textfiles/law/cog_inte.law

March 1991                                                        

                                                                  
                  COGNITIVE INTERVIEWING                           

                            By

                   Margo Bennett, M.Ed.
                           and
                    John E. Hess, M.Ed.
              Special Agents and Instructors
                        FBI Academy
                    Quantico, Virginia                                    
                    
                                              
     When interviewing crime victims, few investigators begin
with questions such as:  How tall was the subject?  What color
was his hair?  Did he have any scars?  Common sense, experience,
and fundamental training lead investigators to the conclusion
that such specific questions give witnesses little opportunity
to tell what they know.  Instead, open-ended questions tend to
produce the best results.  A question like, "What did he look
like?" eliminates the need for investigators to anticipate every
detail of description victims may have noted.  Investigators can
always follow up the witness' statements with specific, direct
questions to fill in gaps.  At least, that is what many
interview textbooks suggest.  But what happens when even these
direct questions fail to produce the details needed from
witnesses?  The cognitive interview method is a proven
technique, effective because it provides interviewers with a
structured approach to help retrieve such details from the
memories of witnesses.

     Consider the following scenario:  At a robbery scene, a
uniformed officer briefs the investigating detective.  Hoping to
obtain additional information, the detective approaches the
clerk, introduces himself, and sensing her anxiety, takes some
time to assure her that she has nothing to worry about.  He
tells her he understands the trauma she has just undergone, gets
her a cup of coffee, and delays asking any questions until she
has regained her composure.  He then tells her that he needs her
help and asks that she start at the beginning and tell him
exactly what happened.  She replies:

     "I was behind the counter when all of a sudden, I heard a
   voice telling me to give him all the money, and I would not
   get hurt.  I looked up and saw a man wearing a ski mask
   pointing a gun right at me.  I just froze and stared at the
   gun.  He told me to get a move on or there would be trouble.
   I opened the cash register and handed him all of the bills.
   There was just under a hundred dollars in the register.  He
   then told me to lie on the floor and not move.  I did as he
   told me and waited until I was sure he was gone.  I yelled to
   Joe, the manager, who was in the office, who asked me if I
   was okay.  He then ran to the phone and called the police.
   The next thing I knew, the police officer arrived, and I told
   him the same thing I just told you.  I don't know what the
   guy looked like, where he came from, or how he got away.  I'm
   sorry I can't be more help."

     The detective tells her that she has been very helpful and
that now he would like to go over the story again, and this
time, if she doesn't mind, he will interrupt her with questions
as she goes along.  As she retells her story, he constantly
probes for additional details, such as the possibility of
additional witnesses, more descriptive data regarding the
subject and his weapon, words he may have used, noticeable
accent, and the means of his escape.  However, except for a bit
more descriptive data, the victim was correct; she had told the
responding officer everything she could remember.

THE PROBLEM:  INABILITY TO REMEMBER                               

     The above scenario illustrates a problem encountered by
many investigators.  That problem results not from investigators
being unable to ask good questions but simply from witnesses who
are unable to provide the answers.  Responses such as, "I don't
remember," "That's all I saw," or "I can't recall" frustrate
many interviewers on a regular basis.  In the past, this led
investigators to try hypnosis as a means of enhancing witness
recall.  Improved results verified what many investigators
suspected--an inability of witnesses to remember, not a lack of
observations, was the main problem. (1)  Although investigators
achieved some success through hypnosis, those successes did not
last long.  Courts, on a regular basis, began ruling in favor of
defense attorneys who alleged that hypnotically elicited
information may contain flaws and that hypnosis as a means of
refreshing recall lacks scientific acceptance. (2)  Therefore,
investigators now primarily reserve hypnosis for situations
where the need for lead information supersedes all other
considerations.  They know full well that using hypnosis will
probably disqualify a witness from testifying.

SOLVING THE PROBLEM:  THE COGNITIVE INTERVIEW                     

     To enhance witness recall without the stigma attached to
hypnosis, Ronald P. Fisher and Edward Geiselman, professors at
Florida International University and UCLA respectively, have
developed a system they call the cognitive interview.  Although
their process contains few, if any, new ideas, they have
systematized some techniques which have, for the most part, been
used by investigators only in a sporadic, piecemeal fashion.
Research indicates that the cognitive approach to interviewing
witnesses increases the quantity of information obtained (3) and
does not jeopardize the witness' credibility in court, as
hypnosis does.

     This article compares the traditional interview with the
cognitive interview.  Specifically, this article deals with the
cognitive interview technique as it assists witness memory
retrieval by:  1) Reinstating the context of the event, 2)
recalling the event in a different sequence, and 3) looking at
the event from different perspectives.  It also deals with
specific retrieval techniques and time factors that affect the
interview.

Reinstate the Context                                             

     Traditional interviews of victims and witnesses, similar to 
the one described above, usually begin with interviewers first
taking the time to make introductions and putting witnesses at
ease before asking, "What happened?" or "What can you tell me
about...?"  Then, specific questions follow that are geared to
fill in the gaps inadvertently left by witnesses.  Proponents of
the cognitive interview suggest this will not usually produce
optimum results.  Asking people to isolate an event in their
minds and then to verbalize that event requires them to operate
in a vacuum.  Even without the trauma that often results from
involvement in a crime, common sense says that human memory
functions better in context.  The cognitive interview process
takes this into account.

     What is meant by context and how do interviewers establish
it?  Simply put, interviewers make efforts to reestablish the
environment, mood, setting, and experiences by asking witnesses
to relive mentally the events prior to, during, and after the
crime.

     Let's return to the robbery scene described above with the
detective who had already introduced himself to the victim and
asked for her help.  Instead of asking her what happened during
the crime, using the cognitive interview approach, he proceeds
as follows:  "It's only about 10:00, and it's already been a
pretty full day for you.  How about telling me how your day
started.  Tell me what time you got up, the chores you did, the
errands you ran and anything else that happened before you came
to work."

     As she recounts her activities, he joins the conversation,
discussing events with her, including the problems of a working
mother, what she fixed for breakfast, and any other details that
she mentions.  Only when they have developed a clear picture of
those events does the detective next suggest that the victim
describe her travel to work.  He handles this portion of the
conversation in the same way.  He does not ask perfunctory
questions geared to getting her quickly to the crime scene, but
rather, he discusses her commute to work in depth.  They discuss
the route she took, weather and traffic conditions she
encountered, events she may have noticed, and finally, where she
parked her car and what she noticed at that time.  He wants her
not only to just describe her day in general but also to relive
it.

     He uses the same interview technique regarding her arrival
at work.  By the time they finally get to the discussion of the
robbery, they have put the event into context.  In many
instances, this process enhances measurably a person's retrieval
of stored information.  Thus, witnesses can see details of the
robbery in their proper sequence and context.  Concentration is
more focused than during any previous interviews, which may have
only consisted of isolated questions and answers.  The response,
"I can't remember," will occur less frequently.

Change Sequence

     To continue the interview and further develop the witness'
recall, another phase of the cognitive interview follows next in
sequence.  Initially, retrieving information from witnesses
occurs in a normal, chronological flow of events.  However, when
recounting from memory, people tend to edit as memory playback
occurs.  This results in a summary based upon what witnesses
regard as important.  Therefore, interviewers should address
this problem by prompting witnesses not to hold back even the
most insignificant detail.  Even so, most interviewers can cite
experiences where valuable information went unmentioned because
witnesses chose to omit it.

     By changing the sequence of recall, witnesses can look at
each stage of the event as a separate entity  much akin to
looking at individual frames from a film.  Reverse or
out-of-order recall also encourages an overly zealous witness to
stick to the facts.  Witnesses find it more difficult to
embellish the event when they separate themselves from the
natural flow of events and independently deal with each
activity.

     Returning to the eye-witness interview in the opening
scenario, the detective might continue using the cognitive
interview technique.  Accordingly, he would discuss the
conversation the victim had with the responding officer and ask
where she was when the officer arrived.  He wants to know
exactly what she was doing at that time.  What did she do
immediately before that?  Through this line of questioning, he
gradually arrives back at the time of the robbery and before
hand.  Thus, he leads her through a second recounting of the
crime, only in reverse sequence.  This time, her information is
a collection of pieces, each viewed independently.  Just as
looking at a portion of the landscape may reveal details missed
while taking in the panoramic view, looking at stages of an
event may enable witnesses to "see" previously unnoticed items.

Change Perspective

     To further stimulate witness memory recovery, Fisher and
Geiselman also suggest changing the perspective. (4)  Witnesses
experience an event one time; however, they may perceive it from
various views.  During initial recollection, witnesses
articulate from their personal perspectives and rarely vary from
their point of view.  By prompting witnesses to physically
change the positioning in their memories, interviewers give them
the opportunity to recall more of their experiences. (5)
Interviewers can change perspective by asking witnesses to
consider the view of another witness, victim, or an invisible
eye on the wall.

     Using the technique of changing the perspective of
witnesses, the detective in the opening scenario might say: "You
know those surveillance cameras they have in banks and some
stores?  Too bad there wasn't one on the wall over there.  I
wonder just what it would have recorded; it certainly would have
had a different vantage point than you did."  Through this
opening statement, he can draw the victim into a discussion of
what might have been recorded on the nonexistent camera.  This
technique not only provides her with an opportunity to "replay"
the event from a different perspective but it also serves to
further detraumatize the situation.  Reviewing a film is much
less traumatic than reliving an armed robbery.

