1. Fisher, Milne and Bull
(2011)
Interviewing
Cooperative Witnesses

2. Background
• The aim of this paper was to give an overview of
what the cognitive interview is and to explore the
real-world applications of the cognitive interview.
• The first version of the CI was developed in 1985
(Geiselman, Fisher, MacKinnon, & Holland, 1985).
• Then it was revised in 1992 (Fisher & Geiselman,
1992) after they went through tape-recorded
interviews, speaking to police officers, looking for
any differences between effective and ineffective
interview and literature search.

3. The Revised Approach
The revised approach expanded the original
approach by addressing 3 key areas:
• Social dynamics between witness and interviewer
Rapport and active witness participation (witness
does the talking)
• Facilitating communication between the
interviewer and witness

4. The Revised Approach
• Maximizing witnesses’ and interviewers’ cognitive
processing
The CI attempts to enhance the cognitive processing
e.g. by encouraging to search through memory
repeatedly and from different perspectives, asking
non-leading questions, instructing witnesses not to
guess etc.

5. Phases of the CI

6. Supportive Evidence
• Meta-analyses (Koehnken, Milne, Memon, & Bull,
1999; Memon, Meissner, & Fraser, 2010).
• Field studies also provide support e.g. Fisher,
Geiselman and Amador (1989): comparison of
before and after training in the CI (style of the
interview, type of questions etc.)

7. Training in the CI
In the United Kingdom:
• New recruits (Tier 1): basic training
• More experienced officers (Tier 2): more complex
training
• The most experienced investigators (Tier 3): full
training in the CI

8. Limitations
Evidence that supports the CI comes from studies
that were conducted by the same people over and
over.
Potential bias?

9. Gentle, Milne, Powell
and Sharman (2013)
Does the Cognitive Interview
Promote the Coherence of
Narrative Accounts in Children
With and Without an Intellectual
Disability?

10. Background Literature
• Children with and without an intellectual disability are
perceived as less reliable witnesses (Peled, Iarocci, &
Connolly, 2004).
• Previous studies provide some evidence the CI might
be effective for children with intellectual disability.
• Research in this area is limited.
• Robinson and McGuire (2006): children with ID (7-9
years old), compared cognitive and structured
interview. Results: in CI condition, there was increase
of both – correct and incorrect information. Due to
Change perspective?

11. Research Question
• The aim of this study was to investigate whether
the cognitive interview promotes a consistency of
narrative accounts in children with and without
intellectual disability (ID).
• No hypothesis

12. Methods - sample
• Total sample of 150 children
• 70 children without ID (age: 8-9 years old),
recruited from a mainstream school
• 80 children with ID (age: 7-10 years old), recruited
from a special school for children
• Authors were not able to carry out cognitive
testing to determine precise mental age

13. Methods - materials
• All children watched a nine-minute video of a magic
show.
• The video showed a magician performing six magic
tricks.
• Children were randomly assigned either to cognitive
interview or structured interview.
• Interviewed one day later.
• The change perspective instruction was not included in
CI

14. Methods - interviews

15. Methods – Coding Sheet
Each of the six tricks was coded separately for:

16. Results

17. Conclusion
Children with and without ID when CI was used:
• Told better story
• Provided more adequately ordered behavioural
sequences
• Provided more contextual detail
• Their story was less compromised by
inconsistencies

18. Limitations
• Only included children with mild to moderate
intellectual disability. Therefore, they could also
include children with severe intellectual disability
to see if there are any differences.

19. Limitations
• All interviews with children took place one day
after they witnesses the event but in real life
interviews do not occur this quickly.
• Authors also acknowledged that the event that
was used in their study was very different from
event such as witnessing crime (possibly
traumatic).

20. References
• Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-
enhancing techniques in investigative interviewing:
The cognitive interview. Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas.
• Fisher, R. P., Geiselman, R. E., & Amador, M. (1989).
Field test of the cognitive interview: Enhancing the
recollection of actual victims and witnesses of crime.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 722-727.
• Fisher, R. P., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2011). Interviewing
cooperative witnesses. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 20(1), 16-19.

21. References
• Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., MacKinnon, D.P., &
Holland, H. L. (1985). Eyewitness memory
enhancement in the police interview: Cognitive
retrieval mnemonics versus hypnosis. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 70, 401-412.
• Gentle, M., Milne, R., Powell, M. B., & Sharman, S. J.
(2013). Does the cognitive interview promote the
coherence of narrative accounts in children with and
without an intellectual disability?. International Journal
of Disability, Development and Education, 60(1), 30-
43.
• Koehnken, G., Milne, R., Memon, A., & Bull, R. (1999).
The cognitive interview: A meta-analysis. Psychology,
Public Policy, and Law, 5, 3-27.

22. References
• Memon, A., Meissner, C. A., & Fraser, J. (2010). The
cognitive interview: A meta-analytic review and study
space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychology,
Public Policy, and Law,16(4), 340-372.
• Peled, M., Iarocci, G., & Connolly, D. A. (2004).
Eyewitness testimony and perceived credibility of
youth with mild intellectual disability. Journal of
Intellectual Disability, 48(7), 699-703.
• Robinson, J., & McGuire, J. (2006). Suggestibility and
children with mild learning disabilities: The use of the
cognitive interview. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12(5),
537-556.

23. Questions/Comments
?