Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Memon & Higham (1999) - Review of Interview Techniques (Quality of…
Memon & Higham (1999) - Review of Interview Techniques
Aim
To review the cognitive interview based on four areas
Effectiveness of various components of the CI
Comparison between the CI and other interviewing methods
Different measures of memory
The effect of training quality on interviewer performance
Effectiveness of the 4 components of the CI technique
Milne shows
reinstatement of context
can obtain as much info as the whole CI procedure, others using similar or identical methods report no positive effects
Different perspectives
could lead to fabricated details, confuse witnesses
Change order
Callot found it effective to do it forward then reverse, but receives no more info than second attempt of retrieval in CI
Memon found no differences between CI techniques sample 5-8 y.o
Comparison of the CI to SI
SI is variable, far from standard because of individual differences and motivation of witnesses thus,
M&H said no study can objectively compare them
CI witnesses, however, may be more motivated bc the attention they're given
Measures of Memory
Usually involves the % of correct interview statements of the actual no. of correct/incorrect statements
SI tells the truth/whole truth - witnesses might withhold untrue responses whereas CI encourages them to recall everything
Quality of Training
Varied from reading a brief handout for SI to 4 hours training for ECI
Involves getting info from witnesses of a staged event
No difference in amount of info elicited between CI & SI officers -> need better training & practice CI techniques
Aptitudes/motivation/prio exp determine results obtained with CI
CI should involve getting a baseline of officers' performance _> compare -> make sure they don't fall into bad habits
Suggested 2 days training
Officers should be picked out by potential -> saves money and time for department
Note
: poor interviewers, however, may still benefit from training