| Title & Author | Abstract | |
|---|---|---|
| 7(06) | INTERVIEWING WITNESSES: WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T?
Target Article by Memon and Stevenage on Witness Memory Amina Memon & Sarah V. Stevenage Department of Psychology University of Southampton Highfield Southampton SO17 1BJ United Kingdom am@psy.soton.ac.uk svs1@psy.soton.ac.uk |
Abstract:
In a forensic setting a witness is a key contributor.
Much research has recently been directed to helping the witness
achieve as full and accurate a recall as possible. One of the most
promising techniques to emerge is the cognitive interview (CI).
Tests of the cognitive interview with young adults suggest that it
generates consistent and significant gains in the amount of correct
information recalled. However, more recent studies (with adults and
children) suggest that the gains are accompanied by an increase in
errors and confabulations. These findings have important
implications for the cognitive interview as a forensic tool. The
following target article critically examines the evidence and
raises theoretical and methodological issues arising from work on
the CI. In light of the Recovered Memory debate, broader practical
implications of this work are considered.
Keywords: Cognitive interview, errors, eyewitness memory, facilitated recall, police procedures, questioning, recovered memories, structured interview. |
| 7(11) | ON THE USE AND EFFICACY OF THE COGNITIVE INTERVIEW
Commentary on Memon & Stevenage on Witness-Memory R. Edward Geiselman Department of Psychology UCLA Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563 IBENAQB@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU |
Abstract:
The cognitive interview (CI) was developed for use by
law-enforcement investigators as an alternative to forensic
hypnosis. It is currently in use by most major police agencies in
the USA and the UK. The CI recently passed a Kelly-Frye challenge
in California. This commentary is in response to the cautions
raised by Memon and Stevenage (1996).
Keywords: Cognitive interview, errors, eyewitness memory, facilitated recall, police procedures, questioning, recovered memories, structured interview. |
| 7(16) | ENHANCING THE PRACTICALITY OF THE COGNITIVE
INTERVIEW IN FORENSIC SITUATIONS Commentary on Memon & Stevenage on Witness-Memory Mark Rhys Kebbell Department of Psychology Bolton Institute Deane Road Bolton BL3 5AB United Kingdom and Graham Francis Wagstaff Department of Psychology University of Liverpool Liverpool L69 3BX United Kingdom M.Kebbell@Bolton.ac.uk GWF@liv.ac.uk |
Abstract:
Memon & Stevenage (1996) have outlined a number of
mainly theoretical issues that concern the cognitive interview. We
argue here that we must also consider the practicality of applying
the cognitive interview in forensic situations.
Keywords: Cognitive interview, errors, eyewitness memory, facilitated recall, police procedures, questioning, recovered memories, structured interview. |
| 7(17) | ANALYZING STATES OF CONSCIOUSNESS DURING RETRIEVAL
AS A WAY TO IMPROVE THE COGNITIVE INTERVIEW Commentary on Memon & Stevenage on Witness-Memory Philip A. Higham Department of Psychology University of Northern British Columbia 3333 University Way Prince George, B.C. CANADA V2N 4Z9 Wayne T. Roberts Royal Canadian Mounted Police Detachment 999 Brunswick Street Prince George, B.C. CANADA V2L 2C3 highamp@unbc.edu robertsw@ugrad.unbc.edu |
Abstract:
Memon & Stevenage's (1996) review of the cognitive
interview suggests that it yields many errors and confabulations as
well as accurate information. We argue that the demand
characteristics of the interview persuade witnesses to provide
details in their reports that are not consciously recollected. We
suggest limiting errors by instructing witnesses to indicate,
during the interview, whether they "remember" (consciously
recollect) or "know" (believe, but do not recollect) that a given
detail occurred.
Keywords: Cognitive interview, errors, eyewitness memory, facilitated recall, police procedures, questioning, recovered memories, structured interview. |
| 7(18) | THE IMPORTANCE OF TIME AND TRAINING FOR COGNITIVE INTERVIEWERS
Reply to Kebbell & Wagstaff on Witness-Memory Amina Memon School of Human Development University of Texas at Dallas Box 830688 (GR 4.1) Richardson, TX 75083-0688 Sarah V Stevenage Department of Psychology University of Southampton Highfield Southampton SO17 1BJ amemon@utdallas.edu svs1@psy.soton.ac.uk |
Abstract:
In their commentary, Kebbell & Wagstaff (1996) raise
several important issues concerning the use of the Cognitive
Interview (CI) in forensic situations. Very often the use of the
CI is compromised by either lack of time or lack of confidence on
the part of the interviewing officer. We thank the commentators
for raising these issues and discuss one way in which the use of
continuing training can help make the CI a more useful tool for
police and other practitioners.
