The Cognitive Interview for Suspects

The research literature indicates that information gathering interviews may be ethically and practically superior to accusatory police interviews. Further, information gathering interviews that actively induce cognitive load may increase the ability to detect deception. The Cognitive Interview for Suspects (CIS- Geiselman, 2012) is an

interviewing style that appears to satisfy both of these criteria. The CIS is a modified version of the original Cognitive Interview (CI), which is a successful and empirically validated technique that has been used to elicit statements from victims and witnesses of crimes for decades. The CI was developed using memory research and has consistently been found to increase the amount and accuracy of information recalled in a multitude of studies (Kohnken et al., 1999). The CI, originally developed by Fisher and Geiselman (1984), has been successfully employed by numerous police services for the past 20 years

19 (Geiselman et al., 1984). Following this protocol, the interviewee is first asked to recall the event to the best of his/her ability in a free narrative, with minimal intervention from the interviewer. The second stage, relying on encoding specificity, asks the witness to reinstate the context of the event, both in terms of subjective feelings and external surroundings. This stage is conducted verbally; however, more recent research has demonstrated the utility of allowing the witness to create a brief sketch to assist in

recreating the context of the incident (Dando, Wilcox, & Milne, 2009). In the next phase, the witness is asked to recall the event in different temporal orders, most prominently in reverse order. Finally the witness is asked to recall the event from a different perspective in the same context. This task can involve asking the witness how the event would have looked from the perspective of another person in the room, or alternatively from a camera placed overhead or on the wall. After these interventions have been completed, the individual is asked to recall the event in its entirety. In addition to the aforementioned stages, Fisher and Geiselman (1992) provided additional recommendations for police regarding communications skills that would allow the Cognitive Interview to be used to its fullest extent, which has been referred to as the Enhanced Cognitive Interview (ECI).

The Cognitive Interview has been extensively tested in both field and strict laboratory studies for decades. In a meta-analysis, Kohnken et al. (1999) reported that the CI significantly improved recall in 53 of the 55 studies reviewed. Perhaps even more impressive, 32 of these studies demonstrating an increase of information recalled at least 30% over baseline. It is important to note that the increased information provided by interviewee is not a result of confabulations. The studies have shown that the CI has an accuracy rating of 85%, outperforming the standard police interview (82%) for witness

20 statements. The CI is a robust method that has been demonstrated to be effective in increasing accurate information recalled in a variety of contexts and among populations of differing mental faculties (Fisher et al., 2000 Robinson & McGuire, 2006; Wright & Holliday, 2007).

Recently, Geiselmann (2012) proposed a modified version of the Cognitive Interview, called the Cognitive Interview for Suspects (CIS) that would be suitable for suspect interviewing. This protocol involves an initial rapport building stage, followed by the first retelling of the story in its entirety. The interviewee is requested to draw the scene and use this tool to tell the story again. Once the interviewee has told the story again, the interviewer asks a series of open ended-follow up questions. The interviewee is then directed to tell the story backwards. At this point the interviewer challenges any inconsistencies that are present in the story, followed by a final recall of the event. Geiselmann (2012) conducted an initial pilot study that demonstrated the efficacy of this method. Twenty participants were directed to tell one true and one fabricated story to a trained interviewer. While the interviewers could not distinguish between true and false accounts during the initial telling, they were highly accurate at the conclusion of the interview.

The Cognitive Interview for Suspects is a promising method of police

interviewing that meets the objectives of a successful deception detection technique. First, from a policing perspective, it shifts the focus away from accusations to an information gathering approach. The original CI has been a long standing and effective method of police interviewing that is accepted in court and that has been demonstrated to increase the amount of information provided in a wide array of populations and

21 timeframes. Further, this method adopts many of the interventions that have been

demonstrated to increase deception detection through increased cognitive load. Finally, this method appears to be compatible with verbal deception detection techniques. The increased information provided should increase the sensitivity of actuarial scales, such as Reality Monitoring and CBCA techniques.

While Reality Monitoring and the CBCA are both empirically validated actuarial measures with comparable levels of accuracy, the current thesis argues that Reality Monitoring may be more applicable to police interviews for a variety of reasons. First, Reality Monitoring is simpler to score and has been modified to rely on concrete scaling such as amount of visual details rather than CBCA, which provides subjective opinions such as “coherence” and “realism” (Sporer, 1997; Vrij et al., 2004). Second, Reality Monitoring is steeped in cognitive principles and directly measures details that are actively elicited through the CIS. Third, in a comparison study, Vrij et al. (2004) observed that Reality Monitoring dramatically outperformed the CBCA in a mock theft scenario. Finally, Reality Monitoring includes a measure of deceptiveness, in contrast to the CBCA which only assesses degree of honesty. Therefore, while the CBCA is a reliable deception detection method, the current research considers the effectiveness of Reality Monitoring in detecting deception in statements gained through the CIS.