What does a crime scene investigator and a cognitive psychologist have in common? At first glance, some may say nothing, but in reality, psychology and the law are complementary forces. Forensic psychologists constantly test and implement new techniques for the field of law enforcement, typically based on principles of human cognition; the cognitive interview (CI) is one of these techniques. The CI is a forensic interrogation technique designed to maximize the recall of correct information, while minimizing false information, by using tenets of human cognition. At its roots, the CI is based on principles borrowed from cognitive and social psychology. Specifically, it uses the encoding specificity principle to maximize memory retrieval
…show more content…
First, the interrogator establishes rapport with the witness (Willis et Al., 1999). This may be achieved through informal small talk between the parties, and typically reduces tension. Similarly, the interview encourages the witness’s passive expression of thought (Willis et Al., 1999). These measures typically establish trust, which consequently minimizes false information (Kohnken et Al., 1995). Next, the witness is encouraged to think out loud (Willis et Al. 1999). By doing so, the interviewer can retrieve cues to facilitate recall. For example, if a witness states they are having difficulty remembering a face, they talk through this difficulty. The interrogator can then use the given information to cue retrieval. Similarly, the witness is instructed to report all details of the event, preferably from different perspectives and different directions (Kohnken et Al., 1999; Willis et Al. 1999). This idea stems from Tulving’s encoding specificity principle; the goal here is to find the ‘golden road’ to the event via trial-and-error (Kohnken et Al., 1999). Here, details like personal feelings, or even smells at the scene, which would normally be ignored, become a focal point, and can increase recall by 35% (Kohnken et Al., 1994). Overall, this procedure is designed to recover more correct, and less incorrect information: just two of the many benefits associated with the
First, the interrogator establishes rapport with the witness (Willis et Al., 1999). This may be achieved through informal small talk between the parties, and typically reduces tension. Similarly, the interview encourages the witness’s passive expression of thought (Willis et Al., 1999). These measures typically establish trust, which consequently minimizes false information (Kohnken et Al., 1995). Next, the witness is encouraged to think out loud (Willis et Al. 1999). By doing so, the interviewer can retrieve cues to facilitate recall. For example, if a witness states they are having difficulty remembering a face, they talk through this difficulty. The interrogator can then use the given information to cue retrieval. Similarly, the witness is instructed to report all details of the event, preferably from different perspectives and different directions (Kohnken et Al., 1999; Willis et Al. 1999). This idea stems from Tulving’s encoding specificity principle; the goal here is to find the ‘golden road’ to the event via trial-and-error (Kohnken et Al., 1999). Here, details like personal feelings, or even smells at the scene, which would normally be ignored, become a focal point, and can increase recall by 35% (Kohnken et Al., 1994). Overall, this procedure is designed to recover more correct, and less incorrect information: just two of the many benefits associated with the