Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Protecting Eyewitness Evidence: Examining the Efficacy of a Self-Administered Interview Tool

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Law and Human Behavior

Abstract

Given the crucial role of eyewitness evidence, statements should be obtained as soon as possible after an incident. This is not always achieved due to demands on police resources. Two studies trace the development of a new tool, the Self-Administered Interview (SAI), designed to elicit a comprehensive initial statement. In Study 1, SAI participants reported more correct details than participants who provided a free recall account, and performed at the same level as participants given a Cognitive Interview. In Study 2, participants viewed a simulated crime and half recorded their statement using the SAI. After a delay of 1 week, all participants completed a free recall test. SAI participants recalled more correct details in the delayed recall task than control participants.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, J. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 261–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayers, M. S., & Reder, L. M. (1998). A theoretical review of the misinformation effect: Predictions from an activation-based memory model. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Begg, I., & Wickelgren, W. (1974). Retention functions for syntactic and lexical versus semantic information in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 2, 353–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekerian, D. A., & Dennett, J. L. (1993). The cognitive interview: Reviving the issues. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 275–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjork, R. A. (1988). Retrieval practice and the maintenance of knowledge. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris & R. N. Skyes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues: Vo. 1. Memory in everyday life (pp. 396–401). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, P., Fisher, R. P., & Cutler, B. L. (1999). Examining the cognitive interview in a double-test paradigm. Psychology, Crime & Law, 5, 29–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Testing improves long-term retention in a simulated classroom setting. The European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 514–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway, M. A., Cohen, G., & Stanhope, N. (1991). On the very long-term memory of knowledge acquired through formal education: Twelve years of cognitive psychology. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 120, 395–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coupe, T., & Griffiths, M. (1996). Solving residential burglary (Crime Detection and Prevention Series No. 77). London: Home Office.

  • Damasio, A. R. (1989). Time-locked multiregional retroactivation: A systems-level proposal for the neural substrates of recall and recognition. Cognition, 33, 25–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M., McMahon, M., & Greenwood, K. (2005). The efficacy of mnemonic components of the cognitive interview: Towards a shorted variant for time-critical investigations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 75–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebbesen, E. B., & Rienick, C. B. (1998). Retention interval and eyewitness memory for events and personal identifying attributes. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 745–762.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ebbinghaus, H. (1885). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. P. (1996). Implications of output-bound measures for laboratory and field research in memory. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 722–727.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. P., Geiselman, R. E., Raymond, D. S., Jurkevich, L. M., & Warhaftig, M. L. (1987). Enhancing eyewitness memory: Refining the cognitive interview. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 15, 291–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. P., & McCauley, M. (1995). Improving eyewitness testimony with the cognitive interview. In M. Zaragoza, J. R. Graham, G. C. N. Hall, R. Hirschman & Y. S. Ben-Porath (Eds.), Memory and testimony in the child witness (pp. 141–159). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. P., & Schreiber, N. (2007). Interviewing protocols to improve eyewitness memory. In M. Toglia, R. Lindsay, D. Ross & J. Reed (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology: Volume one. Memory for events (pp. 53–80). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabbert, F., Memon, A., & Allan, K. (2003). Memory conformity: Can eyewitnesses influence each other’s memories for an event? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 533–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiselman, R. E., & Fisher, R. P. (1997). Ten years of cognitive interviewing. In D. Payne & F. Conrad (Eds.), Intersections in basic and applied memory research (pp. 291–310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, M., Koriat, A., & Pansky, A. (2005). Strategic regulation of grain size in memory reporting over time. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 505–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hashtroudi, S., Johnson, M. K., Vnek, N., & Ferguson, S. A. (1994). Aging and the effects of affective and factual focus on source monitoring and recall. Psychology and Aging, 9, 160–170.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Huff, C. R., Rattner, A., & Sagarin, E. (1996). Convicted but innocent: Wrongful conviction and public policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the ‘general acceptance’ of eyewitness memory research. The American Psychologist, 56, 405–416.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kebbell, M. R., & Milne, R. (1998). Police officers’ perceptions of eyewitness performance in forensic investigations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 138, 323–330.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kebbell, M. R., Milne, R., & Wagstaff, G. F. (1999). The cognitive interview: A survey of its forensic effectiveness. Psychology, Crime & Law, 5, 101–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kebbell, M. R., & Wagstaff, G. F. (1996). Enhancing the practicality of the cognitive interview in forensic situations [11 paragraphs]. Psycholoquy [on-line serial], 7(6). Available FTP: Hostname: princeton.edu Directory pub/harnard/Psycholoquy/1996.volume.7 File: psyc.96.7.16.witness-memory.3.kebbell.

