The Effects of the Cognitive Interview on Recall, Identification, Confidence and the Confidence/Accuracy Relationship

Abstract

The effects of two interview techniques, the Cognitive Interview (CI) and the Structured Interview (SI), were examined in relation to recall, recognition, confidence and the confidence/accuracy relationship. Volunteer subjects witnessed a live staged event, and at set time delays (48 and 96 hours) were interviewed by means of either the CI or SI and made lineup identifications from both blank and filled lineup presentations. The CI significantly improved total recall (p<0.001) and correct recall (p<0.001) relative to the SI. There were no differences in either accuracy or error rates for the two conditions. The CI produced significantly higher ‘pre‐post interview’ confidence ratings than the SI (p<0.05). Within‐, between‐ and event‐confidence ratings were not predictive of recall or recognition accuracy. Failure to find a significant consistent confidence/accuracy relationship was suggested to have occurred because of the operation of an accuracy assessment heuristic. The CI did not reliably improve identification from a filled lineup presentation relative to the SI, but did produce better performance on a blank lineup presentation (p<0.001). Confidence and the confidence/accuracy relationship involving identifications were not found to differ as a function of interview condition. Throughout the study multiple regression analyses failed to reveal consistent predictors of recall or recognition accuracy, confidence or the confidence/accuracy relationship of these two domains. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A modified cognitive interview procedure for frontline police investigators

“…This result provides an indication of the importance of the mnemonic components to the efficacy of both procedures compared to the SI and was not unexpected in light of the findings of previous research which has employed a similar research paradigm (using a SI as the control; e.g. Davis et al, 2005;Gwyer & Clifford, 1997;Köhnken, Schimossek, Aschermann, & Höfer, 1995;Memon, Bull, & Smith, 1995;Stein & Memon, 2006). Moreover, no significant differences were found between the MPCI and PCI interviews on all the measures despite the former being significantly shorter in duration and having eliminated the change temporal order mnemonic component in favour of a straightforward further free recall attempt.…”

Interviewing children with the cognitive interview: Assessing the reliability of statements based on observed and imagined events

“…Steller and Wellershaus' results show that the CI reduced the discriminating power of the CBCA technique, and they suggest that the use of the technique should be avoided whenever the statements are obtained by the use of a CI (Steller & Wellershaus, 1996). One possible explanation for this result is that the CI mnemonic "mental reinstatement" may result in very vivid statements no matter if they are based on real or imagined events (Granhag, Allwood & Jonsson, 2004;Gwyer & Clifford, 1997).…”

“…Second, Granhag et al . (2004) as well as Gwyer and Clifford (1997) argue that the CI mnemonic "mental reinstatement" may increase a statement's vividness. In line with this reasoning, it was predicted that statements based on imagined events obtained from a CI would be richer in terms of the different RM criteria (except for cognitive operations), when compared to statements based on imagined events obtained from a SI.…”

The influence of retrieval processes in verbal overshadowing

“…However, in a related vein, Finger and Pezdek (1999) noted that variation in the type of description task significantly influenced later identification performance. Previous studies investigatingthe influence of the CI on subsequent lineup identification had demonstrated no detrimental effects (Fisher, Quigley, Brock, Chin, & Cutler, 1990;Gwyer & Clifford, 1997); however, the degree to which the interview procedure specifically emphasized a facial description of the target was unknown. Previous studies investigatingthe influence of the CI on subsequent lineup identification had demonstrated no detrimental effects (Fisher, Quigley, Brock, Chin, & Cutler, 1990;Gwyer & Clifford, 1997); however, the degree to which the interview procedure specifically emphasized a facial description of the target was unknown.…”