The efficacy of a modified mental reinstatement of context
procedure with older witnesses
Author: Rory McKenna
Student No. 6022149
A dissertation submitted to the University of Surrey in partial fulfilment of
the requirements for the MSc in Forensic Psychology
2012
Abstract
Although the cognitive interview (CI) is the police’s prescribed method for interviewing witnesses in
the UK, it is often only partially implemented by frontline officers as it is usually too demanding for
their investigative needs. The mental reinstatement of context (MRC) is one specific CI component
that officers often do not properly apply despite its memory-enhancing effects on witnesses. A
shorter and less complex MRC procedure, the Sketch MRC, can similarly enhance witnesses’
memories through sketching, but it has only been tested with young adult samples. As such, the
current study aimed to investigate whether the efficacy of the Sketch MRC could be retained with
older adults who typically display age-related memory deficits. Twenty-four hours after viewing a
simulated-crime film, fifty-one older adult mock-witnesses (aged 61-96 years) underwent CI’s that
contained the Sketch MRC procedure, the original MRC procedure or No MRC (i.e. control
interviews). Results showed that Sketch MRC and MRC interviews elicited comparable amounts of
correct and accurate information, both higher than in than control interviews. Furthermore, these
memorial enhancements of the Sketch MRC were observed despite a lesser duration and reduced
interviewer guidance relative to the MRC procedure. Theoretical implications of these findings are
discussed in relation to the effects of environmental support on remembering. The Sketch MRC
therefore represented a less demanding and more viable alternative to the MRC procedure that
could still enhance older adults’ memories whilst showing specific forensic benefits for police
officers investigating volume crime.
2
Introduction
Information provided by witnesses and victims1 is essential to any criminal investigation (Dando,
Wilcock, Behnkle & Milne, 2011; Gabbert, Hope & Fisher, 2009). Such information can often provide
more direct evidence of an individual’s guilt and can also establish more developed details of a crime
compared to circumstantial evidence, such as DNA samples or fingerprints (Boyce, Lindsay &
Brimacombe, 2008). As police officers typically gather information from eyewitnesses using formal
investigative interviews, the interview process represents a fundamental investigative tool (Dando,
Wilcock & Milne, 2008). However, because interviewing is a complicated skill, a police officer’s
individual ability to conduct a witness interview can often determine the quality and quantity of
information they can elicit (Dando, Wilcock & Milne, 2009). Therefore, to help develop police
officers’ professional interviewing skills and provide guidance through the process, interviews in
England and Wales are conducted in accordance with the PEACE investigative interviewing
framework (Dando et al., 2011; NPIA, 2009). PEACE (an acronym for the recommended interview
stages: Planning and preparation, Engage and explain, Account, Closure and Evaluation) advocates
the use of two interview techniques; conversation management for more resistant interviewees
(Shepherd, 1986, 1993) and the cognitive interview (subsequently referred to as CI) with more cooperative witnesses (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992, 2010). The latter is the current focus of this study.
The Cognitive Interview
The original CI was developed by Geiselman et al. (1984) to enhance the accuracy of eyewitnesses’
accounts and improve police interviewing methods. The original four mnemonic components of the
CI were based on two fundamental memory principles (Wells, Memon & Penrod, 2006). Firstly, that
retrieval for an event is enhanced if the context experienced during retrieval matches the context
experienced at encoding (encoding specificity hypothesis; Tulving & Thompson, 1973); and secondly,
that memories are stored in interconnected nodes whereby a single memory can be accessed via
multiple pathways (multiple trace theory; Bower, 1967). As such, the four mnemonic components of
the CI relay instructions for the witness to; (i) mentally reinstate the environmental, physiological
and emotional states experienced at the time of the event (mental reinstatement of context, MRC);
(ii) report all details of an event irrespective of perceived relevance or completeness (report
everything); (iii) recall events in a different temporal order such as in reverse (change temporal
1
The word witness will subsequently be used to refer to both eyewitnesses and victims of crime
3
order); and (iv) recall the event from the perspective of another individual or location at the event
(change perspective) (Holliday et al., 2011; Westera, Kebbell & Milne, 2011).
Although initial research found that the four mnemonic CI components enhanced witness memory
relative to standard police interviews (Fisher, Geiselman & Amador, 1989; Geiselman, Fisher,
MacKinnon & Holland, 1986), police officers still communicated poorly with witnesses, regularly
interrupting them as well as using closed and leading questions during interviews (Fisher, 2010;
Fisher, Geiselman & Raymond, 1987; George & Clifford, 1992). As such, the enhanced CI (Fisher &
Geiselman, 1992) integrated the original four mnemonic components with social dynamic and
communication strategies, aimed at enhancing both the retrieval process and interviewer-witness
interactions. Interviewers were therefore encouraged to build rapport and put the witness at ease,
transfer control of the interview to the witness and use questions appropriate to witnesses’
accounts (Dando et al., 2011; Fisher & Geiselman, 2010). The dynamic interaction between these
communication strategies and the four mnemonic components formed the basis of the enhanced CI
procedure.
Laboratory and field research has largely supported the efficacy of the original and enhanced CI to
elicit significantly higher amounts of correct information from witnesses relative to control
interviews (Clifford & George, 1996; Colomb & Ginet, 2012; Köhnken, Thürer & Zoberbier, 1994;
Stein & Memon, 2006). However, meta-analyses have typically shown that such significant increases
of correct information elicited by CIs are typically accompanied by a small increase in the amount of
incorrect information relative to control interviews (Köhnken, Milne, Memon & Bull, 1999; Memon,
Meissner & Fraser, 2010). Therefore CI accuracy rates tend to be either marginally higher or similar
relative to control interviews. As such results have been replicated with modified CI procedures
(omitting specific components) with older adults and children (Holliday, 2003; Holliday & Albon,
2004; Holliday et al., 2011; Wright & Holliday, 2007); research generally shows that the CI is able to
increase the amount of information from eyewitnesses without compromising its accuracy (Colomb
& Ginet, 2012; Dando et al., 2011). As the CI is therefore an effective interview procedure for
eliciting complete witness accounts, Fisher (2010) proposed that it should be adopted into standard
police investigative interviewing procedures.
Application of the Cognitive Interview by frontline police officers
In accordance with the PEACE investigative interviewing framework, all police officers in England
and Wales are currently taught the CI procedure using a tiered approach ranging from Tier 1 to Tier
4
5 (Dando et al., 2011; Dando, Wilcock, Milne & Henry, 2009a). Although all novice police officers
receive the initial Tier 1 training, they can acquire additional and more advanced interviewing skills
by progressing through the tiered system (Dando et al., 2009a; Fisher, Milne & Bull, 2011). The Tier 1
CI procedure is primarily constructed of eight components derived from the enhanced CI (Fisher &
Geiselman, 1992); explain the aims of the interview, build a rapport, mental reinstatement of
context, uninterrupted free recall, witness compatible questioning, never guess, report everything
and encourage concentration. Therefore, the change perspective and change temporal order
techniques are typically omitted from Tier 1 training. As the Tier 1 CI procedure is the current focus
of this study, it is subsequently described in further detail below before returning to the main
argument.
With the exception of the MRC and report everything, the other Tier 1 CI components aim to
indirectly enhance witness accounts through promoting effective understanding and communication
between interviewers and witnesses (Memon et al., 2010). Within explain the aims of the interview,
interviewers are encouraged to demonstrate the interview structure and clearly specify their own
role and that of their witnesses during the procedure. To build a rapport, interviewers are
encouraged to show a general interest in the witness, disclose personal information and consistently
display verbal and non-verbal signs of active listening (Collins, Lincoln & Frank, 2002; Vallano &
Schreiber Compo, 2011). Furthermore, interviewers are encouraged to transfer control of the
interview to witnesses by allowing them to deliver an uninterrupted free narrative account, and by
asking relevant open-ended questions after they have finished their narrative (Fisher & Geiselman,
2010). Although interviewers should highlight the importance of reporting everything, witnesses
should be encouraged to state if they are unsure, to preclude them from guessing or confabulating
information (Memon et al., 2010). Witnesses should also be encouraged to concentrate throughout
the whole procedure. These additional CI components can potentially alleviate witnesses’ feelings of
uncertainty and anxiousness towards the interview, can help witnesses feel less coerced and
manipulated during the process and can also help them trust and effectively engage with the
interviewer (Fisher & Geiselman, 2010; Fisher, Mello & McCauley, 1999). The inclusion of these
components typically enhances eyewitnesses’ accuracy (Koriate & Goldsmith, 1996; Vallano &
Schreiber Compo, 2011).
Although all police officers receive Tier 1 training, it is not necessary or appropriate for every officer
to receive the extensive training of the higher tiers. As non-specialised frontline police officers
investigate less serious crime, they typically do not require more advanced interviewing skills and
often remain at Tier 1 throughout their careers (Dando et al., 2009a). As 70% of volume crimes (such
5
as assault, robbery and criminal damage) are assigned to frontline police officers for investigation,
they must be able to perform effective investigative interviews on a daily basis (Dando et al., 2008;
Hewitt, 2001). However as investigative interviewing has been identified as a specific weakness in
volume crime investigation (ACPO, 2004), frontline police officers may not currently be utilising the
Tier 1 CI procedure to its full potential.
Field research has shown that police officers rarely apply the CI procedure effectively or in its
entirety (Clarke & Milne, 2001; Clifford & George, 1996). Dando et al. (2009) found that immediately
after their initial Tier 1 training, novice police officers typically implemented specific CI components
such as rapport building and explain interview aims more frequently than others. Of the less
frequently used components, 41% and 72% of officers made no attempt to use the report everything
or MRC components respectively. Furthermore, officers that did implement CI components typically
delivered unclear and incomplete instructions (Dando et al., 2009; see also Memon, Holley, Milne,
Köhnken & Bull, 1994). As police officers frequently fail to apply the full CI procedure and often
deliver ineffective instructions, the quantity and quality of information elicited from witnesses may
be compromised (Dando et al., 2009a). This is of particular concern as frontline police officers are
tasked with investigating the majority of volume crime (Hewitt, 2001).
Research has therefore attempted to establish why officers often partially and ineffectively apply
the CI despite its memorial benefits. Dando et al. (2008) found that frontline police officers typically
regarded such components as rapport building, uninterrupted free recall and report everything to be
the most effective and frequently used. For other components such as the MRC, only 51% of officers
regarded it as very effective and only 58% reported that they regularly used it in interview.
Importantly, 75% of officers often felt pressured to rush witness interviews due to time constraints
from their heavy workloads and demands from senior officers (Dando et al., 2008; see also Kebbell,
Milne & Wagstaff, 1999). Therefore, officers’ perceptions of specific CI components as well as time
constraints associated with volume crime investigation may undermine their willingness to
effectively apply the full CI procedure.
