Advertisement

Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 381–391 | Cite as

Can the Cognitive Interview Reduce Memory Conformity in an Interview Context?

  • Magali GinetEmail author
  • Nadia Chakroun
  • Cindy Colomb
  • Fanny Verkampt
Article

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.

Keywords

Memory conformity Informational and normative influences Source monitoring Modified cognitive interview Adult eyewitnesses 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

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.

References

  1. Ash SE (1955) Opinions and social pressure. Sci Am 193:31–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Christiaasen RE, Ochalek K (1983) Editing misleading information from memory: evidence for the coexistence of original and postevent information. Mem Cogn 11:467–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deutsch M, Gerard HB (1955) A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 51(3):629–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Fisher RP, Geiselman RE (1992) Memory enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: the cognitive interview. Springfield III: Charles C. ThomasGoogle Scholar
  9. Fisher RP, Geiselman R, Raymond DS, Jurkevich LM (1987) Enhancing enhanced eyewitness memory: refining the cognitive interview. J Police Sci Adm 15(4):291–297Google Scholar
  10. 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 978-0-470-66369-1Google Scholar
  11. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geiselman RE, Fisher RP (2014) Interviewing witnesses and victims. In: Investigative interviewing: handbook of best practices. Thomson Reuters Publishers, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 12:74–80Google Scholar
  17. 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 14:31–39Google Scholar
  18. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Granhag PA, Jonsson AC, Allwood CM (2004) The cognitive interview and its effect on witnesses’ confidence. Psychol Crime Law 10:37–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gwyer P, Clifford BR (1997) The effects of the cognitive interview on recall, identification, confidence and the confidence/accuracy relationship. Appl Cogn Psychol 11:121–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hallgren KA (2012) Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: an overview and tutorial. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 8:23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Johnson MK, Hashtroudi S, Lindsay DS (1993) Source monitoring. Psychol Bull 114(1):3–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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):940–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meade M, Roediger H (2002) Explorations in the social contagion of memory. Mem Cogn 30(7):995–1009.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194318 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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):105–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Paterson HM, Kemp RI (2006a) Co-witnesses talk: a survey of eyewitness discussion. Psychol Crime Law 12:181–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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 154–174Google Scholar
  38. Roediger HL, Meade ML, Bergman ET (2001) Social contagion of memory. Psychon Bull Rev 8(2):365–371.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196174 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 1–36Google Scholar
  40. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Sherif M (1936) The psychology of social norms. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Tulving E (1974) Cue dependent forgetting. Am Sci 62:74–82Google Scholar
  45. Tulving E, Thomson DM (1973) Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychol Rev 80(5):352–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Police and Criminal Psychology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNRS, LAPSCOUniversité Clermont AuvergneClermont-FerrandFrance
  2. 2.CLLE, CNRS, UT2JUniversité de ToulouseToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations