The Cognitive Interview: Research and Practice across the Lifespan PDF

Preview

Summary

1 In R.H.Bull & T. Williamson (Eds). Handbook of the psychology of investigative interviewing. Wiley & Sons. The Cognitive Interview: Research and practice across the lifespan Robyn E. Holliday University of Leicester Charles J. Brainerd & Valerie F. Reyna Cornell University and Joyce E....

Description

1

In R.H.Bull & T. Williamson (Eds). Handbook of the psychology of investigative interviewing. Wiley & Sons.

The Cognitive Interview: Research and practice across the lifespan

Robyn E. Holliday

University of Leicester

Charles J. Brainerd & Valerie F. Reyna

Cornell University

and

Joyce E. Humphries

University of Leicester

2

Introduction

There has been a dramatic increase in research on eyewitness testimony in the last 25 years. Much of this research has been concerned with obtaining accurate testimony from vulnerable witnesses and victims of crime (Brainerd & Reyna, 2005; Ceci & Bruck, 1995). This chapter will focus on vulnerable witnesses – children under the age of 16 years, adults aged 65 years and over, and children and adults with intellectual impairments. In such cases, it is crucial that these witnesses are interviewed as sensitively as possible so that the information that is reported is accurate and reliable. A number of factors determine the reliability of eyewitness testimony. This chapter is concerned with one of those factors, investigative interviews. The manner in which a witness is interviewed is crucial for criminal investigations and successful prosecutions. This chapter will focus a set of forensic interviewing techniques which have been tested extensively, namely the original Cognitive Interview protocol (CI – Geiselman, Fisher, Firstenberg, Hutton, Sullivan, Avetissian & Prosk, 1984) and its revision (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992). First, we will describe the original CI and the theoretical principles on which the CI techniques are grounded. This will be followed by empirical research presented chronologically, beginning with young

children through to old age. We then consider the viability of CI techniques with learning disabled children and adults, and cognitively impaired aged adults. We will finish the chapter with a discussion of the state of play in CI research and practice in the 21st century - promising applications of CI research with suspects (Fisher & Castano, 2008; Fisher & Perez, 2007), and progress on the development of shortened Cognitive interviews for use with children and older adults.

3

The Cognitive Interview Forensic interview protocols characteristically adhere to remarkably similar structures. For example, all typically adopt a phased (funnel) approach beginning with rapport building, truth and lies testing, free recall requests followed by a questioning phase in which open-ended questions are followed by specific questions, and closure (Fisher & Schreiber, 2007). A number of interview protocols are available such as the guidance documents for the UK (Memorandum of Good Practice, 1992 – MOGP; Achieving Best Evidence, 2001 – ABE, both produced by the Home Office), and the Canadian Stepwise protocol developed by Yuille and his colleagues (Yuille, Hunter, Joffe, & Zaparniuk, 1993). One of the most well known investigative interview protocols is the Cognitive interview (CI). The CI is based on empirical research and principles from cognitive and social psychology (Fisher & Castano, 2008). The original CI was developed to improve adult (of any age) eyewitness testimony (Geiselman, Fisher, Firstenberg, Hutton, Sullivan, Avetissian & Prosk, 1984). It has provided the impetus for much research (see Fisher, Brennan & McCauley, 2002; Geiselman, 1997, for reviews). There are three fundamental psychological principles (and sub-principles) on which the CI protocol are based. A core principle is Memory / general cognition, which can be broken down into five sub-principles: (a) Limited cognitive processing resources (e.g., Baddeley, 1986), that is, there is a finite amount of cognitive resources available to process information.

If several cognitive tasks are attempted

concurrently, it is likely that the quality and quantity of a witness‘s narrative of an event will be affected negatively. Fisher et al. (2002) advise that interviewers record the interview and refrain from interrupting an interviewee during his / her recall narrative. A second sub-principle is (b) Witness compatible questioning – witnesses possess unique mental representations of their experiences. Hence, the interviewer must adapt questions accordingly. In Holliday‘s research (Holliday, 2003a, b; Holliday & Albon, 2004), questions were entirely based on the information recalled by each child in his / her narrative recollection. The third and fourth sub-principles are: (c) Context Reinstatement (CRI) - mental reconstruction of a witness‘s physical, cognitive, and emotional states of the to-be-remembered event will improve memory (i.e., encoding specificity,

4

Tulving & Thomson, 1973), and (d) Multisensory Coding – in addition to conceptual representations, witnessed events have sensory properties (Paivio, 1971) such as smell, sounds, visual details (Fisher et al, 2002). An example of the implementation of (c) and (d) is taken from Holliday and colleagues‘ research (Holliday & Albon, 2004).

