pezdek, 1999;Gwyer & Clifford, 1997;Memon et al, 1997). This seems to indicate that the technique has greater potential when it comes to increasing the memory of actions than 'static' details, something that seems to be confirmed by other studies (Akehurst et al, 2003;Milne & Bull, 2002).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 83%
“…This is clearly due to the differential incidence of the CI in this aspect. Other studies also observed that the recall of details about the characteristics of physical appearance was not enhanced with the CI Clifford & Gwyer, 1999;Finger & Pezdek, 1999;Gwyer & Clifford, 1997;Memon et al, 1994Memon et al, , 1997.…”
Section: Vs Simentioning
confidence: 88%
“…Finally, the interviewer also asks the witness to actively visualize the target and his or her appearance. Although the original findings by Malpass and Devine (1981) on improving eyewitness identifications after a long delay by reinstating the mental context of the witnesses appeared promising, later attempts to use the classical cognitive interview techniques or various components thereof to improve identification performance appeared less successful (Clifford & Gwyer, 1999;Cutler et al, 1987a;Fisher, McCauley, & Geiselman, 1994;Gwyer & Clifford, 1997;Searcy, Bartlett, Memon, & Swanson, 2001). Finger and Pezdek (1999) have even found that identification accuracy deteriorated when participants described a target immediately before trying to identify him (Experiment 1; presumably due to verbal overshadowing Á see below) but not when the identification task followed after some delay (Experiments 2 and 3).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…This interview is based on the encoding-specificity principle (Dando, Wilcock, & Milne, 2009). When multiple contextual reinstatement techniques are employed, eyewitness identification rates are better than when singular methods are employed (Clifford & Gwyer, 1999). Experimental studies on recalled details of an event exhibit similar effectiveness of contextual reinstatement on accuracy (Dando et al, 2009).…”
Section: Mood Dependent Memorymentioning
confidence: 96%