Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

2014 Edition
| Editors: Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd

Interviewing Eyewitnesses

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_669

Overview

Eyewitness researchers have attempted to take what we know about memory and social influence and wrap it into a set of procedures for interviewing eyewitnesses. This has resulted in a number of empirically based investigative interviewing tools. Some of these tools have been successfully implemented into current police practice. The most developed and researched procedural package for gathering detailed reports from cooperative eyewitnesses without compromising overall accuracy is the Cognitive Interview (CI). Since its development 25 years ago, novel and alternative interviewing strategies have been developed, including the Self-Administered Interview© (SAI), a pen-and-paper version of the CI. The SAI can be administered at the crime scene and to multiple witnesses simultaneously, thereby reducing police time and resources.

Although a lot has been achieved during the past two decades with regard to improving and standardizing investigative interviewing of witnesses, victims,...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

Recommended Reading and References

  1. Bower G (1967) A multicomponent theory of the memory trace. Psychology of Learning and Motivation 1:229–325Google Scholar
  2. Brown R, Kulik J (1977) Flashbulb memories. Cognition 5(1):73–99Google Scholar
  3. Bull R, Milne B (2004) Attempts to improve the police interviewing of suspects. In: Lassiter GD (ed) Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment (pp. 181–196). New York: Kluwer AcademicGoogle Scholar
  4. Clarke C, Milne R (2001) A national evaluation of the PEACE Investigative Interviewing Course. London: Home officeGoogle Scholar
  5. Craig L, Lindsay WR, Browne KD (2010) Assessment and treatment of sexual offenders with intellectual disabilities: a handbook: Wiley-Blackwell, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  6. Cyr M, Lamb ME (2009) Assessing the effectiveness of the NICHD investigative interview protocol when interviewing French-speaking alleged victims of child sexual abuse in Quebec. Child Abuse & Neglect 33(5):257–268Google Scholar
  7. Dando C, Wilcock R, Milne R (2009) The cognitive interview: the efficacy of a modified mental reinstatement of context procedure for frontline police investigators. Appl Cogn Psychol 23(1):138–147Google Scholar
  8. Davies G, Tarrant A, Flin R (1989) Close encounters of the witness kind: children’s memory for a simulated health inspection. Br J Psychol 80(4):415–429Google Scholar
  9. Davis LA (2005) People with intellectual disabilities in the criminal justice system: victims & suspects. Arc Q & AGoogle Scholar
  10. Ebbinghaus H (1964/1885) Memory: a contribution to experimental psychology. Dover, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Emerson E, Hatton C, Felce D, Murphy G (2001) Learning disabilities: the fundamental facts. The Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Fisher RP, Geiselman RE (1992) Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: the cognitive interview. Charles C Thomas, Springfield, Illinois, USGoogle Scholar
  13. Fisher RP, Schreiber N (2007) Interview protocols for improving eyewitness memory. In: Toglia MP, Read JD, Ross DF, Lindsay, RCL (eds) The handbook of eyewitness psychology. Memory for events, vol I, pp 53–80, Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates PublishersGoogle Scholar
  14. Fisher RP, Milne R, Bull R (2011) Interviewing cooperative witnesses. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 20(1):16Google Scholar
  15. Gabbert F, Hope L, Fisher RP (2009) Protecting eyewitness evidence: examining the efficacy of a self-administered interview tool. Law Hum Behav 33(4):298–307Google Scholar
  16. Godden DR, Baddeley AD (1975) Context‐dependent memory in two natural environments: on land and underwater. Br J Psychol 66(3):325–331Google Scholar
  17. Hope L, Gabbert F, Fisher RP (2011) From laboratory to the street: capturing witness memory using the self‐administered interview. Leg Criminol Psychol 16:211–226Google Scholar
  18. Kassin SM, Appleby SC, Perillo JT (2010) Interviewing suspects: practice, science, and future directions. Leg Criminol Psychol 15(1):39–55Google Scholar
  19. Kebbell MR, Milne R, Wagstaff GF (1999) The cognitive interview: a survey of its forensic effectiveness. Psychol Crime Law 5(1–2):101–115Google Scholar
  20. Köhnken G (1995) Interviewing adults. In: Bull R, Carson D (eds) Handbook of psychology in legal contexts, (pp 216–233), Chichester, UK, WileyGoogle Scholar
  21. Lamb ME, Orbach Y, Sterberg KJ, Hershkowitz I, Horowitz D (2000) Accuracy of investigators’ verbatim notes of their forensic interviews with alleged child abuse victims. Law and Human Behavior 24(6):699–708Google Scholar
  22. Lamb ME, Orbach Y, Hershkowitz I, Esplin PW, Horowitz D (2007) A structured forensic interview protocol improves the quality and informativeness of investigative interviews with children: a review of research using the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol. Child Abuse Negl 31(11–12):1201–1231Google Scholar
  23. Loftus EF, Miller DG, Burns HJ (1978) Semantic integration of verbal information into a visual memory. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn Mem 4(1):19Google Scholar
  24. Memon A, Meissner CA, Fraser J (2010) The cognitive interview: a meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychol Publ Policy Law 16(4):340–372Google Scholar
  25. Milne R (1999) Interviewing children with learning disabilities. In: Memon A, Bull R (eds) Handbook of the psychology of interviewing, pp 165–180, Chichester, UK, WileyGoogle Scholar
  26. Milne B, Bull R (eds) (1999) Investigative interviewing psychology and practice. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  27. Milne R, Bull R (2002) Back to basics: a componential analysis of the original cognitive interview mnemonics with three age groups. Appl Cogn Psychol 16(7):743–753Google Scholar
  28. Neisser U, Harsch N (1992) Phantom flashbulbs: false recollections of hearing the news about challenger. In: Winograd E, Neisser U (eds) Affect and accuracy in recall: studies of “flashbulb” memories, vol 4, pp 9–13, 9–31, London, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Mahony BM, Milne B, Grant T (2012). To challenge, or not to challenge? Best practice when interviewingGoogle Scholar
  30. Oxburgh GE, Dando CJ (2011) Psychology and interviewing: what direction now in our quest for reliable information? Br J Forensic Pract 13(2):135–144Google Scholar
  31. Reisberg D, Hertel P (2004) Memory and emotion. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Simons DJ, Chabris CF (1999) Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Percep Lond 28:1059–1074Google Scholar
  33. Simons DJ, Rensink RA (2005) Change blindness: past, present, and future. Trends in Cogn Sci 9(1):16–20Google Scholar
  34. Tuckey MR, Brewer N (2003) The influence of schemas, stimulus ambiguity, and interview schedule on eyewitness memory over time. J Exp Psychol Appl 9(2):101Google Scholar
  35. Tulving E (1995) Organization of memory: quo vadis. In: Gazzaniga MS (ed.), The cognitive neurosciences, (pp 839–850), Cambridge, MA: Bradford, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  36. Tulving E, Thomson DM (1973) Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychol Rev 80(5):352Google Scholar
  37. Wells GL, Bradfield AL (1998) Good, you identified the suspect: feedback to eyewitnesses distorts their reports of the witnessing experience. J Appl Psychol 83(3):360Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyRoyal Holloway, University of LondonEghamUK