The cognitive interview as memory enhancing technique among Arab children
| Date | 02 November 2015 |
| Published date | 02 November 2015 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCP-05-2015-0015 |
| Pages | 233-248 |
| Author | Aiman El Asam,Muthanna Samara |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology,Criminal psychology |
The cognitive interview as memory
enhancing technique among Arab children
Aiman El Asam and Muthanna Samara
Dr Aiman El Asam is Research
Fellow and Dr Muthanna
Samara is Associate Professor,
both are at the Department of
Psychology, Kingston
University London, Kingston-
Upon-Thames, London, UK.
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to examine the Cognitive Interview (CI) and its usefulness in
improving recall among Arab children. Totally, 64 Arab children (9-12 years old) took part in this study; they
viewed a short video scene followed by the CI or a Structured Interview (control).
Design/methodology/approach –The study measured for recall of correct, incorrect, confabulated details
and accuracy level. Using the interview type, delay type (2-4, 7-10 and 14-16 days) and age group (9-10 and
11-12 years) a MANCOVA test showed that the CI group produced significantly more correct, incorrect
and confabulated details compared to the control.
Findings –Delay had a significant effect on recall of correct detail while the older group of children produced
significantly more correct details, higher accuracy and fewer incorrect and confabulated details. Although the
CI is a potentially transferable method to be used with Arab children, carefulconsideration should be given to
its difficulty along with cultural issues.
Originality/value –This is the first study to consider CI among Arab sample of children. Most research
have looked at western cultures, hence this study was needed to extend knowledge and test if the CI is
transferable to a different culture.
Keywords Arabic children and interviewing, Cognitive interview, Interviewing children,
Interviewing techniques, Memory and culture, Structured interview
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Research concerning the involvement of children in the legal system is extensive and ever
increasing. The performance of a child is assessed using methods that often overestimate or
underestimate their involvement and evidence (Bottoms et al., 2007). Existing research indicated
that children are not being well equipped to deal with the cognitive demands of the legal system
which is typically designed for adults (Malloy et al., 2007). In general, there are two main concerns
with evidence provided by children; children often give inconsistent statements and incomplete
testimonies leading to the dismissal of court cases (Ceci et al., 1989; Fivush and Hudson, 1991).
Thus, in order to enhance event-related memory to aid retrieval of correct information, the
interviewer must be skilful and patient with the child. In addition, interviewers must avoid
inappropriate questioning and making assertions. One interview technique that incorporated
such skills is the Cognitive Interview (CI).
Based on theoretical memory principles, the CI was first developed by Geiselman et al. (1984).
It incorporated four retrieval techniques, asking the witness to Reinstate the Context of the event
(CR), Report Everything they know (RE), Changing the Order to their retrieved information
(CO) and Changing Perspective (CP) i.e. requiring the witness to recall the event using different
personal perspectives. The CI was further modified by Fisher and Geiselman (1992) to help
eyewitnesses recall more information. The four retrieval techniques were enhanced with social
Received 22 May 2015
Revised 21 July 2015
Accepted 31 July 2015
DOI 10.1108/JCP-05-2015-0015 VOL. 5 NO. 4 2015, pp. 233-248, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 2009-3829
j
JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY
j
PAG E 23 3
factors such as building a rapport, active listening, pausing and transferring control to the
witness. The CI provides guidance to interviewers and practitioners in order to deter them from
carrying out suggestive and persistent questioning with regard to specific details. It also
encourages interviewers to listen and not interrupt children while they are giving their account
of an incident (Aldridge, 1999).
A number of studies examined the effectiveness of CI amongst children; the vast majority
found that the CI is a good technique to enhance eyewitnesses’memory and that it leads to an
increase in correct details (e.g. Geiselman and Padilla, 1988; Granhag and Spjut, 2001;
McCauley and Fisher, 1995a, b, 1996; Saywitz et al., 1992). Most of these studies have looked at
the Structured or Standard Interview as controls when examining the CI. Memon et al. (2010)
noted that of the most recent studies, 69 per cent used the Structured Interview (SI) and
21 per cent used the Standard Interview as control. It was explained that the SI is a more suitable
control as it incorporates the same procedure as the CI, but without its mnemonics (i.e. RE, CR,
RO and CP). The Standard Interview was not consistently defined, and was generally
characterised by lack of training or following a standard procedure of free reporting and specific
questions. Earlier research showed that the CI increases the amount of correctly recalled
information by 21 per cent (Geiselman and Padilla, 1988) and 26 per cent (Saywitz et al., 1992)
compared to a Standard Interview. Furthermore, it was suggested that that interviewer’s practise
or training before the interview enhanced children’s recall even further in favour of the CI (Saywitz
et al., 1992). Conversely, it has also been found that there were no significant differences between
the CI and a SI (the CI minus its four mnemonics) in the number of correct details (Memon et al.,
1997). Despite its enhancement of recall, the CI was found to produce more confabulations
(reporting new information, not introduced in the stimuli) compared to the Standard Interview;
this is explained by the frequent retrieval attempts in the CI (McCauley and Fisher, 1995a, b).
However, later studies disputed this finding (e.g. Granhag and Spjut, 2001; McCauley and
Fisher, 1996).
More recent research looked at the type of details retrieved, often classified as: person details
(details about the person); action details (actions carried out); object details (describing objects)
and surrounding details (details about the surrounding environment). It has been found that the
CI increases the number of person, action and object details correctly recalled by children
(e.g. Holliday, 2003a, b; Holliday and Albon, 2004; Milne and Bull, 2003). Other studies found only
an increase in object and action details (Granhag and Spjut, 2001; Holliday, 2003a, b; Memon
et al., 1997), whilst an increase in the number of surrounding details has also been found
(Holliday, 2003b).
Delay and age effect
The length of delay (interval between an event and the interview) is an important variable when
considering the CI. It has been shown that information is less accessible in memory after longer
intervals (Ayers and Reder, 1998). Thus, a long delay between the witnessed event and the time it
is reported decreases the accuracy and the completeness of evidence (e.g. Goodman et al.,
1992; Goodman and Quas, 2008; Kassin et al., 2001; La Rooy et al., 2005; McCauley and Fisher,
1995a, b; Penrod et al., 1982; Tuckey and Brewer, 2003a, b). A meta-analysis, of 42 studies
revealed that the CI leads to more correct details after short delays (Köhnken et al., 1999).
Despite a decrease in accuracy over time, the CI still yields a higher number of correct details
compared to a SI (Larsson et al., 2003).
Larsson and Lamb (2009) argued that, in comparison to adults, children have limited memory and
less ability to report details; improvement comes with age. Older children have been found to
recall more correct details in comparison to younger children when using the CI (Akehurst et al.,
2003; Holliday, 2003a, b; Köhnken et al., 1999; Verkampt and Ginet, 2010). Milne and Bull (2002)
found that whilst older children recalled a similar number of correct details compared to adults,
younger children generated fewer correct details. Age was not found to have an effect on
incorrect details and although younger children are believed to produce more confabulations,
studies reported mixed findings (Akehurst et al., 2003). Within the CI, the RE instruction can help
children avoid errors of omission as it requires children to report absolutely all possible details
concerning an event (Bull, 1996). However, the CP was shown problematic for children leading to
PAGE234
j
JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY
j
VOL.5NO.42015
To continue reading
Request your trial