  • Kebbell, M. R., & Wagstaff, G. F. (1999). Face Value? Factors That Influence Eyewitness Accuracy. London: Home Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W., Welsch, D., Schmalhofer, F., & Zimny, S. (1990). Sentence memory: A theoretical analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 133–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehnken, G., Milne, R., Memon, A., & Bull, R. (1999). The cognitive interview: A meta-analysis. Psychology, Crime & Law, 5, 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koriat, A., Levy-Sadot, R., Edry, E., & de Marcas, G. (2003). What do we know about what we cannot remember? Accessing the semantic attributes of words that cannot be recalled. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1095–1105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koutstaal, W., Schacter, D. L., Johnson, M. K., & Galluccio, L. (1999). Facilitation and impairment of event memory produced by photograph review. Memory & Cognition, 27, 478–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, S. M., Mather, M., Villa, D., & Morita, S. K. (2001). How events are reviewed matters: Effects of varied focus on eyewitness suggestibility. Memory & Cognition, 29, 940–947.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, D. S. (1990). Misleading suggestions can impair eyewitnesses’ ability to remember event details. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 1077–1083.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, E. F., Miller, D. G., & Burns, H. J. (1978). Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Learning and Memory, 4, 19–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, E. J., Tversky, B., & Hutson, M. (2005). How eyewitnesses talk about events: Implications for memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCauley, M. R., & Fisher, R. P. (1995). Facilitating children’s recall with the revised cognitive interview. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 510–516.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, M., & Zaragoza, M. (1985). Misleading post event information and memory for events: Arguments and evidence against memory impairment hypotheses. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 114, 1–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M. A., & Masson, M. E. (1985). Altering memory representations through retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 371–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M. A., Kowitz, M. D., & Dunay, P. K. (1989). Altering memory through recall: The effects of cue-guided retrieval processing. Memory & Cognition, 17, 423–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mello, E. W., & Fisher, R. P. (1996). Enhancing older adult eyewitness memory with the cognitive interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 403–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Memon, A., & Bull, R. (1991). The cognitive interview: Its origins, empirical support, evaluation and practical implications. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 1, 291–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milne, R., & Bull, R. (1999). Investigative interviewing. Wiley.

  • Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2002). Back to basics: A componential analysis of the original cognitive interview mnemonics with three age groups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 743–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrod, S., Loftus, E. F., & Winkler, J. (1982). The reliability of eyewitness testimony. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 119–168). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickel, K. L. (2004). When a lie becomes the truth: The effects of self-generated misinformation on eyewitness memory. Memory (Hove, England), 12, 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raaijmakers, J. G. W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1980). SAM: A theory of probabilistic search of associative memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 14, pp. 207–262). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Read, J. D., & Connolly, D. A. (2006). The effects of delay on long-term memory for witnessed events. In M. P. Toglia, J. D. Read, D. F. Ross & R. C. L. Lindsay (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Volume 1: Memory for events (pp. 117–155). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reyna, V. F., & Kiernan, B. (1994). The development of gist versus verbatim memory in sentence recognition: Effects of lexical familiarity, semantic content, encoding instruction and retention interval. Developmental Psychology, 30, 178–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roediger, H. L., III, & Neely, J. H. (1982). Retrieval blocks in episodic and semantic memory. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 36, 213–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, D. C., & Wenzel, A. E. (1996). One hundred years of forgetting: A quantitative description of retention. Psychological Review, 103, 743–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, P. N., & Penrod, S. (1986). Meta-analysis of facial identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 139–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, J. S., III, Bjork, R. A., & Handal, A. (1995). Retrieval-induced forgetting in an eyewitness-memory paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 249–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sporer, S. L. (1992). Das Wiedererkennen von Gesichtern. [Recognizing faces]. Weinheim: Beltz/Psychologie Verlags Union.

  • Suengas, A. G., & Johnson, M. K. (1988). Qualitative effects of rehearsal on memories for perceived and imagined complex events. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 117, 377–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuckey, M. R., & Brewer, N. (2003). The influence of schemas, stimulus ambiguity, and interview schedule on eyewitness memory over time. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 9, 101–118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Turtle, J. W., & Yuille, J. C. (1994). Lost but not forgotten details: Repeated eyewitness recall leads to reminiscence but not hypermnesia. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 260–271.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, B., & Marsh, E. (2000). Biased retellings of events yield biased memories. Cognitive Psychology, 40, 1–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, M. A., & Roediger, H. L. (1992). Disparate effects of repeated testing: Reconciling Ballard’s (1913) and Bartlett’s (1932) results. Psychological Science, 3, 240–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, A. C., & Koestler, R. (1984). Generality of a strength model for three conditions of repeated recall. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 28, 43–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wixted, J., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1991). On the form of forgetting. Psychological Science, 2, 409–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wixted, J., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1997). Genuine power curves in forgetting: Quantitative analysis of individual subject forgetting functions. Memory & Cognition, 23, 731–739.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, A. M., & Holliday, R. E. (2007). Enhancing the recall of young, young–old and old–old adults with the cognitive interview and a modified version of the cognitive interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 19–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuille, J. C., & Cutshall, J. L. (1986). A case study of eyewitness memory of a crime. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 291–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

Preparation of this manuscript was supported by grants from the British Academy.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Psychology, School of Social and Health Sciences, University of Abertay, Dundee, DD1 1HG, Scotland

    Fiona Gabbert

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Portsmouth, King Henry Building, King Henry I Street, Portsmouth, England

    Lorraine Hope

  3. Department of Psychology, Florida International University, North Miami, FL, USA

    Ronald P. Fisher

Authors
  1. Fiona Gabbert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lorraine Hope
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ronald P. Fisher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fiona Gabbert.

About this article

Cite this article

Gabbert, F., Hope, L. & Fisher, R.P. Protecting Eyewitness Evidence: Examining the Efficacy of a Self-Administered Interview Tool. Law Hum Behav 33, 298–307 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9146-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9146-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation