Abstract
Eyewitness testimony may be contaminated by event-related information shared by other witnesses. The present study aimed to assess the influence of a modified cognitive interview (MCI) on the detrimental effects of what is called memory conformity. Participants watched a videotaped staged event. Immediately after this, they answered 22 questions about the video out loud, either alone or with a confederate who intentionally introduced false information in her answers (i.e., 6 incorrect and 12 confabulated details). A week later, participants were interviewed individually about the video using either an MCI or a structured (control) interview. Results suggested that participants recalled some of the incorrect and confabulated items suggested by the confederate. Those interviewed with the MCI (vs. SI) also reported fewer incorrect details but more confabulated details previously introduced by the confederate. The potential social and cognitive mechanisms underlying the influence of the MCI protocol on the damaging effects of prior co-witness discussions are examined.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ash SE (1955) Opinions and social pressure. Sci Am 193:31–35
Brainerd CJ, Reyna VF (1998) When things that were never experienced are easier to remember than things that were. Psychol Sci 9:484–489. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00089
Christiaasen RE, Ochalek K (1983) Editing misleading information from memory: evidence for the coexistence of original and postevent information. Mem Cogn 11:467–475
Colomb C, Ginet M (2012) The cognitive interview used with adults: an empirical test of an alternative mnemonic and of a modified protocol. Appl Cogn Psychol 26(1):35–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1792
Davis MR, McMahon M, Greenwood KM (2005) The efficacy of mnemonic components of the cognitive interview: towards a shortened variant for time-critical investigations. Appl Cogn Psychol 19(1):75–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1048
Deutsch M, Gerard HB (1955) A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 51(3):629–636
Endres T, Renkl A (2015) Mechanisms behind the testing effect: an empirical investigation of retrieval practice in meaningful learning. Front Psychol 6:1054. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01054
Fisher RP, Geiselman RE (1992) Memory enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: the cognitive interview. Springfield III: Charles C. Thomas
Fisher RP, Geiselman R, Raymond DS, Jurkevich LM (1987) Enhancing enhanced eyewitness memory: refining the cognitive interview. J Police Sci Adm 15(4):291–297
Gabbert F, Hope L (2013) Suggestibility and memory conformity. In: Ridley A, Gabbert F, La Rooy D (eds) Suggestibility in legal contexts: psychological research and forensic implications. Wiley-Blackwell, London ISBN 978-0-470-66369-1
Gabbert F, Memon A, Allan K (2003) Memory conformity: can eyewitnesses influence each other’s memories for an event? Appl Cogn Psychol 17(5):533–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.885
Gabbert F, Memon A, Allan K, Wright DB (2004) Say it to my face: examining the effects of socially encountered misinformation. Leg Criminol Psychol 9(2):215–227. https://doi.org/10.1348/1355325041719428
Gabbert F, Memon A, Wright DB (2006) Memory conformity: disentangling the steps toward influence during a discussion. Psychon Bull Rev 13(3):480–485. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193873
Gabbert F, Memon A, Wright DB (2007) I saw it for longer than you: the relationship between perceived encoding duration and memory conformity. Acta Psychol 124:319–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.03.009
Geiselman RE, Fisher RP (2014) Interviewing witnesses and victims. In: Investigative interviewing: handbook of best practices. Thomson Reuters Publishers, Toronto
Geiselman RE, Fisher RP, Firstenberg I, Hutton LA, Sullivan S, Avetissian I, Prosk A (1984) Enhancement of eyewitness memory: an empirical evaluation of the cognitive interview. J Police Sci Adm 12:74–80
Geiselman RE, Fisher RP, Cohen G, Holland H, Surtes L (1986) Eyewitness responses to leading and misleading questions under cognitive interview. J Police Sci Adm 14:31–39
Ginet M, Verkampt F (2007) The cognitive Interview: Is its benefit affected by the level of witness emotion? Memory 15(4):450–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210601092670
Granhag PA, Jonsson AC, Allwood CM (2004) The cognitive interview and its effect on witnesses’ confidence. Psychol Crime Law 10:37–52
Gwyer P, Clifford BR (1997) The effects of the cognitive interview on recall, identification, confidence and the confidence/accuracy relationship. Appl Cogn Psychol 11:121–145
Hallgren KA (2012) Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: an overview and tutorial. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 8:23–34
Harris CB, Paterson HM, Kemp RI (2008) Collaborative recall and collective memory: what happens when we remember together? Memory 16(3):213–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210701811862
Hope L, Gabbert F (2018) Memory at the sharp end: the costs of remembering with others in forensic contexts. Top Cogn Sci https://doi-org.insb.bib.cnrs.fr/10.1111/tops.12357
Johnson MK, Hashtroudi S, Lindsay DS (1993) Source monitoring. Psychol Bull 114(1):3–28
Karpicke JD, Aue WR (2015) The testing effect is alive and well with complex materials. Educ Psychol Rev 27(2):317–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9309-3
Lane SM, Mather M, Villa D, Morita SK (2001) How events are reviewed matters: effects of varied focus on eyewitness suggestibility. Mem Cogn 29(7):940–947
Launay C, Py J (2017) Capturing the scene: efficacy test of the re-enactment investigative instruction. J Forensic Pract 19(3):174–189 https://doi-org.insb.bib.cnrs.fr/10.1108/JFP-02-2015-0012
Meade M, Roediger H (2002) Explorations in the social contagion of memory. Mem Cogn 30(7):995–1009. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194318
Memon A, Meissner CA, Fraser J (2010a) The cognitive interview: a meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychol Public Policy Law 16(4):340–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020518
Memon A, Zaragoza M, Clifford BR, Kidd L (2010b) Inoculation or antidote? The effects of cognitive interview timing on false memory for forcibly fabricated events. Law Hum Behav 34(2):105–117
Mitchell KJ, Johnson MK, Mather M (2003) Source monitoring and suggestibility to misinformation: adult age-related differences. Appl Cogn Psychol 17:107–119. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.857