Children were given these

instructions: Close your eyes. Picture yourself back in the room where you watched the video. How were you feeling? What can you see in the room? What can you hear in the room? Who were you sitting next to (p. 269)? The last sub-principle is: (e) Varied Retrieval - Memories can be accessed and retrieved by a number of retrieval paths (Anderson & Pichert, 1978; Tulving, 1974). Varied retrieval reduces the likelihood that a witness will use prior knowledge and expectations to fill in any ―gaps‖ in their memory of the witnessed event.

Varied retrieval is facilitated by the

instruction to Change perspective: Recall the event from the perspective of another participant or location in the same event; You said that Billy opened his presents. Now, I’d like you to be Billy. What did you do first? 1 (p.269), and Change order: Recall the event again in a different order (e.g., chronological, backwards), Now I want you to tell me about the very last thing you remember in the Billy’s Birthday video. What happened just before that?

2

A second fundamental principle of the Cognitive Interview is Social Dynamics.

Forensic

interviews, whether of co-operative witnesses or suspects, reflect an imbalance of social status (e.g., a police officer and a child witness).

Social Dynamics comprises: (a) Active Witness

Participation – an interviewer must emphasize to the interviewee that he / she is the expert about what he / she has witnessed and, hence, he / she actively controls the interview (Transfer of Control), and (b) Development of Rapport – interviewers should spend time in the establishment of rapport (Fisher et al., 2002). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Footnotes.

1

This instruction was used in the full Cognitive Interview condition only. The interviewer chose a

person who the child had already recalled. 2

This prompt was repeated until a child could recall no further details or had reached the beginning of the to-be-

remembered event.

5

The third core principle of the Cognitive Interview is Communication. The interviewer must extract from the witness specific details about their experience. Likewise, the interviewee must convey to the interviewer the specific details he / she witnessed. Communication is facilitated by (a) Promoting Extensive, Detailed Responses (Fisher et al., 2002). The Report Everything instruction – informing the witness that he / she should report all information regardless of whether considered relevant or not promotes detailed responses. For example, I want you to tell me everything you can remember, every little detail you can remember ― (Holliday & Albon, 2004). Second, an interviewer should be mindful that some information that a witness wishes to relate might be non-verbal.

In such instances, Code-Compatible Output should be implemented.

Fisher et al. (2002) give this example, ―if an event was experienced tactily (e.g., brushing against a fabric) then the witness might respond in a similar tactile mode, by touching various fabrics‖ (p. 268). Empirical evaluation of Cognitive Interview protocols Numerous laboratory studies of the original and revised CIs have been conducted in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Germany since the first CI research was published in 1984 (Geiselman et al., 1984). In an early test of the original CI, college students witnessed a staged argument in class and were interviewed two days later (Geiselman et al., 1984) Findings supported the prediction that students who were given instructions in the application of the four CI mnemonics whilst recollecting the witnessed event would recall more correct details than those in a control condition. No significant increases were observed in the amount of incorrect or confabulated information reported. More than 100 studies have evaluated CI protocols since its inception (Fisher & Castano, 2008). There is no doubt that CIs improve witnesses‘ correct recollections of events using a number of different populations such as those discussed in this chapter (children, elderly, learning-disabled), and in a number of languages (other than English) including German (Kȍ hnken, Schimossek, Aschermann, & Hofer, 1995), Portuguese (Stein & Memon, 2006), and

6

Spanish (Campos & Alonso, 1999; Campos & Alonso-Quecuty, 1998; HernandezFernaud & Alonso-Quecuty, 1997). Some early studies reported increases in reports of incorrect and confabulated details along with the improved correct details. Indeed, almost 10 years ago, Kȍ hnken, Milne, Memon, and Bull (1999) published a meta-analysis of 55 research studies in which recollections using CI protocols versus control interviews wer e compared.