Research has also suggested that the CI is a cognitively demanding process for interviewers and
requires a substantial degree of flexibility to accommodate each witness (Clarke & Milne, 2001;
Dando et al., 2011; Kebbell et al., 1999). As frontline police officers typically receive relatively limited
CI training, typically two days on a five day course (Dando et al., 2008), they may neglect
components that they find difficult to apply (Dando et al., 2009a). Additionally, such officers often
report that full CIs are too excessive and substantial for volume crime investigation, requiring more
time than is practical (Dando et al., 2008; Dando et al., 2009a). Therefore, as frontline police officers
6
typically have limited experience, training and time to effectively apply the Tier 1 CI procedure in
volume crime investigation, there is a crucial need for a less complex and less time consuming CI
procedure that can still enhance witnesses’ memories and comply with the PEACE framework (Bensi,
Nori, Gambetti & Giusberti, 2011; Dando et al., 2011; Davis, McMahon & Greenwood, 2005).
Enhancing the forensic utility of the Cognitive Interview for frontline police officers
According to Fisher (2010), the CI should not be viewed as holistic procedure but as a ‘toolbox’ of
techniques that can be selectively applied depending on specific interview requirements. Therefore
in developing a more succinct yet effective modified CI procedure for volume crime investigation, it
is crucial to prioritise the CI components that most effectively enhance witnesses’ memories
(Colomb & Ginet, 2012; Fisher, 2010). Although the original four mnemonic CI components do not
typically enhance witnesses’ recall when applied individually, research has shown that when
combined, the MRC and report everything components can elicit significant increases of correct
information without compromising accuracy relative to control interviews (Colomb & Ginet, 2012;
Milne & Bull, 2002). As the provision of contextual cues at retrieval can elicit significantly more
correct information from witnesses without a drop in accuracy (Davis et al., 2005; Emmett, Clifford &
Gwyer, 2003; Memon & Bruce, 1995; Wong & Read, 2011), the MRC represents a highly effective CI
component that alongside report everything, should be prioritised in modified CIs for frontline police
officers. This advocates current Tier 1 training where officers are initially taught both of these
components.
Although the MRC is an effective procedure for enhancing witnesses’ memories (Memon et al.,
2010), it is frequently omitted by police officers during CIs (Clarke & Milne, 2001; Clifford & George,
1996). Although approximately 20% of officers attempt to utilise the MRC (Dando et al., 2009), it is
usually accompanied by incomplete and partial instructions that can impair its efficacy to elicit more
correct information (Dando et al., 2011; Memon et al., 1994). Furthermore, the MRC is a time
consuming and complex procedure that requires interviewers to utilise numerous pauses between
instructions, adopt a deliberately slow presentation style and identify contextual cues compatible
with each witness’s account (Dando, Wilcock & Milne, 2009b). As frontline police officers have
limited available time for witness interviews, they may therefore be unwilling and/or unable to
effectively utilise the MRC procedure despite its memorial benefits (Dando et al., 2009b). Research
has therefore attempted to identify less complex and time consuming MRC alternatives that may be
more practical for officers.
7
Asking witnesses to draw a sketch of the original event may represent a less complex and time
consuming solution to this issue, and may similarly increase the availability of memory-enhancing
contextual cues (Katz & Hershkowitz, 2010; Ministry of Justice, 2011). Although police officers are
familiarised with how sketch plans can help witnesses explain events during interviews (Dando et al.,
2009b), they do not form part of current Tier 1 CI training. However, Dando et al. (2009) found that
up 44% of recently CI trained officers spontaneously asked their witnesses in interview to draw
sketch plans of the original event despite no explicit instructions to do so. This suggested that
officers acknowledged the forensic utility of sketch plans during their witness interviews. As such,
Dando et al. (2009b) proposed the Sketch plan mental reinstatement of context (Sketch MRC) as a
more viable alternative to the original MRC procedure. As such, the Sketch MRC would potentially
reduce the cognitive demands of the interview for the officer, as witnesses would be more
responsible for generating salient contextual cues through drawing. Furthermore, the drawing of a
sketch would potentially be quicker and protect against the introduction of suggestive or misleading
information from the interviewer (Dando et al., 2009b). Research has therefore investigated the
efficacy of the Sketch MRC as a less complex and time consuming alternative to the MRC procedure
for frontline police officers.
As such, Dando et al. (2009b) assessed the efficacy of Sketch MRC interviews relative to traditional
MRC and No MRC (i.e. control) interviews. The interviews followed the same phased structure in
accordance with the PEACE framework with the exception of the free recall phase, where the MRC
manipulation occurred. Twenty-four hours after viewing a simulated-crime film, young adult mockwitnesses were interviewed according to MRC interview conditions. Analysis of overall memorial
performance (amount of correct and incorrect information, confabulations and accuracy rates)
showed that the Sketch MRC was just as effective as the MRC interview and significantly more
effective than control interviews. Importantly, Sketch MRC interviews were found to be significantly
shorter in duration than MRC interviews (10.14 and 12.15 minutes respectively). As the Sketch MRC
elicited similar amounts of increased correct and accurate information relative to the MRC
interviews but in less time, it represented a more viable alternative to the original MRC procedure.
Similarly, Dando et al. (2011) found that modified CIs that included the Sketch MRC (and excluded
the change temporal order and change perspective components) elicited significantly fewer
confabulations as well as more correct information in a shorter duration relative to enhanced CIs
(containing the original MRC procedure). These results therefore suggested that the Sketch MRC was
a less complex and less time consuming procedure with more forensic utility for frontline police
officers.
8
Although research supports the efficacy of the Sketch MRC procedure, its application has been
typically limited to young adult participants (Dando et al., 2011). Although research has shown that
modified CI procedures are effective at enhancing both child and older participants’ memories
(Holliday, 2003; Holliday & Albon, 2004; Holliday et al., 2011; Wright & Holliday, 2007), research so
far has not attempted to replicate the efficacy of the Sketch MRC with these age groups.
Older adults’ memory and the cognitive interview
As memory performance typically declines with age, older adults tend to perform worse than young
adults on various memory tasks such as recalling prose (Carlesimo et al., 1998) or long word lists
(Cohen, Sandler & Schroeder, 1987). Older adults are also less accurate and complete when recalling
events from simulated crimes in relation to younger adults (Aizpurua, Garcia-Bajos & Migueles,
2009; Brimacombe, Quinton, Nance & Garrioch, 1997; Coxon & Valentine, 1997) and similar to
children, are also prone to the misinformation effect; whereby exposure to suggestive and
inaccurate information after an event typically alters their original memory of that event (Aizpurua,
Garcia-Bajos & Migueles, 2009a; Mitchell, Johnson & Mather, 2003; Saunders & Jess, 2010).
Additionally, it has also been suggested that negative stereotypes about old-age memory deficits can
worry older participants and further impair their subsequent recall (Hess & Hinton, 2006). As such, it
is important to establish age-appropriate CI procedures that can enhance older adults’ memories
and make them feel more relaxed and comfortable within interview situations (Fisher & Geiselman,
2010).
Although limited research has assessed the efficacy of modified CI procedures for older adults,
initial research has shown that CIs have inconsistent effects on older adults’ memories (Dornburg &
McDaniel, 2006; McMahon, 2000; Mello & Fisher, 1996). However, considering the aforementioned
complexity and duration of the full CI procedure as well as time constraints faced by frontline police
officers, Holliday et al. (2011) assessed the efficacy of a modified (i.e. shortened) CI procedure (that
excluded the change perspective technique) with older adults aged 60-73. In comparison with a
structured interview, older adults in the modified CI condition were slightly more accurate overall, as
they recalled significantly more correct items but similar amounts of incorrect and confabulated
items. Furthermore, misinformation effects observed in structured interviews were significantly
reduced using the modified CI. Similar to previous research, modified CI procedures were therefore
able to enhance the quantity and quality of information elicited from older adults without
compromising its accuracy (Memon et al., 2010; Wright & Holliday, 2007).
9
The efficacy of modified CI procedures with older adults may be attributed to the contextual effect
of the MRC procedure (Holliday et al., 2011; Wright & Holliday, 2007). For example, although older
adults typically struggle with free recall tests (Luo & Craik, 2008), increasing the amount of available
contextual cues within the environment at retrieval can significantly reduce age-related memory
deficits and improve the quantity and accuracy of older adults’ recall (Craik & Schloerscheidt, 2011;
Fernandez & Alonso, 2001; Skinner & Fernandes, 2009; Wilcock, Bull & Vrij, 2007). This is consistent
with the environmental support hypothesis which suggests that due to a depletion of cognitive
resources, older adults are less able and likely to use self-generated retrieval strategies and are more
reliant upon environmental support when remembering (Craik, 1994; Memon et al., 2010; Pachman
& Ke, 2012). Environmental support typically enhances older adults’ memories through support of
existing cognitive resources (i.e. guiding their attention to task relevant information) and reducing
task demands (i.e. externalising the recall task and increasing processing opportunities) (Morrow &
Rogers, 2008). The MRC may therefore enhance older adults’ memories as contextual cues provided
by the interviewer may sufficiently reduce the cognitive demands of recalling events. As such, it was
predicted that the Sketch MRC would similarly enhance older participants’ memories as contextual
cues generated through drawing may also sufficiently reduce the cognitive demands of the
interview. However, unlike the MRC procedure where the interviewer directly guides participants to
generate contextual cues, the interviewer only provides a sketch-prompt in the Sketch MRC as
participants are expected to generate their own contextual cues (Dando et al., 2009b). As older
participants may have insufficient cognitive resources to initiate this memory-retrieval strategy
unaided (Light, 1991; Morrow & Rogers, 2008;), it was also predicted that the Sketch MRC would not
significantly enhance older participants’ memories due to a lack of interviewer support and guidance
when generating contextual cues.
Although additional contextual cues made available through drawing may enhance older adults’
subsequent recall, age-related drawing deficits could potentially undermine the Sketch MRC’s
efficacy. For example, Van Impe, Coxon, Goble, Wenderoth and Swinnen (2011) compared older and
younger adults on a circular drawing task where participants were required to draw within spatial
boundaries whilst matching the speed of a circling dot. The results showed that older adults were
significantly less accurate and produced more varied and erratic drawing movements in comparison
with younger adults (Van Impe et al., 2011). Similarly, Jansen, Schmelter and Heil (2010) investigated
spatial knowledge acquisition in both young and older adults, where participants had to learn their
path through a virtual maze and subsequently recall and draw an overview of the maze. The results
showed that older adults displayed specific spatial memory impairments and were also significantly
less able to draw a complete and accurate representation of the maze compared with younger
10
adults (Jansen et al., 2010). Therefore, although additional contextual cues provided by the Sketch
MRC could enhance older adults’ memories, our associated predictions should be relatively
conservative as older adults’ reduced drawing abilities may undermine the efficacy of the procedure.
Therefore the present study aims to replicate previous research by asking whether the Sketch MRC
is a more viable alternative to the original MRC procedure with older adult witnesses, insofar as it
can elicit a similar level of correct and accurate information from those witnesses with reduced
complexity and duration. Such findings are considered relevant to establishing a modified CI that is
more applicable to frontline police officers with insufficient time and training to effectively interview
older witnesses in volume crime investigation. The present study also aims to assess whether the
Sketch MRC is able to provide adequate environmental support to enhance older participants’
memories, who typically cannot initiate memory-retrieval strategies unaided. More specifically, the
current study will also test aforementioned predictions of the environmental support hypothesis
regarding whether the amount of interviewer support in the Sketch MRC is sufficient to enhance
older participants’ memories.
Method
Ethical Approval
Prior to data-collection, the protocol for the current study gained a favourable ethical opinion from
the Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences (FAHS) ethics committee of the University of Surrey (refer to
Appendix A). The research was therefore conducted in accordance with the University’s ethical
guidelines.
Participants
Fifty-three older adults from both the community and sheltered housing schemes across Guildford
and Mole Valley district councils volunteered to take part in the study. Prior to participating,
participants undertook the Memory Impairment Screen (MIS); a four-item delayed free- and cuedrecall memory impairment test with high specificity and sensitivity for various forms of dementia in
older individuals (Buschke et al., 1999; Mitchell & Malladi, 2010). Because scores of four or less on
this test have been suggested to indicate potential memory impairments, two participants who
11
scored four on the MIS were deemed unsuitable for the current study and excluded prior to
participating. As the mean MIS score of the remaining 51 participants was 7.47 (SD= 0.76) and
ranged from 5 to 8, no further participants were excluded from the study. The remaining sample
consisted of 34 female and 17 male participants with a mean age of 74.1 years (SD= 8.88) ranging
from 61 to 96 years. Although each participant gave prior written consent to take part as a mock
witness, they were kept unaware of the specific experimental hypotheses.
Design
The present study utilised a between subjects experimental design. Interview condition represented
the independent variable, with participants being randomly allocated to one of three conditions: (i)
No MRC, (ii) MRC or (iii) Sketch MRC interviews. Measures of participants’ memorial performance,
namely the amount of correct items recalled, incorrect items recalled, confabulations and accuracy
(proportion of correct items as a percentage of total items) represented the dependent variables.
Interviewer CI training
The current researcher conducted all interviews and attended an intensive one-day CI training
session at the University of Portsmouth (refer to Appendix B). The session was conducted by
experienced CI interviewers (including the co-creator of the procedure, Professor Ron Fisher) and
covered basic CI principles including social dynamics, rapport building and non-verbal behaviour
such as the use of pauses and eye contact. As part of the session, the researcher completed several
mock interviews which were observed and evaluated by an experienced CI interviewer.
Materials
Film Stimulus. Participants viewed a non-violent crime film that lasted approximately 1
minute 50 seconds on a 14” laptop. The stimulus film depicted a vehicle-related theft where an
unattended blue was car was stolen by a male suspect in a quiet residential area. The car was
initially left insecure by a male driver who exited the scene, and the male suspect discovered a
brown wallet prior to driving the stolen car to a secluded block of flats (refer to Figure 1). The film
contained numerous quantifiable details relating to the environment of the theft as well as the
actions and appearance of the suspect and victim.
12
Figure 1. Image screenshots from the simulated-crime film stimulus
Interview conditions
Based on the PEACE investigative interviewing framework currently utilised by UK police forces
(Ministry of Justice, 2011; NPIA, 2009), procedures for each interview condition followed five distinct
phases: (i) greet and establish rapport, (ii) explain interview aims, (iii) free recall, (iv) questioning, and
(v) closure. All phases were identical between interview conditions with the exception of the free
recall phase where the MRC manipulation occurred. Each interview phase is subsequently described
in further detail below.
Within greet and establish rapport, the interviewer put participants at ease by greeting them and
briefly discussing neutral topics not associated with the simulated-crime film. During explain
interview aims, the interviewer explained to the participant that they would be assisted to
remember information from the simulated-crime film and that they would lead the interview with
an uninterrupted free narrative account. Participants were also instructed to report everything they
could recall, never guess at information and concentrate as much as possible. In the questioning
13
phase, the interviewer encouraged participants to elaborate on specific details by asking openended questions based on notes taken during the free recall phase. Additionally, the interviewer
used silent pauses after each answer to prompt further recall and also reminded participants once
more not to guess and to report everything. During the closure phase, the interviewer summarised
the participant’s account and allowed them the opportunity to amend or alter any details they had
provided. The participants were then thanked for their time and effort. As MRC manipulations
occurred in the free recall phase of each interview, these manipulations are subsequently described
in further detail below.
No MRC. In the free recall phase of this interview condition, participants were asked for a
free narrative account of everything they could remember from the simulated-crime film.
Importantly the interviewer did not interrupt this account and allowed sufficient time between
participants’ pauses to encourage further detail from them. Brief notes taken by the interviewer
during this account were used to ensure that the questions asked in the subsequent phase were
appropriate and compatible with the participant’s account.
MRC. In the free recall phase of this interview condition, the interviewer delivered oral
instructions to assist participants in mentally reinstating environmental and psychological context
related to the stimulus film. The MRC instructions were adapted from a previous study by Dando et
al. (2009b) and were based on recommended MRC guidelines used by UK police forces (refer to
Appendix C; Ministry of Justice, 2011). The interviewer adopted a slow and timely manner when
delivering these instructions, and utilised 5 second pauses between instructions to allow sufficient
time for participants to mentally recreate the desired context. Participants were subsequently asked
for a full account of everything they could remember from the simulated-crime whilst the
interviewer made brief notes but did not interrupt. Similar to the No MRC condition, the interviewer
used their notes to guide subsequent questioning and also used pauses to encourage further detail
from participants.
Sketch MRC. In the free recall phase of this interview condition, participants were provided
with a pen and paper and asked to draw a sketch/plan/diagram of any details they could recall from
the simulated-crime film. Participants were instructed to draw as much detail as they deemed
necessary in order to help them both remember and clearly explain details from the simulated-crime
(refer to Appendix D). Participants were given unlimited sketching time prior to giving their account
and were assured that the quality of their drawings would not be scrutinised or formally assessed.
Similar to the No MRC condition, the interviewer used their notes to guide subsequent questioning
and also used pauses to encourage further detail from participants.
14
Procedure
Participants were tested on an individual basis in two separate sessions approximately 24 hours
apart. During the first session, participants were provided with an information sheet and required to
sign a consent form. After being instructed that they would sit a brief memory test, participants
subsequently undertook the MIS to screen for unsuitable participants with potential memory
impairments (Buschke et al., 1999). Participants were then shown the simulated-crime film and
instructed to pay attention as they would be questioned about it at a later stage. Approximately 24
hours later the researcher returned for the second session. Participants were allocated randomly to
one of three interview conditions and interviewed accordingly by the researcher. Where possible,
participants were interviewed in a different room from the first session or repositioned in the
original room in an attempt to avoid any unprompted effects of physical context reinstatement on
their recall (Dando et al., 2011; Wright & Holliday, 2007). Participants were thanked and debriefed at
the end of the interview. Interviews were audio-recorded for later transcription and coding.
Coding and inter-rater reliability
Each audio-recorded interview was transcribed and, in accordance with previous research, was
coded by the researcher using a scoring template method (Dando et al., 2009b; Dando et al., 2011).
As such, transcripts were coded against 154 quantifiable details from the stimulus film regarding the
events, environment, people and objects observed during the simulated-crime. Each recalled item of
information was coded as either correct if it corresponded with the film, incorrect if it was
discrepant from the film (e.g. the suspect got in the driver’s side rather than the passenger’s side) or
as confabulated if it did not occur or appear in the film. Whether information was recalled in the free
recall or questioning phase during the interview was also coded. Each item was only scored once and
subsequent repetition or rephrasing of the same information was ignored. Furthermore, subjective
and vague responses were discounted and qualifying statements such as ‘I’m not sure’ or ‘I may be
guessing’ were ignored in favour of information contained in the previous or following statement.
Inter-rater reliability was also calculated for measures of participants’ memorial performance. An
independent researcher, unaware of specific experimental hypotheses, coded two randomly
selected transcripts from each interview condition (six in total) after being familiarised with the
template scoring method and supplied with the stimulus film. A series of Pearson correlations
revealed high inter-rater reliability for the amount of correct items, r(4) = .998, p < .001, incorrect
items, r(4) = .929, p = .004, and confabulations, r(4) = .967, p = .001.
15
Results
The following section will utilise a series of one-way ANOVAs to analyse the dependent variables
according to interview condition, namely No MRC, MRC or Sketch MRC interviews. Variables
regarding the number of interview questions and interview duration will initially be analysed, and
where appropriate, ANCOVAs will be used to determine whether these variables should be included
as covariates in subsequent memorial analyses. Measures of participants’ memorial performance
relating to the amount of correct, incorrect and confabulated items recalled as well as accuracy
(shown in Table 1) will then be analysed. Additionally, these memorial measures will also be
considered according to interview phase, namely free recall or questioning (refer to Table 2). All
significant findings will further be explored using Tukey’s HSD post hoc tests at the .05 level of
significance. Finally, the analysis will also consider the types of sketches that participants generated
in the Sketch MRC condition.
Table 1: Means and standard deviations for memorial performance measures, amount of questions and
duration across interview conditions
Interview Condition
Measure
No MRC
MRC
Sketch MRC
(N= 17)
(N= 17)
(N= 17)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Total correct items
34.35
12.80
46.65
9.20
45.00
13.98
Total incorrect items
4.94
2.86
4.76
2.22
4.35
1.90
Total confabulations
1.82
1.91
1.53
1.12
0.94
1.20
Accuracy (%)
81.94
10.36
87.92
4.78
88.69
6.29
Number of questions
3.65
1.27
4.24
1.25
3.53
1.00
Interview duration (minutes)
7.17
1.35
11.77
3.08
10.32
2.87
Interview Analyses
Number of questions. In accordance with previous research (Dando et al., 2011; Wright &
Holliday, 2007), individual probes by the researcher for additional information were coded as
questions (e.g. which door did the suspect enter the car from?), and qualifying statements that
introduced the question topic were disregarded (e.g. you claimed that the suspect got into the car...
which door did the suspect enter the car from?). Subsequent repetitions of the same question were
16
disregarded. Although the mean number of questions varied across interview conditions (refer to
Table 1), an ANOVA showed that these differences were not significant, F(2, 48) = 1.74, p = .187, p2
= .07. As this variable was independent of the experimental manipulation and roughly equal across
interview conditions, it was appropriate to determine whether it should be included as a covariate in
subsequent memorial analyses (Field, 2009; Miller & Chapman, 2001). As such, a series of ANCOVAs
revealed no significant effects of the number of questions on overall amounts of correct items, F(1,
47) = 1.23, p = .272, p2 = .03, incorrect items, F(1, 47) = 1.90, p = .175, p2 = .04, confabulations, F(1,
47) = 0.90, p = .347, p2 = .02 or accuracy, F(1, 47) = 0.80, p = .375, p2 = .02. Subsequent memorial
analyses therefore did not include this variable as a covariate.
