A CONSIDERATION OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND
IMAGERY ABILITY AMONGST COGNITIVE INTERVIEWEES
Reply to Douglas on Witness-Memory

Abstract

Douglas (1996) suggests that the individual characteristics of participants, particularly their imagery ability, should be considered. We agree with Douglas's concerns and highlight some of the practical benefits and limitations of adopting an individualistic approach.

Keywords

References

• Carter, C.A., Bottoms, B.L. & Levine, M. (1996). Linguistic and socioemotional influences on the accuracy of children's reports. Law and Human Behaviour, 20(3), 335-358.
• Ceci, S.J., Loftus, E.F., Leichtman, M. & Bruck, M. (1994). Possible role of source misattribution in the creation of false beliefs among preschoolers. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 42, 304-320.
• Dobson, M. & Markham, R. (1993). Imagery ability and source monitoring: Implications for eyewitness memory. British Journal of Psychology, 32, 111-118.
• Douglas, R.N. (1996). Considering the Witness in Interviews. PSYCOLOQUY 7(21) witness-memory.7.douglas.
• Greene, E., Flynn, M.S. & Loftus, E.F. (1982). Inducing resistance to misleading information. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 21, 207-219.
• Gudjonsson, G.H. (1987). A parallel form of the Gudjonsson suggestibility scale. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26, 215-218.
• Gudjonsson, G.H. (1992). The psychology of interrogations, confessions and testimony. Chichester: Wiley.
• Gudjonsson, G.H., & Clare, I.C.H. (in press). The relationship between confabulation and intellectual ability, interrogative suggestibility and acquiescence. Personality and Individual Differences.
• Hyman, I.E. & Billings, J.F. (1995). Individual differences in the creation of false memories. Manuscript under revision for Memory.
• Katz, A. (1983). What does it mean to be a high imager. In J. C. Yuille (Ed.), Imagery, memory and cognition: Essays in honor of Allan Paivio. Hillsdale New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Kaufmann, G. (1983). How good are imagery questionnaires? A rejoinder to David Marks. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 24, 247-249.
• Koehnken, G., Milne, R., Memon, A. & Bull, R. (1994, March). A meta-analysis of the effects of the cognitive interview. Paper presented at the Biennial Conference of the American Psychology and Law Society, Sante Fe.
• Kosslyn, S.M., Brunn, J., Dave, K.R. & Wallach, R.W. (1984). Individual differences in mental imagery ability: A computational analysis. Cognition, 18, 195-243.
• Leichtman, M. & Ceci, S. (1995). The effects of stereotypes and suggestions on preschoolers; reports. Developmental Psychology, 31(4), 568-578.
• Marks, D. (1973). Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British Journal of Psychology, 64, 17-24.
• Marschark, M. (1988). The functional role of imagery in cognition? In M. Denis, J. Eugelkamp & J. Richardson (Eds.). Cognitive and neuropsychological approaches to mental imagery. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
• Memon, A., Cronin, O., Eaves, R. & Bull, R. (1993). The cognitive interview and child witnesses. In G.M. Stephenson & N.K. Clark (Eds.), Children, evidence and procedure. Issues in criminological and legal psychology, no. 20, British Psychological Society, Leicester, UK.
• Memon, A., Cronin, O., Eaves, R. & Bull, R. (1996). An empirical test of the mnemonic components of the cognitive interview. In G.M. Davies, S. Lloyd-Bostock, M. McMurran & C. Wilson, (Eds.), Psychology and law: Advances in research. Berlin: De Gruyter.
• Memon, A. & Stevenage, S.V. (1996b). Interviewing Witnesses: What Works and What Doesn't? PSYCOLOQUY 7(6) witness-memory.1.memon.
• Memon, A., Wark, L., Bull, R. & Koehnken, G. (in press, a). Isolating the effects of the cognitive interview techniques. British Journal of Psychology.
• Memon, A., Wark, L., Holley, A., Bull, R. & Koehnken, G. (in press, b). Reducing suggestibility in child witness interviews. Applied Cognitive Psychology.
• Milne, R. (1996). An analysis and application of the cognitive interview. University of Portsmouth, UK. (in preparation).
• Ornstein, P.A. & Naus, M.J. (1978). Rehearsal processes in children's memory. In P.A. Ornstein (Ed.), Memory development in children. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Price, D.W. & Goodman, G.S. (1990). Visiting the wizard: children's memory for a recurring event. Child Development, 61, 664-690.
• Saywitz, K. & Snyder, L. (1993). Improving children's testimony with preparation. In G. Goodman & B. Bottoms (Eds.), Child victims, child witnesses: Understanding and improving testimony. New York: The Guilford Press.
• Schooler, J. & Loftus, E.F. (1986). Individual differences and experimentation: Complementary approaches to interrogative suggestibility. Social Behaviour, 1, 105-112.
• Schwartz-Kenny, B., Bottoms, B.L. & Goodman, G. (1996). Improving children's person identification. Child Maltreatment, 1(2), 121-133.
• Wark, L., Memon, A., Koehnken, G. & Bull, R. (1995). Uses and abuses of schematic knowledge. RWPS/95/1
• Weinert, F.E. & Perlmutter, M. (Eds.). (1988). Memory development: Universal challenges and individual differences. Hillsdale New Jersey; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Wellman, H.M. (1983). Metamemory revisited. In M.T.H. Chi (Ed.), Trends in memory development research (Vol 9). Basel: S. Karger.
• White, K., Sheehan, P.W. & Ashton, R. (1977). Imagery assessment: A survey of self-report measures. Journal of Mental Imagery, 1, 145-170.