positive effects of this instruction with young children if it is accompanied by
frequent prompts. Under the CP instruction, children were more likely to
report correct than incorrect or confabulated details (cf. Akehurst
et al .,
2003 ).
Notably, Holliday & Albon ’ s (2004) research showed that the RE and CRI
instructions, when used together, reduced four - and fi ve - year - old children ’ s
reporting of misleading suggestions both during an interview and on subse-
quent memory tests. Moreover, children who were given MCI, ERMCI,
RE + CO and RE + CRI interviews, but not FCIs, recalled more correct
information about the fi lm, and their reports were more complete than chil-
dren given a control interview (see also Milne & Bull, 2002 ). In other words,
developmentally appropriate CIs enhanced reporting of correct information
and ameliorated the adverse effects of misinformation to some degree with
very young children. The fi nding that a shortened CI is effective with young
children is important given the problems surrounding interviewing these wit-
nesses (limited attention span, rapid forgetting) and the pressures on police
and practitioners to obtain correct information as soon as possible after a crime.
The implication of this research is that a developmentally appropriate interview
comprising these two CI instructions would take approximately 70% of the
time of a full CI.
Is a s horter CI viable with e lderly w itnesses?
Holliday and Humphries and their colleagues (Milne, Bull, Memon) are con-
ducting research in which individual CI instructions are being evaluated with
young - old (60 – 74 years) and old - old (75 – 100 years) witnesses in the context
of a participant - experienced staged event. The research will determine whether
or not a different set of instructions is benefi cial for young - old and old - old
adults. There is good reason to expect that older witnesses are, like other
special populations, capable of recollecting details that are forensically relevant
if they are interviewed using an interview protocol that is specifi cally designed
for them.
The Cognitive Interview
149
The n ext s tep: CI s of s uspects
More than 20 years have passed since the original CI was developed by
Geiselman et al. (1984) and over 15 years ago Professor Ray Bull wrote to
the UK government proposing research on this, but to no avail (personal
communication, 10 April 2008). It is therefore now time to determine its
effectiveness with crime suspects. In a recent article, Fisher & Perez (2007)
noted that the dearth of studies with these individuals may be due to ethical
restrictions and to the nature of the individuals themselves – they are suspects
in a criminal investigation. How likely are they to want to be interviewed for
a research study when they have been accused of a crime? Fisher
&
Perez proposed that suspects who are innocent, suspects who feel ashamed
of their crime and suspects who agree to provide information in the hope of
a lighter sentence might participate. Hence, they argue that the next step in
CI research should concentrate on testing whether or not a CI is viable with
cooperative suspects who are motivated to tell the truth. A second avenue
of fruitful research to consider is in contexts other than a criminal investiga-
tion. As Fisher & Perez point out, there are many areas in which diffi culties
exist in gathering information
– accident investigations of air, rail, car or
the workplace, war crimes and business decisions, to name but a few. This
exciting new area of CI research will challenge researchers for another 20 years
at least.
Table 9.2: Published studies of CI protocols in which vulnerable individuals have been
studied
Children and the Cognitive Interview
Study
Age - group
Interviews
Type of
Time of
Results
Event
recall
Geiselman
7 – 12 years
STDI, FCI
Video -
3 days
FCI without
& Padilla
(N = 15)
simulated
increasing errors
(1988)
liquor store
and confabulations
robbery
produced 21%
more correct items
than the STDI.
Saywitz,
7 – 8 years
STDI, FCI
15 - minute
2 days
FCI increased correct
Geiselman
(N = 20)
live event
recall, without
&
and
involving
increasing errors.
Bornstein
10 – 11
children ’ s
(1992)
years
games
(N = 20)
Memon
6 – 7 years
SI, FCI
School vision
2 days
No advantage
Cronin,
(N = 31)
check
of a FCI
Eves &
was found.
Bull
(1993)
150
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing
Table 9.2: Continued
Children and the Cognitive Interview
Study
Age - group
Interviews
Type of
Time of
Results
Event
recall
McCauley &
7 – 8 years
STDI, revised
Live event –
3 hours
CI increased correct
Fisher
(N = 86)
CI
watch or
and 2
and incorrect
(1995)
participate in
weeks
recall.
action/play
session
McCauley &
7 – 8 years
STDI, MCI
10 - minute live
2 weeks
CI elicited
Fisher
(N = 18)
RA + CRI
event
nearly twice as
(1996)
– watch or
many accurate
participate in
details compared
action/play
to the STDI.
session
No difference
in incorrect details
recalled.
Memon
5 – 6 years
Try harder
10 - minute
1 week
No difference
Cronin,
(N = 17);
(control),
live event
between try harder
Eves &
6 – 7 years
CO, CP,
– two
and CI instructions
Bull
(N = 19);
CRI
strangers
in correct or
(1996)
8 – 9 years
taking part
incorrect deta
ils.
(N = 31)
in assembly
Age effects: youngest
group recalled
fewer correct
details than the
other two groups,
but did not
produce more
errors and were
no less accurate.
Akehurst,
8 – 9 years
SI, FCI
2 - minute video 4 hours or
FCI elicited more
Milne &
(N = 32);
of a staged
6 days
correct details
K ö hnken
11 – 12
robbery
without increasing
(1997)
years
incorrect or
(N = 32)
confabulated
details. No effect
of delay.
Memon,
16 – 19 years
SI, RA + CRI,
1 - minute 5
5 days
No difference
Wark,
(N = 66)
and UI
seconds
between RA + CRI
Holley,
(untrained
video of a
and SI in the
Bull &
interview) *
crime
amount of correct,
K ö hnken
incorrect and
(1997)
confabulated
information
recalled.