Interview duration. It was originally predicted that Sketch MRC interviews would be shorter
in duration than MRC interviews. As such, the duration of each interview (in minutes) was measured
from the end of greet and establish rapport to the end of the closure phase. The mean differences of
duration across interview conditions shown in Table 1 were found to be significant, F(2, 48) = 14.31,
p < .001, p2 = .37. Post-hoc tests revealed that interviews in the No MRC condition were significantly
shorter in duration than MRC and Sketch MRC interviews, p < .001, d = 1.93 and p = .002, d = 1.40
respectively. Although Sketch MRC interviews were 1.45 minutes shorter in duration than MRC
interviews, in support of the original prediction, this difference was not significant, p = .239, d = 0.48.
As interview duration was not independent of the experimental manipulation and significantly
differed across interview conditions, it was inappropriate to determine whether it should be
included as a covariate in subsequent memorial analyses (Field, 2009; Miller & Chapman, 2001).
Overall memorial performance
Means and standard deviations for all measures of participants’ memorial performance are
displayed in Table 1 (total correct items, incorrect items, confabulations and accuracy). Accuracy was
defined by dividing the number of correct items by the total amount of recalled items (i.e. correct,
incorrect and confabulated items). Similarly, a series of one-way ANOVAs will be conducted to
investigate participants’ overall memorial performance across interview conditions and Tukey’s HSD
post-hoc tests will be used to explore significant findings. It was originally predicted that Sketch MRC
and MRC interviews would elicit increased yet similar levels of correct and accurate information
relative to No MRC interviews.
Correct items. The mean differences in correct items recalled across interview conditions
shown in Table 1 were found to be significant, F(2, 48) = 5.12, p = .010, p2 = .18. As such, post-hoc
17
tests showed that both the MRC and Sketch MRC elicited significantly more correct items than the
No MRC condition, p = .013, d = 1.10 and p = .037, d = 0.79 respectively. There were no significant
differences between the two former conditions, p = .918, d = 0.14. Therefore, in accordance with the
original prediction, Sketch MRC and MRC interviews similarly elicited significantly increased levels of
correct items relative to No MRC interviews.
Incorrect items. Although Table 1 showed that fewer incorrect items were recalled in Sketch
MRC interviews relative to MRC and No MRC interviews, an ANOVA showed that these differences
were not significant, F(2, 48) = 0.28, p = .759, p2 = .01. Therefore, roughly similar levels of incorrect
items were recalled by participants across the three interview conditions.
Confabulations. Although Table 1 showed that fewer confabulations were recalled in Sketch
MRC interviews relative to MRC and No MRC interviews, an ANOVA showed that these differences
were not significant, F(2, 48) = 1.62, p = .208, p2 = .06. Therefore, roughly similar levels of
confabulations were made by participants across the three interview conditions.
Accuracy. The mean differences in accuracy across interview conditions shown in Table 1
were found to be significant, F(2, 48) = 4.11, p = .023, p2 = .15. As such, post-hoc tests showed that
Sketch MRC interviews were significantly more accurate than No MRC interviews, p = .031, d = 0.79.
Furthermore, although MRC interviews were more accurate than No MRC interviews, this difference
only approached statistical significance, p = .063, d = 0.74. Additionally, accuracy did not significantly
differ between Sketch MRC and MRC interviews, p = .952, d = 0.14. Therefore in accordance with the
original prediction, MRC manipulations elicited similar levels of accurate information, but only
Sketch MRC interviews elicited significantly more accurate information than No MRC interviews.
Memorial performance according to interview phase
Although aspects of participants’ memorial performance differed significantly across interview
conditions, participants were afforded two phases in which to recall information during each
interview, namely the free recall and questioning phase. Therefore, the analysis will subsequently
consider how participants’ memorial performance in each condition differed according to interview
phase. As such, a series of one-way ANOVAs will be conducted to investigative the effect of
interview conditions on total correct items, incorrect items, confabulations and accuracy according
to interview phase (refer to Table 2). Again, Tukey’s HSD post-hoc tests will be used to explore
significant findings.
18
Free recall phase. The upper half of Table 2 displays means and standard deviations for
participants’ memorial performance in the free recall phase of each interview. An ANOVA revealed a
significant main effect of interview condition on correct items, F(2, 48) = 4.49, p = .016, p2 = .16.
Although the Sketch MRC and MRC did not significantly differ on the amount of correct items
recalled, p = .856, d = 0.18, only the latter condition elicited significantly more correct items relative
to No MRC interviews, p = .019, d = 1.11. Although Table 2 shows that Sketch MRC interviews
elicited an additional 9.12 correct details relative to the No MRC condition, this difference only
approached statistical significance, p = .067, d = 0.70. Furthermore, although there were significant
differences in accuracy between interview conditions, F(2, 48) = 3.75, p = .031, p2 = .14, higher
accuracy rates observed in both MRC and Sketch MRC interviews relative to No MRC interviews, only
approached statistical significance, p = .056, d = 0.76 and p = .055, d = 0.73 respectively. Accuracy
was similar between Sketch MRC and MRC interviews, p = 1.00, d = 0.01. Further ANOVAs showed
no significant differences for the amount of incorrect items, F(2, 48) = 0.24, p = .787, p2 = .01, or
confabulations, F(2, 48) = 1.23, p = .301, p2 = .05, across interviews in the free recall phase. These
results therefore suggest that relative to No MRC interviews, participants in the free recall phase of
Sketch MRC and MRC interviews tended to recall slightly more correct and accurate information.
Table 2: Means and standard deviations for memorial performance measures across interview conditions
according to interview phase
Interview Condition
Variable
No MRC
MRC
Sketch MRC
(N= 17)
(N= 17)
(N= 17)
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Free recall - correct items
31.59
11.69
42.82
8.25
40.71
14.15
Free recall - incorrect items
3.88
1.96
3.53
2.10
3.47
1.50
Free recall - confabulations
1.41
1.58
1.29
1.10
0.76
1.09
Free recall - accuracy (%)
84.06
9.14
89.69
5.05
89.72
5.97
Questioning – correct items
2.76
2.19
3.82
1.91
4.29
2.62
Questioning – incorrect items
1.06
1.82
1.24
0.90
0.88
0.99
Questioning – confabulations
0.41
0.62
0.24
0.44
0.18
0.39
Questioning – accuracy (%)
57.89
38.72
70.61
18.85
78.96
19.35
19
Questioning phase. The lower half of Table 2 displays means and standard deviations for
participants’ memorial performance in the questioning phase of each interview condition. A series of
ANOVAs revealed no significant main effects of interview condition on these memorial measures in
the questioning phase: correct items, F(2, 48) = 2.04, p = .141, p2 = .08, incorrect items, F(2, 48) =
0.31, p = .734, p2 = .01, confabulations, F(2, 48) = 1.05, p = .358, p2 = .04 or accuracy, F(2, 48) =
2.58, p = .087, p2 = .10. Therefore, participants’ memorial performance was roughly consistent
across interview conditions in the questioning phase.
Participants’ sketches
As participants in the Sketch MRC condition were given freedom to draw a sketch/plan/diagram of
anything they could recall from the stimulus film to prompt their memories in as much detail as they
wished, examples of participants’ sketches are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3. These examples show
that participants typically sketched either the sequence of events in the stimulus film or the
environmental layout of objects and people within the simulated crime.
Figure 2: Sequence of events exemplar sketch from the Sketch MRC condition
20
Figure 3: Exemplar sketches showing the environmental layout of objects and people in the
simulated-crime from the Sketch MRC condition
Although 14 out of 17 participants (82%) drew sketches consistent with those shown in Figure 2 and
Figure 3, a minority of participants (18%) produced a brief timeline that used only text to outline the
sequence of events in the stimulus film (refer to Figure 4). These sketches were consistent with the
Sketch MRC instructions which permitted participants artistic freedom to draw anything that could
help them remember or explain details from the simulated crime film.
Figure 4: Exemplar sketch from Sketch MRC condition showing a text-based timeline of events
21
Discussion
The current study investigated the efficacy of the Sketch MRC with older adults, by exploring
whether it is a more viable alternative to the original MRC procedure, insofar as it could elicit
comparable levels of accurate information with reduced complexity and duration. Results showed
that relative to No MRC (i.e. control) interviews, Sketch MRC and MRC interviews elicited
comparable and significantly increased amounts of correct items without an associated increase in
incorrect or confabulated items. Despite a large effect size, accuracy rates relative to control
interviews were only significantly higher in Sketch MRC but not MRC interviews. Differences in
duration between these interview conditions did not significantly differ, although Sketch MRC
interviews were marginally shorter. Another finding of note showed that moderate increases in
correct items and accuracy in Sketch MRC and MRC interviews, specifically occurred in the free recall
rather than questioning phase (i.e. where the MRC manipulation occurred). Overall in terms of
memorial performance, results were also consistent with previous research in which modified CI
procedures improved the quantity and quality of older adults’ recall (Holliday et al., 2011; Wright &
Holliday, 2007). Specifically, results showed that the efficacy of the Sketch MRC to enhance younger
adults’ memories (Dando et al., 2009a, 2009b, 2011), was replicated with older adults. The
important findings of the current study are subsequently discussed in further detail below.
As Sketch MRC and MRC interviews elicited significantly more correct items without an increase of
incorrect information, accuracy rates were consequently 6.8% and 6% higher relative to No MRC
interviews respectively. This is inconsistent with existing research with young adults and children
which shows that CIs typically increase the amount of correct information without altering its
accuracy, due to small increases in incorrect information (Holliday, 2003; Holliday & Albon, 2004;
Memon et al., 2010). As such, increased accuracy rates observed in Sketch MRC and MRC interviews
with older adults could potentially be attributed to the environmental support hypothesis. As older
adults typically have insufficient cognitive resources to initiate their own effective memory-retrieval
strategies (Light, 1991; Morrow & Rogers, 2008), participants in the No MRC condition may have
been less accurate due to the absence of an effective retrieval strategy to enhance their recall.
Furthermore, their memorial performance may have also been impaired by the free narrative aspect
of the interview, as older adults typically perform poorly on free recall tasks due to a lack of available
memory cues and prompts (Kelley & Sahakyan, 2003; La Voie & Light, 1994; Luo & Craik, 2008). As
such, participants in Sketch MRC and MRC interviews may have been significantly more accurate due
to their increased reliance upon these memory-retrieval strategies to increase the availability of
contextual cues to improve their subsequent recall. Additionally, the combination of an MRC
22
procedure with the report everything instruction may have also been an effective retrieval strategy
to enhance the accuracy of their recall relative to control participants (Colomb & Ginet, 2012; Milne
& Bull, 2002). Similar to the original MRC, these results suggest that the Sketch MRC procedure was
also able to provide effective environmental support to enhance older participants’ recall relative to
control participants. This suggests that although older adults have the capability to conduct effective
memory-retrieval strategies such as the Sketch MRC, they typically lack the cognitive resources to
spontaneously implement them unaided (Luo & Craik, 2008). Therefore, providing adequate and
effective environmental support prior to retrieval can significantly improve older witnesses’
memories.
Context reinstatement potentially represents an effective form of environmental support for older
witnesses. Current results showed that moderate increases in correct and accurate information in
Sketch MRC and MRC interviews specifically occurred in the free recall phase, where the MRC
manipulation occurred. This suggests that both MRC procedures were able to moderately enhance
the quantity and quality of older participants’ recall independent of subsequent questioning. This is
consistent with previous research which has found that providing external contextual cues prior to
retrieval can enhance older adults’ performance on free recall and recognition tests (Craik &
Schloerscheidt, 2011; Fernandez & Alonso, 2001; Skinner & Fernandes, 2009). In terms of the
environmental support hypothesis, these participants may have been more reliant upon external
contextual cues to enhance their recall relative to control participants, who may have been unable
to spontaneously generate such memory-enhancing cues due to insufficient cognitive resources
(Light, 1991; Morrow & Rogers, 2008). As the current study therefore suggests that context
reinstatement is beneficial for older adults’ memorial performance, police officers’ beliefs that CI
procedures may be inappropriate for older witnesses could be inaccurate (Wright & Holliday, 2005).
Therefore, frontline police officers should attempt to utilise the MRC procedure in some capacity,
where possible, when interviewing older witnesses during volume crime investigation.
Although the MRC manipulations were comparable in terms of memorial performance, unlike
previous research, Sketch MRC interviews were not significantly shorter in duration than MRC
interviews. For example, Dando et al. (2009b) found that despite taking longer to administer than
control interviews, Sketch MRC interviews were still significantly shorter than MRC interviews.
Although duration differences were non-significant in the current study, Sketch MRC interviews
were still 1.45 minutes shorter in duration. Therefore older adults who underwent the Sketch MRC
procedure were still able to recall comparable levels of increased correct and accurate information
in less time than MRC interviews. Although a 12% reduction in duration may not be significant within
23
a research context, this finding may be pertinent to the forensic utility of the Sketch MRC, as police
officers typically report that they have insufficient available time to effectively interview young and
older witnesses (Dando et al., 2008; Wright & Holliday, 2005). Furthermore given that older adults
are more error-prone when drawing relative to younger adults and are also less able to accurately
represent spatial knowledge in pictorial form (Jansen et al., 2010; Van Impe et al., 2011), older
participants’ sketches that depicted the environmental layout of objects and people in the
simulated-crime may have taken longer to complete (refer to Figure 3). Several participants may
have also felt more comfortable producing text-based timelines rather than a sketch due to low selfefficacy in their drawing abilities (refer to Figure 4), which may have consequently taken longer to
complete. Therefore, older participants’ reduced drawing abilities, rather than the amount of time
taken to administer the Sketch MRC and MRC procedures, may have accounted for the nonsignificant duration differences between the conditions.
Although not necessarily shorter than MRC interviews, comparable amounts of increased correct
and accurate information were recalled in the Sketch MRC condition despite reduced interviewer
support. As such, the lack of direct guidance to generate contextual cues did not impact upon the
memorial enhancements of the Sketch MRC relative to the MRC. This suggests that older
participants did not require any additional support other than a sketch-prompt in order to selfgenerate contextual cues to subsequently enhance their recall. These results support the prediction
that contextual cues generated through drawing were sufficient to reduce the cognitive demands of
the interview and enhance older participants’ recall as a result. Therefore in accordance with the
environmental support hypothesis, the external support provided by the Sketch MRC and MRC was
primarily motivated by a reduction in task demands rather than the support of existing cognitive
resources (Morrow & Rogers, 2008; Pachman & Ke, 2012). This could also account for why selfadministered interview (SAI) booklets, which contain written instructions to generate contextual
cues, person descriptions and crime-scene sketches, can enhance younger and older participants’
memories to a similar extent as enhanced CIs (Gabbert et al., 2009; Hope, Gabbert & Fisher, 2011).
As similar amounts of increased correct recall are elicited in such conditions despite the absence of
an interviewer in the SAI, the external support provided by both SAI booklets and enhanced CI
procedures could also be motivated by a reduction in task demands rather than direct interviewer
support. Therefore, effective environmental support that endeavours to reduce the effort of
remembering for older witnesses during investigative interviews may better enhance their accounts
relative to actively guiding them through the interview process.
24
As drawing may have significantly enhanced Sketch MRC participants’ recall by reducing the
cognitive demands of the interview, drawing potentially represents a viable memory-retrieval
strategy for older witnesses. As current participants were given no restrictions whilst drawing and
were also asked open-ended questions, the significant increases of correct and accurate information
was similar to that of child witnesses in similar experimental conditions (Lev-Weisel & Liraz, 2007;
Salmon & Pipe, 2000; Wesson & Salmon, 2001). As drawing encourages children to generate their
own contextual cues to better direct their memory retrieval processes (Katz & Hershkowitz, 2010),
similar principles could apply to older adults when drawing. As such, an increment of self-generated
contextual cues could potentially account for why accuracy rates were only significantly higher in
Sketch MRC but not MRC conditions relative to control interviews. As drawing significantly enhances
the completeness and accuracy of both child and older witnesses’ accounts, official guidelines
recommending that sufficient pens and paper should be provided to witnesses in interview should
be adhered to (Ministry of Justice, 2011).
Although the Sketch MRC significantly increased the amount of correct and accurate information
recalled, it was unable to significantly reduce older participants’ confabulations relative to MRC and
control interviews. This is inconsistent with previous research which has shown that Sketch MRC
interviews typically elicit significantly less confabulations from younger adults relative to other
interview conditions (Dando et al., 2009b, 2011). As older adults are more prone to memory
distortions through both age-related memory deficits and an increased susceptibility to misleading
post-event information (Aizpurua et al., 2009a; Holliday et al., 2011; Saunders & Jess, 2011), they are
typically more confident when they incorrectly report misinformation as fact compared to younger
adults (Cohen & Faulkner, 1989; Dodson & Krueger, 2006; Mitchell, Johnson & Mather, 2003).
Therefore relative to previous younger samples, the Sketch MRC may have been unable to
significantly reduce older participants’ confabulations as they may have been more reluctant to alter
their confidently held false memories. Although the Sketch MRC was unable to rectify these highconfidence confabulations, it still elicited an average of 0.74 fewer confabulations relative to the
other interview conditions. As confabulations represent entirely false pieces of information that can
impair and mislead police investigations (Gabbert et al., 2009), this reduction (albeit small) in older
adults’ confabulations potentially supports the efficacy of the Sketch MRC as a more viable
alternative to the MRC procedure for frontline police officers.
25
Limitations & further research
Several methodological limitations inherent to mock-witness laboratory research potentially
undermined the ecological validity of the current study. For example, participants may have
intentionally increased their efforts to learn the stimulus film in the first session as they were aware
that they would subsequently be questioned on it. This is inconsistent with real-life crime situations,
where witnesses may incidentally learn events that they do not initially understand the significance
of (McMahon, 2000; Wright & Holliday, 2007). Furthermore, the formal nature of investigative police
interviews was not replicated in the current study as participants were aware that it was an
academic research project, were shown an obviously simulated crime-film and were also
interviewed by a young civilian researcher (Vallano & Schreiber Compo, 2011). As this may have
compromised participants’ engagement during the interview process, current participants were
assured of the researcher’s formal interview training and that the current CI procedures were
validated techniques currently used by UK police forces. As older participants’ frustration and
impatience towards younger researchers during CIs may have also undermined their engagement
during the process (Prescott, Milne & Clarke, 2011), the current researcher took sufficient time to
develop meaningful personal rapport on topics unrelated to the current study (Fisher & Geiselman,
2010). Additionally, the use of a stimulus film as opposed to a live staged-event may have also
affected older participants’ memorial performance. Although current participants were able to
effectively reinstate context, they may have been less attentive and interested in a stimulus film due
to a lack of emotional involvement (Dando et al., 2009a; Wong & Read, 2011; Wright & Holliday,
2007). Although a recent meta-analysis suggested that the enhancing effects of original and
enhanced CIs on participants’ recall is similar regardless of presentation method (Memon et al.,
2010), future research should attempt to determine whether the Sketch MRC’s efficacy with older
adults could be extended with a live-staged event.
A limited sample size represents a key methodological limitation of the current study, as several
promising results that supported the Sketch MRC’s efficacy with older adults only approached
statistical significance despite large effect sizes. As the three interview conditions only contained 17
participants each, future research should endeavour to increase sample size and statistical power in
order to more accurately assess the efficacy of the Sketch MRC with older adults. Another limitation
of the current sample related to the consideration of older individuals as a single experimental
group. Although this is consistent with previous eyewitness research (McMahon, 2000, Mello &
Fisher, 1996), more recent research has found significant memorial differences between young-old
(aged 60-74 years) and old-old (aged 75-95 years) participants during modified CIs (Prescott et al.,
26
2011; Wright & Holliday, 2007). Therefore as current participants’ ages ranged from 61 to 96 years,
the current study may have been less sensitive to age-related differences in older adults’ memories.
Future research should therefore examine the Sketch MRC’s efficacy with these specific age groups
to more accurately determine its effects on older adults’ memories.
Although older participants recalled significantly more correct items in Sketch MRC and MRC
interviews, no account was taken of the type of information recalled. For example, Holliday et al.
(2011) found that modified CIs (containing the MRC procedure) typically enhanced older adults’
memories for person and action details relative to environmental and object details. As police
officers typically require witnesses to provide accurate and complete suspect descriptions as well as
a detailed account of events, an increase in such information could have more forensic utility for
police officers (Holliday et al., 2011). Future research should therefore attempt to investigate the
specific type of information that the Sketch MRC is able to elicit from older adults as well as its
forensic relevance (Dando et al., 2011). As children typically recall more forensically relevant
information related to suspects and their actions when asked to draw (Aldridge et al., 2004; Katz &
Hershkowitz, 2010), older adults may also recall similar types of information from event sequence
sketches they typically produce (refer to Figure 2). The Sketch MRC’s forensic utility could be more
accurately determined if the degree of information pertinent to police investigations was analysed.