Paterson HM, Kemp RI (2006a) Co-witnesses talk: a survey of eyewitness discussion. Psychol Crime Law 12:181–191
Paterson HM, Kemp RI (2006b) Comparing methods of encountering post-event information: the power of co-witness suggestion. Appl Cogn Psychol 20(8):1083–1099. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1261
Paterson HM, Kemp RI, Ng JR (2011) Combating co-witness contamination: attempting to decrease the negative effects of discussion on eyewitness memory. Appl Cogn Psychol 25(1):43–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1640
Paulo RM, Albuquerque PB, Bull R (2016) Improving the enhanced cognitive interview with a new interview strategy: category clustering recall. Appl Cogn Psychol 30(5):775–784. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3253
Paulo RM, Albuquerque PB, Vitorino F, Bull R (2017) Enhancing the cognitive interview with an alternative procedure to witness-compatible questioning: category clustering recall. Psychol Crime Law 23(10):967–982 https://doi-org.insb.bib.cnrs.fr/10.1080/1068316X.2017.1351966
Reyna VF, Titcomb AL (1997) Constraints on the suggestibility of eyewitness testimony: a fuzzy-trace theory analysis. In: Payne DG, Conrad FG (eds) Intersections in basic and applied memory research. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 154–174
Roediger HL, Meade ML, Bergman ET (2001) Social contagion of memory. Psychon Bull Rev 8(2):365–371. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196174
Roediger HL, Putnam AL, Smith MA (2011) Ten benefits of testing and their applications to educational practice. In: Mestre J, Ross B (eds) Psychology of learning and motivation: cognition in education. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 1–36
Shaw JS, Garven S, Wood JM (1997) Co-witness information can have immediate effects on eyewitness memory reports. Law Hum Behav 21(5):503–523. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024875723399
Sherif M (1936) The psychology of social norms. Harper Collins, New York
Skagerberg EM, Wright DB (2008) The prevalence of co-witness and co-witness discussions in real eyewitness. Psychol Crime Law 14(6):513–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160801948980
Tuckey MR, Brewer N (2003) The influence of schemas, stimulus ambiguity, and interview schedule on eyewitness memory over time. J Exp Psychol Appl 9:101–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.9.2.101
Tulving E (1974) Cue dependent forgetting. Am Sci 62:74–82
Tulving E, Thomson DM (1973) Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychol Rev 80(5):352–373
Wright AM, Holliday RE (2007) Interviewing cognitively impaired older adults: how useful is a cognitive interview? Memory 15:17–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210601047351
Wright DB, Self G, Justice C (2000) Memory conformity: exploring misinformation effects when presented by another person. Br J Psychol 91:189–202. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712600161781
Wright DB, Memon A, Skagerberg EM, Gabbert F (2009) When eyewitnesses talk. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 18(3):174–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01631.x
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix. Instructions Used in the MCI and SI Protocols
Appendix. Instructions Used in the MCI and SI Protocols
MCI Protocol
Report Everything Instruction
“Please, tell me everything you can remember about the video you saw a week ago, every detail you can remember, even if you think it may be irrelevant or if it is incomplete. Each detail is important to me.”
Context Reinstatement Instruction
“Close your eyes and picture yourself back in the room where you watched the video. Think about the things you can see in the room. [pause] About where were you in the room. [pause] Were you alone or was there anybody with you in the room? [pause] What could you hear in the room? [pause] Now, try to think about your mood at that moment. [pause] How were you feeling?”
Sequenced Recall Instruction
“I would like you to recall for the last time what happened in the movie, using a technique consisting of two steps. First, picture the event mentally and divide it into several main sequences, as many as you want. When you feel ready, please make an exhaustive list of the scenes you had in mind, without describing them in detail for the moment, but rather summarizing them in one sentence, as if you wanted to give them a title.” During this time, the interviewer wrote down as exactly as possible the list of sequences produced by the participant. When the participant finished his/her list, the interviewer explained the second part of the instruction. “Now, you will detail each sequence you mentioned, using a technique I will help you to apply. I’m going to repeat each scene you mentioned before one by one, and for each of them, I would like you to close your eyes, to form a very clear and detailed mental image of the scene, and to focus your retrieval not only on actions and central elements, but also and especially on more peripheral details such as secondary actions, descriptions of persons, descriptions of the location, objects, sounds, etc. Are you ready?” The interviewer then asked the participant to concentrate and to focus her/his detailed retrieval on each sequence taken separately.
SI Protocol
Instruction Introducing the First Recall Attempt
“Before you begin to tell me what you saw, I am going to suggest that you follow a method which should help you to better remember the film. We realized that if a person is allowed to tell what she/he saw without being interrupted by questions and comments, it is easier for her/him to remember. So I will let you tell me what you saw in the film and I won’t interrupt until you have finished.”
Instruction Introducing the Second Recall Attempt
“We have observed that repeating an account several times helps to improve memories. This is called a hypermnesia effect. So I will ask you to tell me again about the film that you saw the other day. Don’t hesitate to repeat everything, even information that you already mentioned, because that can also help you.”
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ginet, M., Chakroun, N., Colomb, C. et al. Can the Cognitive Interview Reduce Memory Conformity in an Interview Context?. J Police Crim Psych 34, 381–391 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-019-09325-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-019-09325-6