Granhag &
9 – 10 years
SI, STDI, MCI 15 - minute
Correct details higher
Spjut
(N = 32)
RA + CRI
fi lm of a
in MCI RA + CRI.
(2001)
performance
No increase in
by a fakir
incorrect details.
who hurts
himself
The Cognitive Interview
151
Table 9.2: Continued
Children and the Cognitive Interview
Study
Age - group
Interviews
Type of
Time of
Results
Event
recall
Milne &
18 – 45 years
RA; CO;
3 - minute
48 hours
Compared to the try
Bull
(N = 34);
CP; CRI,
videotape
again control the
(2002)
8 – 9 years
CRI + RA &
of a road
individual
(N = 44);
control - try
accident
techniques (RA,
5 – 6 years
again
CO, CP and CRI)
(N = 47)
did not elicit more
recall. RA + CR
elicited more recall
compared to RA,
CP, CO & try
again instructions.
No effects of
interview on age.
Larsson,
10 – 11 years
SI, MCI
15 - minute fi lm
7 days vs.
Children ’ s recalled
Granhag
(N = 49)
RA + CRI
depicting a
6 months
signifi cantly more
& Spjut
performance
correct details with
(2003)
by a fakir
MCI RA + CRI
who hurts
than SI at 7 days
himself
and 6 months.
SI = Structured Interview; STDI = Standard Police Interview; FCI = Full Cognitive Interview; MCI = Modifi ed
Cognitive Interview (Change perspective mnemonic omitted); MCI - RA + CRI = Modifi ed Cognitive Interview
(Change Perspective + Change Order Mnemonics omitted); UI = Untrained Interview = identical to SI (transfer
of control + do not fabricate instructions are omitted.
Children, suggestibility and the CI
Study
Age - group
Interviews
Type of
Time of
Results
Event
recall
Memon,
8 – 9 years
SI, MCI
5 - minute
12 days
MCI RA + CRI
Holley,
(N = 113)
RA + CRI
video of a
elicited more
Wark,
magic show
correct details
Bull &
without increasing
K ö hnken
incorrect
(1996)
information.
Children given prior
CI instructions gave
more correct
responses to
misleading
questions than
those given a SI.
Hayes &
5 – 7 years
STDI, MCI
12 - minute
3 days
MCI RA + CRI
Delamothe
(N = 64);
RA + CRI
video of a
elicited more
(1997)
9 – 11 years
staged
correct details than
(N = 64)
robbery
the STDI. No effect
of interview on
acceptance of
misinformation.
152
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing
Table 9.2: Continued
Children, suggestibility and the CI
Study
Age - group
Interviews
Type of
Time of
Results
Event
recall
Holliday
4 – 5 years
MCI and
5 - minute
24 hours
Children ’ s recall was
(2003a)
(N = 32);
Memorandum
video
more complete and
9 – 10 years
depicting a
more correct details
(N = 32)
child ’ s
were recalled in the
birthday
MCI. No effect
party
of interview on
children ’ s recall of
misinformation.
Holliday
Exp. 1
SI and MCI
5 - minute
24 hours
Children ’ s recall was
(2003b)
4 – 5 years
video of a
more complete, and
(N = 41);
child ’ s
more correct details
8 – 9 years
birthday
were recalled in the
(N = 35)
party
MCI than the SI.
Exp. 2
SI & MCI
5 - minute
24 hours
No effect of
4 – 5 years
video of a
interview on
(N = 35);
child ’ s
children ’ s recall of
8 – 9 years
birthday
misinformation.
(N = 35)
party
Children ’ s recall was
more complete, and
more correct details
recalle
d in the MCI
than in the SI.
Children given a
MCI after post -
event
misinformation
were less likely to
report
misinformation
during MCIs and
on recognition tests.
Milne &
8 – 9 years
SI, MCI
9 - minute
24 hours
MCI elicited more
Bull
(N = 84)
video of a
correct information
(2003)
magic show
without increasing
incorrect
information.
Children
interviewed with
MCI were more
resistant to
suggestive
questioning.
Holliday &
4 – 5 years
SI, FCI, MCI,
5 - minute
24 hours
Albon
(N = 104)
ERMCI, MCI
video of a
(2004)
RA + CRI,
child ’ s
MCI
birthday
RA + CO
party
SI = Structured Interview; STDI = Standard Police Interview; FCI = Full Cognitive Interview; MCI = modifi ed
Cognitive Interview (Change perspective mnemonic omitted); MCI RA + CRI = Modifi ed Cognitive Interview
(Change Perspective + Change Order Mnemonics omitted)
The Cognitive Interview
153
Table 9.2: Continued
Older adults and the CI
Study
Age - group
Interviews
Type of
Time of
Results
event
recall
Mellow &
18 – 35 - years
STDI, FCI,
4 - minute
30 minutes
The FCI elicited more
Fisher
(N = 20);
MCI
videotaped
information than the
(1996)
65 – 80 years
(older age
simulated
STDI without a
(N = 20)
group
robbery
reduction in accuracy
only).
rate. FCI vs. MCI –
(older adults only) no
difference in correct
responses, incorrect
responses or accuracy
rate.
McMahon
18 – 50 years
SI & FCI
6 - minute
30 minutes
FCI vs. SI – no
(2000)
(N = 20);
50 - second
difference in correct,
60 – 88 years
videotaped
incorrect and
(N = 20)
simulated
confabulated
robbery
information.
Searcy,
18 – 30 - years
SI & MCI
20 - minute
1 month
MCI RA + CRI vs. SI
Bartlett,
(N = 45);
RA + CRI
live
no difference in the
Memon
62 – 79 years
interaction
number and accuracy
&
(N = 49)
non - crime
of details recalled.
Swanson
event
Younger adults
(2001)
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing: Current Developments and Future Directions Page 29