As older witnesses are more susceptible to having their accounts distorted via misleading and
suggestive post-event information (Saunders & Jess, 2010), future research should address the
efficacy of the Sketch MRC to reduce misinformation effects in older adults. Holliday et al. (2011)
found that relative to control interviews, modified CIs (containing the MRC procedure) were able to
significantly reduce the amount of misinformation reported by older adults at retrieval. As such,
future research should attempt to replicate this finding with the Sketch MRC to ensure that it is a
viable alternative to the MRC procedure. As misleading information is able to impair and impede
police investigations (Gabbert et al., 2009), any findings that suggest the Sketch MRC is able to
reduce older adults’ susceptibility to misleading post-event information would have forensic utility.
Implications and conclusions
As older individuals show specific age-related memory deficits (Holliday et al., 2011) and are more
likely to become victims of distraction burglaries, fraud and theft with an aging population (Office for
National Statistics, 2012; Prescott et al., 2011; Wright & Holliday, 2007), it is important that frontline
police officers can utilise CI procedures that are appropriate to elicit complete and accurate accounts
27
from this demographic. As police officers typically report that the CI is too long and mentally
demanding for older adults (Wright & Holliday, 2005), a CI procedure, such as the Sketch MRC, that
can enhance older witnesses’ memories in less time than the traditional MRC procedure may have
more forensic utility for officers. The Sketch MRC may also reduce the cognitive demands of
interviews for older adults, as it can still significantly enhance their recall despite reduced
interviewer support and increased responsibility to self-generate contextual cues (Dando et al.,
2009b). Furthermore, as police officers typically report that they feel inadequately trained to
interview older witnesses with memory and concentration deficits (Wright & Holliday, 2005), they
may be less willing to utilise the complex MRC procedure to identify salient contextual cues for each
witness (Dando et al., 2009b). Interviewers may therefore favour the Sketch MRC as a less complex
alternative as it only requires them to facilitate the drawing of sketches to elicit a significant
memorial benefit. As older witnesses are also more susceptible to integrate and accept misleading
post-event information into their subsequent recall (Aizpurua et al., 2009a; Saunders & Jess, 2010),
the Sketch MRC may provide less opportunity than the MRC for interviewers to unintentionally
introduce misleading information, as they are less involved in administering the procedure.
Therefore, although Sketch MRC and MRC interviews enhanced older adults’ recall to a similar
extent, these important forensic benefits potentially advocate the use of the Sketch MRC in volume
crime investigations with older adults.
In conclusion, the current study supported the efficacy of a modified context reinstatement
procedure, the Sketch MRC, to significantly improve the quantity and quality of information elicited
from older adults. Results showed that effective environmental support from both Sketch MRC and
MRC procedures were able to enhance older adults’ memories by increasing the availability of
contextual cues. Although these memorial improvements were similar between procedures, the
Sketch MRC elicited significant increases of correct and accurate information despite reduced
guidance from the interviewer. This suggested that MRC manipulations were able to reduce the
cognitive demands of the interview for participants and enhance their recall as a result. Although the
Sketch MRC and MRC were statistically similar in terms of memorial performance, the Sketch MRC
was moderately shorter in duration and potentially easier to administer than the traditional MRC
procedure. Although these differences were not necessarily significant or directly assessed, they
highlight the important benefits that enhance the Sketch MRC’s forensic utility for frontline police
officers. As these officers typically investigate volume crime under significant time constraints, a
shorter and less complex procedure, such as the Sketch MRC, that can overcome older adults’
extensive memorial deficits and enhance their recall, could be a valuable tool for eliciting complete
and accurate accounts from older eyewitnesses.
28
References
ACPO. (2004). Management of volume crime. Bramshill: National Centre for Policing Excellence.
Aizpurua, A., Garcia-Bajos, E., & Migueles, M. (2009). False memories for a robbery in young and
older adults. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 174-187.
Aizpurua, A., Garcia-Bajos, E., & Migueles, M. (2009a). Memory for actions of an event: Older and
younger adults compared. Journal of General Psychology, 136, 428-441.
Aldridge, J., Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P. W., Bowler, L. (2004). Using a human
figure drawing to elicit information from alleged victims of child sexual abuse. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 72, 304-316.
Bensi, L., Nori, R., Gambetti, E., & Giusberti, F. (2011). The enhanced cognitive interview: A study on
the efficacy or shortened variants and single techniques. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23, 311321.
Bower, G. (1967). A multicomponent theory of memory trace. In K.W. Spence & J.T. Spence (Eds.),
The psychology of learning and motivation. New York: Academic Press.
Boyce, M. A., Lindsay, S, D., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (2008). Investigating investigators: Examining the
impact of eyewitness identification evidence on student-investigators. Law and Human Behavior, 32,
439-453.
Brimacombe, C. A., Quinton, N., Nance, N., Garrioch, L. (1997). Is age irrelevant? Perceptions of
young and old adult eyewitnesses. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 619-634.
Buschke, H., Kuslansky, G., Katz, M., Stewart, W. F., Sliwinski, M. J., Eckholdt, H. M., & Lipton, R. B.
(1999). Screening for dementia with the memory impairment screen. Neurology, 52, 231-238.
Carlesimo, G. A., Mauri, M., Graceffa, A. M. S., Fadda, L., Loasses, A., Lorusso, S., & Caltagirone C.
(1998). Memory performances in young, elderly, and very old healthy individuals versus patients
with Alzheimer's disease: Evidence for discontinuity between normal and pathological aging. Journal
of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 20, 14-29.
Clarke, C., & Milne, R. (2001). National evaluation of the PEACE investigative interviewing course.
London: Home Office.
Clifford, B. R., & George, R. (1996). A field evaluation of training in three methods of witness/victim
investigative interviewing. Psychology, Crime & Law, 2, 231-248.
Cohen, G., & Faulkner, D. (1989). Age differences in source forgetting: Effects on reality monitoring
and on eyewitness testimony. Psychology and Aging, 4, 10-17.
Cohen, R. L., Sandler, S. P., & Schroeder, K. (1987). Aging and memory for words and actions: Effects
of item repetition and list length. Psychology and Aging, 4, 280-285.
29
Collins, R., Lincoln, R., & Frank, M. G. (2002). The effect of rapport in forensic interviewing.
Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 9, 69-78.
Colomb, C., & Ginet, M. (2012). The cognitive interview for use with adults: An empirical test of an
alternative mnemonic and of a partial protocol. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 35-47.
Coxon, P., & Valentine, T. (1997). The effects of the age of eyewitnesses on the accuracy and
suggestibility of their testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 415-430.
Craik, F. I. M. (1994). Memory changes in normal aging. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
5, 155–158.
Craik, F. I. M., & Schloerscheidt, A. M. (2011). Age-related differences in recognition memory: Effects
of materials and context change. Psychology and Aging, 26, 671-677.
Dando, C. J., Wilcock, R., Behnkle, C., & Milne, R. (2011). Modifying the cognitive interview:
Countenancing forensic application by enhancing practicability. Psychology, Crime & Law, 17, 491511.
Dando, C., Wilcock, R., & Milne, R. (2008). The cognitive interview: Inexperienced police officers’
perceptions of their witness/victim interviewing practices. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13,
59-70.
Dando, C., Wilcock, R., & Milne, R. (2009). The cognitive interview: Novice police officers’
witness/victim interviewing practices. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 679-696.
Dando, C., Wilcock, R., Milne, R., & Henry, L. (2009a). A modified cognitive interview procedure for
frontline police investigators. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 698-716.
Dando, C., Wilcock, R., & Milne, R. (2009b). The cognitive interview: The efficacy of a modified
mental reinstatement of context procedure for frontline police investigators. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 23, 138-147.
Davis, M. R., McMahon, M., & Greenwood, K. M. (2005). The efficacy of mnemonic components of
the cognitive interview: Towards a shortened variant for time-critical investigations. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 19, 75-93.
Dodson, C., & Kruger, L. E. (2006). I misremember it well: Why older adults are unreliable
eyewitnesses. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 770-775.
Dornburg, C. C., & McDaniel, M. A. (2006). The cognitive interview enhances long-term free recall of
older adults. Psychology and Aging, 21, 196-200.
Emmett, D., Clifford, B. R., & Gwyer, P. (2003). An investigation of the interaction between cognitive
style and context reinstatement on the memory performance of eyewitnesses. Personality and
Individual Differences, 34, 1495-1508.
Fernandez, A., & Alonso, M. A. (2001). The relative value of environmental context reinstatement in
free recall. Psicológica, 22, 253-266.
30
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Fisher, R. P. (2010). Interviewing cooperative witnesses. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 25–
38.
Fisher, R. P., Geiselman, R. E., Amador, M. (1989). Field test of the cognitive interview: Enhancing the
recollection of the actual victims and witnesses of crime. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 722-727.
Fisher, R. P., Geiselman, R. E., Raymond, D. S. (1987). Critical analysis of police interview techniques.
Journal of Police Science and Administration, 15, 177-185.
Fisher, R. P., Mello, E. W., & McCauley, M. R. (1999). Are jurors’ perceptions of eyewitness credibility
affected by the cognitive interview? Psychology, Crime & Law, 5, 167-176.
Fisher, R. P., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2011). Interviewing cooperative witnesses. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 20, 16-19.
Fisher, R., & Geiselman, R. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The
cognitive interview. Springfield: Charles Thomas.
Fisher, R., & Geiselman, R. (2010). The cognitive interview method of conducting police interviews:
Eliciting extensive information and promoting therapeutic jurisprudence. International Journal of
Law and Psychiatry, 33, 321-328.
Gabbert, F., Hope, L., & Fisher, R. P. (2009). Protecting eyewitness evidence: Examining the efficacy
of a self-administered interview tool. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 298-307.
Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., Firstenberg, I., Hutton, L. A., Sullivan, S. J., Avetissian, I. V., & Prosk, A.
L. (1984). Enhancement of eyewitness memory: An empirical evaluation of the cognitive interview.
Journal of Police Science & Administration, 12, 74–80.
Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., MacKinnon, D. P., & Holland, H. L. (1986). Enhancement of eyewitness
memory with the cognitive interview. American Journal of Psychology, 99, 385-401.
George, R. C., & Clifford, B. (1992). Making the most of witnesses. Policing, 8, 298-307.
Hess, T. M., & Hinton, J. T. (2006). Age-related variation in the influences of aging stereotypes on
memory in adulthood. Psychology and Aging, 21, 621-625.
