Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

their trial strategies. A recent study examined the CI’s

efficiency in reconstructing a related decision-making

task (asking a small group of people to discuss busi-

ness practices that entailed ethical decisions). The CI

was modified slightly to account for group decision

making (considering the social dynamics of the

group). Compared with the conventional method of

debriefing group members, the CI elicited consider-

ably more information and at a very high accuracy

rate. Interestingly, the CI also elicited extensive

information about the individual members’ thought

processes during the earlier decision-making task.

Componential Analysis

Although tests of the CI show that the technique, as a

whole, is effective, only a few studies have isolated

individual component techniques to determine which

ones are effective. The results suggest that (a) each

component contributes to the overall CI effect, but

(b) the relative contribution of each component varies

across conditions. For instance, context reinstatement

is more effective when much time has passed between

the original event and the interview, whereas nonver-

bal (code compatible) output is more effective when

interviewing people with limited verbal skills.

Legal Challenges

Although the CI has been found reliably to enhance

witness recollection, could it be unacceptable for

forensic use? The following patterns of results suggest

that the CI should be legally acceptable: (a) CI-elicited

recollections are as accurate as, or slightly more accu-

rate than, recollections from conventional interviews;

(b) the CI does not render witnesses overly suggestible

to leading questions—if anything, witnesses are less

suggestible when interviewed with the CI; (c) witness

confidence and witness credibility are not affected by

the CI; (d) CI interviewers are perceived to be less

manipulative than conventional interviewers; and

(e) there is no carry-over effect in a preliminary inter-

view of the type of interview conducted (CI or conven-

tional) on the witness’s later testimony.

There have been two court cases in which the CI

was at issue. In a case heard by the National Court of

Appeal in London (England), an earlier decision was

overturned based on information collected from a

witness who provided a very detailed account of the

crime when interviewed with the CI. Although the

Court did not mention the CI in its ruling, the ultimate

decision was compatible with the information elicited

by the CI. The second case entailed a pretrial hearing

in California, in which the prosecution used evidence

that had been elicited by a police officer trained in

conducting the CI. The defense attorney claimed that

the CI was similar to hypnosis and that it promoted

inaccurate eyewitness testimony. (As noted earlier,

accuracy is equivalent or slightly higher with the CI

compared with conventional interviews, the opposite

of the pattern with hypnosis.) The judge ruled against

the defense’s objection to the CI and permitted the

CI-elicited testimony to stand.

Training in the CI

There is considerable variation across locations in the

training the police receive to conduct interviews with

cooperative witnesses. Several countries in Europe

(England, Sweden, Norway) provide instruction in the

CI as part of their basic training to all police investiga-

tors. Some regional police-training programs within the

United States, Canada, and Australia also provide train-

ing in the CI, although (a) many police departments do

not provide any training at all and (b) among those that

do provide training in the CI, there is considerable vari-

ation in the quality. CI training is more standardized

and more rigorous among some of the federal inves-

tigative agencies in the United States (e.g., FBI,

National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB]). Adequate

training in the CI requires, in addition to lectures and

demonstration, ample opportunity for trainees to prac-

tice the techniques and receive critical feedback.

Feedback from investigators has been very encourag-

ing, especially with major, complex crimes and acci-

dents, where the investigator has the luxury of time and

resources to conduct thorough interviews.

Ronald Fisher and Nathalie Castano

See also Detection of Deception: Cognitive Load; Eyewitness

Memory; Hypnosis and Eyewitness Memory;

Identification Tests, Best Practices in; Instructions to the

Witness; Jury Deliberation

Further Readings

Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-enhancing

techniques in investigative interviewing: The cognitive

interview. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Cognitive Interview——— 99

C-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:41 PM Page 99