Kȍ hnken et al. reported

that CIs tended to produce more false information than control interviews. Given that the number of published studies has almost doubled since publication of K ȍ hnken et al‘s research a new meta-analysis would be timely.

(For reviews, see Fisher et al., 2002;

Fisher, & Schreiber, 2007; Geiselman & Fisher, 1997). Do the positive effects of a Cognitive Interview extend to child witnesses? Researchers have reported a mixture of results as regards the effectiveness of the CI with children. In general, however, more correct details are remembered with CIs than with control interviews across early to late childhood (e.g. Akehurst, Milne, & Kȍ hnken, 2003; Geiselman & Padilla, 1988; Granhag & Spjut, 2001; Holliday, 2003a, 2003b; Larsson, Granhag, & Spjut, 2003; McCauley & Fisher, 1996; Milne & Bull, 2002, 2003; Saywitz, Geiselman, & Bornstein, 1992). In Holliday‘s (2003a) study with 4 and 5 years and 9 and 10 year old children, for example, more correct person, action and object details were reported in developmentally modified CIs (MCI) (omitting CP) than in MOGP interviews (Home Office, 1992). In two later studies, Holliday (2003b) replicated these findings with 4 and 8 year old children. Holliday (2003b) reported evidence of developmental differences in the type of details recollected with a MCI. The older children recalled more correct person, action, object, and location details than the younger ones. Similarly, Milne and Bull (2003) reported that children aged 8 and 9 years recollected more correct person and action details in CIs (omitting CP) than in control interviews. On the other hand, Memon, Cronin, Eaves, and Bull found no evidence that a full CI improved 6 and 7 year olds‘ recollections of an eye examination.

Likewise, Memon, Cronin, Eaves, and Bull (1996) reported no differences in

7

children‘s correct recall when each of the CI mnemonics was compared with a ‗try harder‘ instruction. As noted in early evaluations of CI protocols with adult participants, some developmental researchers have reported increased incorrect and / or confabulated recollections (as well as increased correct recall) when evaluating CI techniques (Hayes & Delamothe, 1997; McCauley & Fisher, 1995; Memon, Cronin et al., 1996; Memon, Wark, Bull, & Kȍ hnken,1997), although other researchers have reported no such effects (Akehurst et al., 2003; Holliday, 2003a, b; Holliday & Albon, 2004; Milne & Bull, 2002). In the next section, we discuss some exciting new developments in misinformation research and the CI. Can Cognitive interview protocols reduce children’s suggestibility? Holliday and her colleagues raised this important question in the first of four studies with children (2003a, 2003b; Holliday & Albon, 2004). Given that young children (under 6 years) are disproportionately affected by misinformation, it is important to determine whether interview protocols such as the Cognitive interview can reduce the negative effects of misinformation on child witnesses. Ceci and Bruck (1993) argued that children‘s recollections of witnessed events can be affected by a number of cognitive (e.g., memory, attention) and social (e.g., compliance, demand) factors.

Many

laboratory studies have reported that children‘s memories are negatively impacted by misinformation, with very young children (3 and 4 years) disproportionately affected (see Bruck & Ceci, 1999, for a review). Much of this evidence has been collected using ―standard‖ and ―modified‖ forced-choice (e.g., Ceci, Ross & Toglia, 1987; Holliday, Douglas & Hayes, 1999, Holliday & Hayes, 2001; Zaragoza, 1991) or yes / no recognition memory tests (e.g., Holliday & Hayes, 2000; for reviews see Holliday, Reyna & Hayes, 2002; Reyna, Holliday, & Marche, 2002).

A small number of laboratory studies have examined whether CI instructions minimize the impact of misleading questions on school-aged child witnesses. For example, In Memon, Holley, Wark et al.‘s (1996) study, 8 and 9 year old children watched a short film. They returned twelve days later were asked misleading and neutral questions both before and following an interview in which the Context Reinstatement and Report Everything instructions were used as memory