Hewitt, M. (2001). Nine force attrition study. London: The Association of Chief Police Officers of
England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
Holliday, R. E. (2003). Reducing misinformation effects in children with cognitive interviews:
Dissociating recollection and familiarity. Child Development, 74, 728-751.
Holliday, R. E., & Albon, A. J. (2004). Minimising misinformation effect in young children with
cognitive interview mnemonics. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 263-281.
31
Holliday, R. E., Humphries, J. E., Milne, R., Memon, A., Houlder, L., Lyons, A., & Bull, R.
(2011). Reducing misinformation effects in older adults with Cognitive Interview
mnemonics. Psychology and Aging. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0022031.
Hope, L., Gabbert, F., & Fisher, R. P. (2011). From laboratory to the street: Capturing witness
memory using the self-administered interview. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 16, 211-226.
Jansen, P., Schmelter, A., & Heil, M. (2010). Spatial knowledge acquisition in younger and elderly
adults. Experimental Psychology, 57, 54-60.
Katz, C., & Hershkowitz, I. (2010). The effects of drawing on children’s accounts of sexual abuse.
Child Maltreatment, 15, 171-179.
Kebbell, M. R., Milne, R., & Wagstaff, G. F. (1999). The cognitive interview: A survey of its forensic
effectiveness. Psychology, Crime & Law, 5, 101-115.
Kelley, C. M., & Sahakyan, L. (2003). Memory, monitoring, and control in the attainment of memory
accuracy. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 704-721.
Köhnken, G., Milne, R., Memon, A., & Bull, R. (1999). A meta-analysis on the effects of the cognitive
interview. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 5, 3–27.
Köhnken, G., Thürer, C., & Zoberbier, D. (1994). The cognitive interview: Are the interviews’
memories enhanced too? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 13-24.
Koriat, A., & Goldsmith, M. (1996). Monitoring and control processes in the strategic regulation of
memory accuracy. Psychological Review, 103, 490-517.
La Voie, D., & Light, L. L. (1994). Adult age differences in repetition priming: A meta-analysis.
Psychology and Aging, 9, 539-553.
Lev-Wiesel, R., & Liraz, R. (2007). Drawing vs. narratives: Drawing as a tool to encourage
verbalization in children whose fathers are drug abusers. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 12,
65-75.
Light, L. L. (1991). Memory and aging: Four hypotheses in search of data. Annual Review of
Psychology, 43, 333-376.
Luo, L., & Craik, F. I. M. (2008). Aging and memory: A cognitive approach. Canadian Journal of
Psychiatry, 53, 346-353.
McMahon, M. (2000). The effect of the enhanced cognitive interview on recall and confidence in
elderly adults. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 7, 9-32.
Mello, E. W., & Fisher, R. P. (1996). Enhancing older adult eyewitness memory with the cognitive
interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 403-417.
Memon, A., & Bruce, V. (1995). Context effects in episodic studies of verbal and facial memory: A
review. Current Psychological Research and Reviews, Winter, 349-369.
32
Memon, A., Holley, A., Milne, R., Köhnken, G., & Bull, R. (1994). Towards understanding the effects
of interviewer training in evaluating the cognitive interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 641659.
Memon, A., Meissner, C. A., & Fraser, J. (2010). The cognitive interview: A meta-analytic review and
study space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 340-372.
Miller, G. A., & Chapman, J. P. (2001). Misunderstanding analysis of covariance. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 110, 40-48.
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.
Ministry of Justice. (2011). Achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings: Guidance on interviewing
victims and witnesses, and guidance on using special measures. London: Home Office.
Mitchell, A. J., & Malladi, S. (2010). Screening and case-finding tools for the detection of dementia.
Part II: Evidence-based meta-analysis of single-domain tests. American Journal of Geriatric
Psychiatry, 18, 783-800.
Mitchell, K. J., Johnson, M. K., & Mather, M. (2003). Source monitoring and suggestibility to
misinformation: Adult age-related differences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 107-119.
Mitchell, K. J., Johnson, M. K., & Mather, M. (2003). Source monitoring and suggestibility to
misinformation: Adult age-related differences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 107-119.
Morrow, D. G., & Roger, W. A. (2008). Environmental support: An integrative framework. Human
Factors, 50, 589-613.
NPIA. (2009). National investigative interviewing strategy 2009. Wyboston: Special Operations
Centre.
Office for National Statistics (2012). 2011 census: Population and household estimates for England
and Wales, March 2011. Retrieved August 20, 2012 from
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_270487.pdf.
Pachman, M., & Ke, F. (2012). Environmental support hypothesis in designing multimedia training for
older adults: Is less always more? Computers & Education, 58, 100-110.
Prescott, K., Milne, R., & Clarke, J. (2011). How effective is the enhanced cognitive interview when
aiding recall retrieval of older adults including memory for conversation? Journal of Investigative
Psychology and Offender Profiling, 8, 257-270.
Salmon, K., & Pipe, M. E. (2000). Recalling an event one year later: The impact of props, drawing and
a prior interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 99-120.
Saunders, J., & Jess, A. (2010). The effects of age on remember and knowing misinformation.
Memory, 18, 1-11.
Shepherd, E. (1986). Conversational core of policing. Policing, 2, 294-303.
33
Shepherd, E. (1993). Resistance in interviews: The contribution of police perceptions and behaviour.
Issues in Criminological & Legal Psychology, 18, 5-12.
Skinner, E. I., & Fernandes, M. A. (2009). Age-related changes in the use of study context to increase
recollection. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 16, 377-400.
Stein, L. M., & Memon, A. (2006). Testing the efficacy of the cognitive interview in a developing
country. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 597-605.
Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and the retrieval processes in episodic
memory. Psychological Review, 80, 352–373.
Vallano, J. P., Schreiber Compo, N. (2011). A comfortable witness is a good witness: Rapport-building
and susceptibility to misinformation in an investigative mock-crime interview. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 25, 960-970.
Van Impe, A., Coxon, J. P., Goble, D. J., Wenderoth, N., & Swinnen, S. P. (2011). Age-related changes
in brain activation underlying single- and dual-task performance: Visuomanual drawing and mental
arithmetic. Neuropsychologia, 49, 2400-2409.
Wells, G. L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness evidence: Improving its probative value.
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 43-75.
Wesson, M., & Salmon, K. (2001). Drawing and showing: Helping children to report emotionally
laden events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 301-320.
Westera, N. J., Kebbell, M. R., & Milne, R. (2011). Interviewing rape complainants: Police officers’
perceptions of interview format and quality of evidence. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 917-926.
Wight, A. M., & Holliday, R. E. (2005). Police officers’ perceptions of older eyewitnesses. Legal and
Criminological Psychology, 10, 211-223.
Wilcock, R. A., Bull, R., & Vrij, A. (2007). Are old witnesses always poorer witnesses? Identification
accuracy, context reinstatement, own-age bias. Psychology, Crime & Law, 13, 305-316.
Wong, C. K., & Read, J. D. (2011). Positive and negative effects of physical context reinstatement on
eyewitness recall and identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 2-11.
Wright, A. M., & Holliday, R. E. (2007). Enhancing the recall of young, young-old and old-old adults
with cognitive interviews. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 19-43.
34
Appendix A
Ethical approval letter from the FAHS ethics committee of the University of Surrey
35
Appendix B
Certificate for attendance at the Cognitive Interview training session at the University of Portsmouth
36
Appendix C
Mental reinstatement of context instructions for the MRC interview
‘In a moment I am going to ask you to begin and tell me what you can remember about the film...
But before we start, I would like to try and help you remember as much as you can... As I talk to you,
I would like you to think carefully about each of things I say, as I say them... Closing your eyes or
looking at a blank wall or the floor may help you think about each of the things I say to you... To
begin with, I would like you to try think back to the day you saw the film... What had you been doing
that day... What was the weather like... had you seen or spoken to anyone else that day... Now think
about what you had been doing immediately before the film... where exactly had you been... Now I
would like you to think about the room in which you saw the film... Try and get a picture of that
room in your mind... Where exactly you sat... Was there anyone else in the room or nearby... Had
you spoken to them... Now I would like you to focus on the actual film... Think about the very
beginning... Think about what you saw... Think about any objects, people or actions you may have
observed... And how the film ended... When you feel you have a clear picture of that in your mind
and feel ready, please feel free to give me your account of what you can remember from the film
that you saw yesterday...’
37
Appendix D
Mental reinstatement of context instructions for the Sketch MRC interview
‘Now before I ask you for your account, I’d like you to take some time to draw a sketch, plan or
diagram of the events you saw yesterday in the film. Please feel free to include any details you wish
and in as much or little detail as you feel necessary. This isn’t supposed to be a work of art and will
not be formally assessed or marked. The sketch is purely aimed at helping you remember the events
from the film and to also better explain them to me. You may find it useful to describe the sketch
whilst drawing it and please feel free to refer to the sketch at any point during the interview to
clarify your point. When you’ve finished drawing please indicate to me that you’re ready to give me
your account.’
38
Appendix E
Literature review submitted to the University of Surrey in February 2012
Title:
The Efficacy of a modified mental reinstatement of context procedure with
older witnesses
Student: 6022149
Abstract
The cognitive interview (CI) is the current procedure adopted by UK police forces for conducting
investigative interviews with co-operative witnesses. The technique advocates the use of various
mnemonic and communication components in order to enhance both the memory of witnesses and
the interviewer-witness interactions. In its current format, the CI is often regarded by frontline
police officers as too substantial and time consuming for volume crime investigation. Research has
therefore attempted to establish the efficacy of modified CI procedures that are less complex and
time consuming, yet still enhance witness memory. One particular CI component, the mental
reinstatement of context (MRC) enhances witness memory by encouraging witnesses to mentally
reinstate the emotional, environmental and physiological states experienced at the time of the
original event. Although the MRC is one of the most effective CI components, research shows that
police officers frequently omit the MRC or implement poor and incomplete instructions when they
attempt to do so. As the MRC has also been viewed by police officers as a complex and time
consuming process, attempts have been made to identify a more viable alternative for frontline
police officers with limited training and available time. One particular procedure, the sketch MRC,
instructs witnesses to draw a detailed sketch plan of the original event they have experienced during
the interview. Although initial research has shown that the sketch MRC and MRC procedure both
enhance witness memory to a similar level, the sketch MRC is significantly less complex and time
consuming. Although research suggests the sketch MRC may be a valuable investigative tool for
frontline police officers in the investigation of volume crime, the sketch MRC has not been widely
tested with other age groups such as elderly participants. The current study aims to assess the
efficacy of the sketch MRC with elderly participants.