SPECIFIC RETRIEVAL

     Interviewers can use additional techniques to promote
memory retrieval, depending on the facts of the crime and
witness information.  After witnesses have recounted an event in
its natural sequence, reverse sequence, and from different
perspectives, the interviewer can induce specific retrieval by
asking direct questions.  One technique of specific retrieval
includes associating witness recollection of physical
appearance, clothing, and sound with something or someone
familiar to them.  Other areas of recall, such as remembering
names and numbers, may be enhanced by dealing with individual
components of the item, such as the first letter or number.
Once established, interviewers direct concentration to the next
letter or number and build the response.

     Using this technique, the detective in the robbery scenario
might have first reviewed the details obtained thus far.  At
certain points, he might have stopped to ask questions such as:
"You say he had a scary voice.  How so?  Does it remind you of
anybody you know, or perhaps somebody you've seen in a movie?"
"The coveralls he was wearing--ever seen that type before?
Where?  Were they like a pilot's suit, or more like a
carpenter's?"

     This context-enhancing technique stems from realizing that
the victim did not experience this event as a clean slate.  She
had a lifetime of experiences that preceded this activity.
Therefore, when getting a description of the subject, a
detective's questions, "Does this person remind you of anyone
you know?  In what way?" likewise provide a context from which
the victim can make comparisons.  This removes her need to
create, thus enabling her to draw on information with which she
is comfortable.

TIME FACTORS

     The cognitive interview encourages a witness' in-depth
retrieval of memory.  Success with this technique, although a
time-consuming process, forces interviewers to avoid some traps
normally associated with police interviews, specifically,
rushing the recall of witnesses and interrupting their
narratives.

   Witnesses must feel confident that they have time to think,
speak, reflect, and speak again as often as they need.
Interviewers can instill this confidence by allowing sufficient
time for the interview and by refraining from interrupting
witnesses. (6)  All too often, interviewers say, "Tell me what
happened," but before witnesses speak for 30 seconds,
interviewers begin interrupting with specific questions.  Those
specific questions should be asked after witnesses have had the
opportunity to recount the event fully.  Allowing time to
respond also applies when witnesses answer specific retrieval
questions.  Rushing witnesses sends a message to them that their
information is trivial.  This results in witness retrieval
shutdown.  If interviewers don't give them the time, witnesses
cannot concentrate or remember.

     The cognitive interview technique not only enhances witness
recall but also addresses another common problem among
interviewers--their inability to sustain the interview.
Interviewers, particularly inexperienced ones, are often reduced
to saying, "I can't think of anything else to ask.  Is there
anything you're leaving out?"  If a witness responds in the
negative, the interview is over.  Using the cognitive technique
can help interviewers avoid prematurely reaching this point.
Experience demonstrates that the cognitive interview technique
allows interviewers to continue discussing events without
sounding redundant.  Indeed, continued conversation in a
constructive, helpful direction often prompts additional
information.

CONCLUSION

     Despite significant advances in various forensic fields,
most crimes are solved by information furnished by people.  The
interview remains the foremost investigative tool for gaining
information.

     Although most victims and witnesses try to cooperate, their
inability to recall vital details can be discouraging, and they
need help in remembering.  This help must come from
investigators.  Merely asking the right questions does not
suffice; enhancing someone's memory requires active involvement.
The cognitive approach to interviewing has proven more effective
than the traditional one by increasing the quality and quantity
of information obtained from witnesses and victims.


Footnotes

     (1)  John C. Yuille and N. Hope McEwan, "Use of Hypnosis as
an Aid to Eyewitness Memory," Journal of Applied Psychology,
1985, vol. 70, No. 2, p. 389.

     (2)  Martin T. Orne, David F. Dinges, and Emily C. Orne,
"The Forensic Use of Hypnosis," National Institute of Justice,
December 1984, p. 1.

     (3)  R. Edward Geiselman, Ronald P. Fisher, David P.
MacKinnon, and Heidi L. Holland, "Eyewitness Memory Enhancement
in the Police Interview:  Cognitive Retrieval Mnemonics Versus
Hypnosis," Journal of Applied Psychology, 1985, vol. 70, No. 2,
p. 403.

     (4)  R. Edward Geiselman, and Michael Nielsen, "Cognitive 
Memory Retrieval Techniques," The Police Chief, March 1986, p. 
70.                                                               

     (5)  Ibid.                                                       

     (6)  R. Edward Geiselman, Ronald P. Fisher, David S.
Raymond, Lynn M. Jurkevich, and Monica L. Warhaftig, "Enhancing
Eyewitness Memory:  Refining the Cognitive Interview," Journal
of Police Science and Administration, December 1987, vol. 15,
No. 4, p. 292.