Specification: Improving the accuracy of eyewitness testimony, including the use of the cognitive interview.

The cognitive interview was developed in 1985, in response to criticisms of the traditional police interview. Fisher et al. (1987) studied police interviews in Florida and found that witnesses were often presented with a series of short, closed questions, which attempted to elicit facts. Furthermore, the police would often ask questions in a sequence that was not synchronised with the events that had taken place.

As a result, Geiselman et al. (1985) developed the cognitive interview, identifying four key principles that they believed would enhance recall, including:

• Context reinstatement (CR)

• Report everything (RE)

• Recall from changed perspective (CP)

• Recall in reverse order (RO).

CR is when a person mentally recalls the context of the event. For example, a person might recall the time of day, the weather, who they were with, or even their feelings. These details can then act as a trigger, to help the person recall more information. There are clear links here between this and context‐dependent and state‐dependent remembering.

RE is when a person recalls every detail they can remember, even those that may seem trivial. 

CP is when a person considers the event from someone else’s point of view. For example, they might consider what the offender saw. 

Finally, RO is where a person recalls the events in reverse chronological order.

Evaluating the Cognitive Interview

The results of Geiselman have been support by other research, including Fisher et al. (1989). These researchers examined the effectiveness of the cognitive interview in real police interviews. 16 experienced detectives recorded a selection of their interviews, using a standard interviewing technique. The detectives were then divided into two groups. One group was trained to use the cognitive interview, while the other (control) group continued using the standard interview. After training, their subsequent interviews were recorded and analysed. The trained detectives elicited 46% more information after their cognitive interview training, in comparison to the control group. Where it was possible to confirm the information, over 90% of it was found to be accurate. These results support the findings of Geiselman, using real police interviews, and provide support for the effectiveness of the cognitive interview. 

Although the cognitive interview increases the quantity of information recalled, research has found that the cognitive interview is still susceptible to misleading information. Centofanti & Reece (2006) showed participants a video of a bank robbery and then provided participants with a misleading or neutral post‐event summary. On average the participants who were questioned using a cognitive interview, recalled 35% more information. However, the participants in both conditions were equally susceptible to misleading information. Therefore, although the cognitive interview enhances the quantity of information recalled, interviewers need to be careful that participants are not exposed to misleading information in the form of leading questions or post‐event discussion.

Although research supports the effectiveness of the cognitive interview, Kebbell & Wagstaff (1996) have found that police typically use interviewing techniques that limit the quantity of information provided, rather than those that improve accuracy. Furthermore, the cognitive interview requires special training and many police forces have not provided more than rudimentary training, which explains why the cognitive interview is not readily used.