Keywords: Cognitive interview, errors, eyewitness memory, facilitated recall, police procedures, questioning, recovered memories, structured interview. |
| 7(19) | EVIDENCE ON THE REMEMBER/KNOW STATUS OF ERRORS
Reply to Higham & Roberts on Witness-Memory Amina Memon School of Human Development University of Texas at Dallas Box 830688 (GR 4.1) Richardson, TX 75083-0688 Sarah V Stevenage Department of Psychology University of Southampton Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ amemon@utdallas.edu svs1@psy.soton.ac.uk |
Abstract:
In their commentary, Higham & Roberts argue that the
increased errors that emerge when using the cognitive interview
(CI) may be reduced by taking account of whether the witness
"remembers" a detail or merely "knows" it. In this reply we discuss
evidence from Bekerian and Dennett (1994) which addresses this
issue directly. Their results would suggest that, contrary to
Higham & Roberts' suggestion, the errors in recall are not
characterised by a "know" status.
Keywords: Cognitive interview, errors, eyewitness memory, facilitated recall, police procedures, questioning, recovered memories, structured interview. |
| 7(21) | CONSIDERING THE WITNESS IN INTERVIEWS
Commentary on Memon & Stevenage on Witness-Memory Rhonda N. Douglas Department of Psychology Florida Atlantic University 777 Glades Road Boca Raton, FL 33431 RDOU6155@FAU.EDU |
Abstract:
It is recommended that researchers and practitioners
consider individual differences in demographic, cognitive,
personality, social, and emotional variables when evaluating the
Cognitive Interview (CI) and that the mental imagery component of
the CI be omitted.
Keywords: Cognitive interview, errors, eyewitness memory, facilitated recall, police procedures, questioning, recovered memories, structured interview. |
| 7(22) | THE COGNITIVE INTERVIEW IN A BROADER CONTEXT
Reply to Geiselman on Witness-Memory Amina Memon School of Human Development University of Texas at Dallas Box 830688 (GR 4.1) Richardson, TX 75083-0688 Sarah V Stevenage Department of Psychology University of Southampton Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ amemon@utdallas.edu svs1@psy.soton.ac.uk |
Abstract:
Geiselman (1996) has raised several issues in his
commentary, and suggests that the future is not as bleak for the
Cognitive Interview (CI) as we might suggest. In the following
reply we have attempted to respond to Geiselman's concerns,
particularly about the number of errors, number of questions,
interview length, and the use of the CI with children. While we
agree with Geiselman that the CI has a great deal of potential as
an investigative tool, we emphasise the very definite value of
examining the limitations of the CI in the pursuit of an even
better technique.
Keywords: Cognitive interview, errors, eyewitness memory, facilitated recall, police procedures, questioning, recovered memories, structured interview. |
| 7(23) | THE ASSESSMENT AND CONTROL OF MEMORY ACCURACY
Commentary on Memon & Stevenage on Witness-Memory Morris Goldsmith & Asher Koriat Department of Psychology University of Haifa Haifa, Israel mgold@psy.haifa.ac.il akoriat@psy.haifa.ac.il |
Abstract:
Memon & Stevenage (1996) call for a more critical
evaluation of the effectiveness of the Cognitive Interview for
questioning witnesses. In this commentary, we address some general
issues regarding the assessment of memory performance that emerge
from their analysis. Our comments focus on (a) the need for a
careful choice of memory measures and (b) the crucial role of
monitoring and control processes in the strategic regulation of
memory accuracy.
Keywords: Cognitive interview, errors, eyewitness memory, facilitated recall, police procedures, questioning, recovered memories, structured interview. |
| 7(24) | A CONSIDERATION OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND
IMAGERY ABILITY AMONGST COGNITIVE INTERVIEWEES Reply to Douglas on Witness-Memory Amina Memon School of Human Development University of Texas at Dallas Box 830688 (GR 4.1) Richardson, TX 75083-0688 Sarah V Stevenage Department of Psychology University of Southampton Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ amemon@utdallas.edu svs1@psy.soton.ac.uk |
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: Cognitive interview, errors, eyewitness memory, facilitated recall, police procedures, questioning, recovered memories, structured interview. |
| 7(31) | MEMORY: WHAT TO MEASURE AND WHEN TO REPORT
Reply to Goldsmith and Koriat on Witness-Memory Amina Memon School of Human Development University of Texas at Dallas Box 830688 (GR 4.1) Richardson, TX 75083-0688 Sarah V Stevenage Department of Psychology University of Southampton Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ amemon@utdallas.edu svs1@psy.soton.ac.uk |
Abstract:
Goldsmith and Koriat's commentary (1996) on our target
article (Memon & Stevenage, 1996a) highlights the importance of two
issues: the choice of memory measures, and the role of monitoring
and control in the regulation of memory accuracy. We agree
wholeheartedly with much of what Goldsmith and Koriat have
presented and point out some of the differences between measurement
of memory in the laboratory and the real world.
Keywords: Cognitive interview, errors, eyewitness memory, facilitated recall, police procedures, questioning, recovered memories, structured interview. |
| 7(35) | MISCONCEPTIONS IN DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF
RESEARCH WITH THE COGNITIVE INTERVIEW Commentary on Memon & Stevenage on Witness-Memory Ronald P. Fisher Department of Psychology Florida International University North Miami, FL 33181, USA FISHERR@SERVAX.FIU.EDU |
Abstract:
This commentary addresses two methodological and
interpretational errors found in Memon & Stevenage's (1996) target
article and some of the commentaries on the Cognitive Interview
(CI). First, the Structured Interview is not an appropriate control
group for the CI. Second, the CI does not reduce the accuracy of
eyewitness recall, as was claimed; accuracy rate is as high or
higher for the CI than for control interviews.
Keywords: Cognitive interview, errors, eyewitness memory, facilitated recall, police procedures, questioning, recovered memories, structured interview. |
| 7(38) | MEASURING RECALL PERFORMANCE
Commentary on Memon & Stevenage on Witness-Memory Philip A. Higham Department of Psychology University of Northern British Columbia 3333 University Way Prince George, B.C. CANADA V2N 4Z9 http://quarles.unbc.edu/psyc/higham/ Wayne T. Roberts Royal Canadian Mounted Police Detachment 999 Brunswick Street Prince George, B.C. CANADA V2L 2C3 highamp@unbc.edu robertsw@ugrad.unbc.edu |
Abstract:
Higham and Robert's (1996) position on measures of
performance in the cognitive interview (CI) is clarified in light
of Fisher's (1996) commentary. Also, percent correct, and a
measure of sensitivity derived from signal detection theory, are
compared for two hypothetical interviewees whose response output is
varied.
Keywords: Cognitive interview, errors, eyewitness memory, facilitated recall, police procedures, questioning, recovered memories, structured interview. |
| 7(41) | A CLARIFICATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF COMPARISON GROUPS
AND ACCURACY RATES WITH THE COGNITIVE INTERVIEW Reply to Fisher on Witness-Memory Amina Memon School of Human Development University of Texas at Dallas Box 830688 (GR 4.1) Richardson, TX 75083-0688 USA Sarah V Stevenage Department of Psychology University of Southampton Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ England amemon@utdallas.edu svs1@psy.soton.ac.uk |
Abstract:
Fisher's (1996) commentary on the target article by Memon
and Stevenage (1996) has raised two very important issues. The
first concerns the suitability of the structured interview (SI) as
a comparison group for the assessment of the cognitive interview
(CI). The second issue concerns the relative importance of the
absolute number of errors versus the error rate when discussing the
accuracy of information elicited using the CI. We would like to
take this opportunity to clarify our position on these two points.
Keywords: Cognitive interview, errors, eyewitness memory, facilitated recall, police procedures, questioning, recovered memories, structured interview. |
| 7(44) | HOW RESEARCH ON SOURCE MONITORING CAN INFORM
COGNITIVE INTERVIEW TECHNIQUES Commentary on Memon & Stevenage on Witness-Memory Kim P. Roberts Section on Social and Emotional Development National Institute of Child Health & Human Development BSA Building, Room 331 9190 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20814 roberts@ssed.nichd.nih.gov |
Abstract:
Two major themes of the cognitive interview are multiple
retrieval attempts and the use of imagery. This commentary provides
an overview of how repeated retrieval attempts and imagery affect
source monitoring ability, and cautions on the premature acceptance
of repetitive imagery techniques as a forensic tool with child
witnesses.
Keywords: Cognitive interview, errors, eyewitness memory, facilitated recall, police procedures, questioning, recovered memories, structured interview. |
| 8(03) | ON THE IMPORTANCE OF IMAGERY IN THE COGNITIVE INTERVIEW
Reply to Roberts on Witness-Memory Sarah V Stevenage Department of Psychology University of Southampton Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ UK Amina Memon School of Human Development University of Texas at Dallas Box 830688 (GR 4.1) Richardson, TX 75083-0688 USA svs1@psy.soton.ac.uk amemon@utdallas.edu |
Abstract:
We are grateful to Roberts (1996) for raising the issue
of the potential hazards of using imagery and multiple retrieval
attempts in the cognitive interview (CI), especially when the
witnesses are children. Our reply attempts to clarify the issues
surrounding the use of multiple retrieval attempts in general, and
imagery in particular. We also suggest some fruitful areas for
future research.
Keywords: Cognitive interview, errors, eyewitness memory, facilitated recall, police procedures, questioning, recovered memories, structured interview. |