8

prompts. Memon et al. (1996) reported no differences in responding to pre-interview questions. When children were questioned post-interview, however, those given prior CI instructions gave more correct responses to misleading questions than those given a control interview (see also Milne & Bull, 2003). On the other hand, Hayes and Delamothe (1997) reported that the Context Reinstatement and Report Everything instructions had no effect on suggestibility in 6 and 10 year olds when the misleading suggestions were presented before the CI instructions. Likewise, Holliday (2003a) found that whilst a CI increased 5 and 10 year old children‘s correct recall in comparison with a control interview, no evidence was found that the suggestibility effects obtained on forcedchoice memory tests were influenced by interview type. Clearly, one of the keys to these disparate results could be the timings of the misinformation and interview. This point was taken up by Holliday (2003b) in two studies with 5 and 8 year old children. The two studies were identical with the exception that the timings of the misinformation presentation and interview. In the first study, children were misled after interview, and before interview in the second study. The results were straightforward: reporting of misinformation during interviews and on subsequent memory tests was reduced if the children were interviewed with a developmentally modified Cognitive Interview (omitted CP) before they were given a memory test. Holliday and Albon (2004) replicated these findings with 4 and 5 year olds. Importantly, Holliday and Albon‘s research established that just two CI instructions, Contest Reinstatement and Report Everything, in combination reduced children‘s reporting of misinformation during the interview and later memory tests. We will return to this study in the section on shortened CIs. Do Cognitive Interviews enhance older witnesses’ recollections? Older adults represent a special group of witnesses. In many countries, growing numbers of older adults are remaining active in the community. Hence, it is likely that some will witness or be a victim of a crime. Moreover, physical and emotional abuse of the elderly is being reported with increasing frequency (Action on Elder Abuse, 2004).

Those older than 75 years are

particularly vulnerable. Obtaining reliable eyewitness testimony from older witnesses has now become a key concern to policy makers and professionals. Yet, only a small number of laboratory

9

studies have evaluated the reliability and accuracy of older adults‘ recollections in an eyewitness context. Findings from these studies reveal that memory recall is less complete and less accurate (in comparison to young adults) whether the witnessed event is a slide show (Yarmey & Kent, 1980), a short film (List, 1986), or a staged event (Yarmey, 1993). Such age differences are reported when memory is tested immediately, minutes or days after the witnessed event (Brimacombe, Quinton, Nance, & Garrioch, 1997) (see Mueller-Johnson & Ceci, 2007 for an excellent review). . A handful of studies have evaluated the effectiveness of CI techniques with older adults. In an early study, young (18 to 35 years) and old (65 to 80 years) adults were shown a short film of a staged robbery (Mello & Fisher, 1996). Half an hour later, young and old adults were given a regular police interview, a full CI, or a modified CI (omitted Change Perspective). An unexpected age pattern was found such that when given a full CI older adults provided more correct information than young adults. Research by McMahon (2000) evaluated whether a full CI would increase correct recall of a film of a simulated crime. Young (18 to 50 years) and old (60 to 88 years) adults were interviewed thirty minutes after viewing the film. As expected, the younger adults recollected more correct information than the older adults, but only in the control interview (see also Isingrini, Vazou & Leroy, 1995). More recently, two studies by Wright and Holliday provided evidence that CI protocols can increase correct recollections in elderly witnesses. Wright and Holliday (2007a) evaluated older witness‘s recall of a short film using full CI, a MCI (omitting Change Perspective instruction), or a control interview. The full CI increased correct recall by 20% for young adults (aged 17 to 31 years), 27% for young-old adults (aged 60 to 74 years), and 18% for old-old adults (aged 75 to 95 years), while the MCI increased correct recall by 14% for young adults, 17% for young-old adults and 15% for old-old adults. In a second study, Wright and Holliday (2007b) compared the recollections of old adults (aged 75 to 96 years) who displayed evidence of cognitive impairments on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE - Folstein, M., Folstein, S., & McHugh, 1975) with old adults without cognitive impairments on MMSE. Old adults with a low MMSE score recalled fewer

10

correct details, and were less accurate than those with high scores. Importantly, high and low MMSE old adult groups reported substantially more correct information about Action, Person, Object, and Surrounding details with a MCI than with a control interview. Do CI techniques improve intellectually disabled witnesses’ recollections? Individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) are considered vulnerable witnesses. Research with these adults report that they are slower (than typically developed adults) to encode, store and retrieve details of an event (Milne & Bull, 2001). Adults with IDs are characteristically considered by the courts to be unreliable witnesses (Milne & Bull, 2001). Yet, the information that ID adults do recollect is just as accurate as other adult witnesses. However, ID adults do r...