Need an research paper on critically evaluate the use of the cognitive interview in the investigative interview of witnesses. Needs to be 4 pages. Please no plagiarism. In order to prove this argument, the first section discusses the uses and success of CI techniques. The next section discusses the weaknesses and limitations of the method. And the last section analyses the merits of the arguments from both sides of the debate.
Information acquired during an investigation has to contain enough important details. In order to achieve this objective, psychologists have tried to create procedures, particularly for the interview of witnesses. This process is based on two assumptions. First is that the witness in an interview is basically making an effort to remember the events that took place. Hence everything that can assist the process of remembering should be given much importance. Second is the interaction between the investigator and the witness (Canter & Youngs, 2009). Interactions that are encouraging and accommodating tend to acquire more relevant information. The cognitive interview (CI) has been created to improve these two.
Geiselman and colleagues (1985) conducted a systematic assessment of the CI process. The research participants watched a fabricated crime and then were interviewed using hypnosis, a usual interview, and cognitive interview. The researchers discovered that the cognitive interview was actually the most effective in extracting more information or details from the witness. Several later studies have verified the effectiveness of CI in drawing out more information from witnesses. Several studies also confirm that the information acquired through CI is more correct. The findings of many studies reveal that with constant error rates, CI improves information significantly (Esgate, Groome, & Baker, 2005). Kebbell and Wagstaff (1999) comprehensively studied the forensic efficacy of cognitive interview and demonstrate how the procedure relates to the psychology of memory, communication, and social aspects.