39
Information provided by witnesses and victims2 is essential to any criminal investigation (Dando,
Wilcock, Behnkle & Milne, 2011; Gabbert, Hope & Fisher, 2009). Such information can often provide
more direct evidence of an individual’s guilt and can also establish more developed details of a crime
compared to circumstantial evidence, such as DNA samples or fingerprints (Boyce, Lindsay &
Brimacombe, 2008). As police officers typically gather information from eyewitnesses using formal
investigative interviews, the interview process represents a fundamental investigative tool (Dando,
Wilcock & Milne, 2008; Dando et al., 2011). However, as interviewing is a complicated skill, a police
officer’s individual ability to conduct a witness interview can often determine the quality and
quantity of information they are able to elicit (Dando, Wilcock & Milne, 2009). Therefore, to help
develop police officers’ professional interviewing skills and provide guidance through the process,
interviews in England and Wales are conducted in accordance with the PEACE investigative
interviewing framework (NPIA, 2009; Dando et al., 2011). PEACE (an acronym for the recommended
interview stages: Planning and preparation, Engage and explain, Account, Closure and Evaluation)
advocates the use of two interview techniques; conversation management for more resistant
interviewees (Shepherd, 1986, 1993) and the cognitive interview (hereafter referred to as CI) with
more co-operative witnesses (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992, 2010). The latter is the current focus of this
study.
The Cognitive Interview
The original CI was developed by Geiselman et al. (1984) to enhance the accuracy of eyewitness
accounts and improve police interviewing methods. The original four mnemonic components of the
CI procedure were based on two fundamental memory principles (Wright & Holliday 2007; Wells,
Memon & Penrod, 2006). Firstly, that retrieval for an event is enhanced if the context experienced
during retrieval matches the context experienced at encoding (encoding specificity hypothesis;
Tulving & Thompson, 1973); and secondly, that memories are stored in interconnected nodes
whereby a single memory can be accessed via multiple pathways (multiple trace theory; Bower,
1967). As such, the four mnemonic components of the CI relay instructions for the witness to;
mentally reinstate the environmental, physiological and emotional states experienced at the time of
the event (mental reinstatement of context, MRC); report all details of an event irrespective of
perceived relevance or completeness (report everything); recall events in a different temporal order
such as in reverse (change temporal order); and to recall the event from the perspective of another
2
The term witness will subsequently be used to describe an onlooker and victim of crime.
40
individual or location at the event (change perspective) (Westera, Kebbell & Milne, 2011; Holliday et
al., 2011).
Although initial research found that the four mnemonic CI components enhanced witness memory
relative to standard police interviews (Geiselman, Fisher, MacKinnon & Holland, 1986; Fisher,
Geiselman & Amador, 1989), police officers were found to still have relatively poor communication
skills such as interrupting witnesses and using inappropriate closed and leading questions (Fisher,
Geiselman & Raymond, 1987; George & Clifford, 1992; Fisher, 2010). As such, the enhanced CI
(Fisher & Geiselman, 1992) integrated the original four mnemonic components with social dynamic
and communication strategies, aimed at enhancing both the retrieval process and interviewerwitness interactions. Interviewers were therefore encouraged to build rapport and put the witness
at ease, transfer control of the interview to the witness and use questions appropriate to the
witness’s account (Fisher & Geiselman, 2010; Dando et al., 2011). The dynamic interaction between
these communication strategies and the four mnemonic components therefore formed the basis of
the enhanced CI procedure.
Laboratory and field research has largely supported the efficacy of the original and enhanced CI to
elicit more accurate information from witnesses relative to control interviews (Colomb & Ginet,
2012; Wright & Holliday, 2007; Stein & Memon, 2006; Clifford & George, 1996; Köhnken, Thürer &
Zoberbier, 1994; Fisher et al., 1989; Geiselman et al., 1986). As such, a meta-analysis by Köhnken,
Milne, Memon and Bull (1999) found that original and enhanced CIs elicited an average of 40% more
correct information relative to structured interviews (based on communication strategies) and
standard interviews (lacking structure and interviewer training). Although CIs also elicited a small but
significant increase in the amount of incorrect information recalled, accuracy rates (the proportion
of correct details relative to the total amount of details recalled) were still slightly higher for CIs
(85%) than control interviews (82%). These results therefore showed that in comparison with control
interviews, CIs were able to elicit more correct information without an associated drop in accuracy
(Köhnken et al., 1999). As such results have been replicated in more recent meta-analyses with
studies regarding modified CI procedures as well as child and elderly participants (Memon, Meissner
& Fraser, 2010), research generally shows that the CI is able to increase the quantity of information
without compromising the quality of such information (Dando et al., 2011; Colomb & Ginet, 2012).
As the CI is an effective interview technique for eliciting accurate witness information, it should
therefore be adopted into standard police investigative interviewing procedures (Fisher, 2010).
41
Frontline police officers’ application of the Cognitive Interview
In accordance with the PEACE investigative interviewing framework, all police officers in England
and Wales are currently taught the CI procedure using a tiered building block approach ranging from
Tier 1 to Tier 5 (Dando et al., 2011; Dando, Wilcock, Milne & Henry, 2009a). As all novice police
officers are initially taught the Tier 1 CI procedure, they are typically the least trained and
experienced interviewers. Based on competency and investigative demands, Tier 1 officers are able
to acquire additional and advanced interviewing skills by progressing through the tiered system
(Dando et al., 2009a; Fisher, Milne & Bull, 2011). The Tier 1 CI procedure is primarily constructed of
eight components derived from the enhanced CI (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992); explain the aims of the
interview, build a rapport, mental reinstatement of context, uninterrupted free recall, witness
compatible questioning, never guess, report everything and encourage concentration. Therefore, the
change perspective and change temporal order techniques are typically omitted from Tier 1 CI
training (Dando et al., 2008). The Tier 1 CI procedure is the current focus of this study.
Although all police officers receive Tier 1 training, it is not necessary or appropriate for every officer
to receive the extensive training present in the higher tiers. As non-specialised frontline police
officers investigate less serious crime, they typically do not require more advanced interviewing skills
and often remain at Tier 1 throughout their careers (Dando et al., 2009a). As 70% of volume crimes
(such as assault, robbery and criminal damage) are assigned to frontline police officers for
investigation, they must be able to perform effective investigative interviews on a daily basis
(Hewitt, 2001; Dando et al., 2008). However as investigative interviewing has been identified as a
specific weakness in volume crime investigation (ACPO, 2004), frontline police officers may not
currently be utilising the CI Tier 1 procedure to its full potential.
Research has found that police officers, especially frontline officers, perceive specific CI components
to be more effective during witness interviews than others. For example, Kebbell, Milne and
Wagstaff (1999) surveyed 96 experienced police officers trained in the CI procedure (with an average
of 12 years service), to rate the perceived effectiveness of and how frequently they used the specific
CI components. The results showed that the CI components of rapport building, witness compatible
questioning and report everything were rated more effective and frequently used than the
components of change temporal order, change perspective and transfer interview control.
Importantly these experienced officers reported that they often did not have sufficient time to
conduct full CIs in their investigations (Kebbell et al., 1999). Similarly, Dando et al. (2008) assessed
less experienced frontline police officers’ perceptions of the CI procedure. Similarly, these officers
reported that the most effective and frequently used components were rapport building,
42
uninterrupted free recall, explaining the interview process and report everything. Although not rated
as the most effective or frequently used, 51% of these officers still perceived the MRC component to
be very effective and 58% reported that they almost always /always utilised it as part of their
interviewing technique. Similar to experienced officers, 75% of frontline police officers reported that
they often felt pressured to complete witness interviews in a hurry due to heavy workloads, a lack of
time and demands from senior officers (Dando et al., 2008). This research therefore suggests that as
a result of perceived utility for specific CI components over others and perceived time constraints,
the CI procedure may not be entirely or effectively applied by experienced or frontline police
officers.
Field research into police officers’ application of the CI has typically found that the procedure is
rarely applied effectively or in its entirety (Dando et al., 2011; Clarke & Milne, 2001; Clifford &
George, 1996). For example, Memon, Holley, Milne, Köhnken and Bull (1994) found that officers’
application of the CI was generally poor, with some components such as the MRC being more
frequently applied than witness compatible questioning or change temporal order. Despite the
frequency of application, CI component instructions given to witnesses were generally unclear and
incomplete, suggesting that the CI was not effectively applied by officers (Memon et al., 1994). More
recently, Dando et al. (2009) assessed the extent to which 48 novice Tier 1 police officers utilised the
eight CI components immediately after Tier 1 training. Despite their recent training, the results
showed that none of the officers applied or attempted to apply the CI procedure in its entirety. The
officers were found to use specific CI components such as uninterrupted free recall, rapport building
and explaining the interview process more frequently than others. Of the less frequently used
components, the results showed that a significant proportion of officers made no attempt to use the
report everything (41%), MRC (72%) or never guess (81%) components. As instructions given to
witnesses were also incomplete and unclear (Dando et al., 2009), this research suggests that police
officers rarely apply the CI effectively or in its entirety. This suggests that the quantity and quality of
information elicited by frontline police officers may be compromised due to their partial
implementation of the PEACE CI procedure (Dando et al., 2009a). This is of particular concern as
frontline police officers are tasked with investigating the majority of volume crimes (Hewitt, 2001).
Although CIs are able to elicit more correct information from witnesses without a drop in accuracy
(Memon et al., 2010; Köhnken et al., 1999), research has attempted to address why frontline police
officers often utilise the CI procedure partially and ineffectively. Research suggests that the CI is a
cognitively demanding procedure for the interviewer and requires a substantial degree of flexibility
during an interview (Dando et al., 2011; Kebbell et al., 1999; Clarke & Milne, 2001). Even more
43
experienced police interviewers regard certain CI procedures to be more difficult to apply than
others (Kebbell et al., 1999). Therefore, given that frontline officers receive relatively limited CI
training on witness interviews, typically two days on a five day training course (Dando et al., 2008),
they may find specific components difficult to apply and subsequently neglect them (Dando et al.,
2009a). Frontline police officers have also reported that the entire CI procedure is too excessive and
substantial for the less serious volume crimes they typically investigate, requiring more time to apply
than their workload permits (Dando et al., 2009a; Dando et al., 2008). Therefore, as frontline officers
typically have little experience, limited available training and limited time to fully implement the CI
Tier 1 procedure in volume crime investigation, there is a crucial need for a less complex and less
time consuming CI procedure that is still able to elicit accurate witness information and comply with
the PEACE framework (Dando et al., 2011; Bensi, Nori, Gambetti & Giusberti, 2011; Davis, McMahon
& Greenwood, 2005).
Enhancing the forensic utility of the Cognitive Interview for frontline police officers
According to Fisher (2010), the CI should not be viewed as holistic procedure, but as a ‘toolbox’ of
techniques that can be selectively applied depending on the specific interview requirements.
Therefore, in order to develop a more succinct yet effective modified CI procedure for frontline
police officers, it is crucial to prioritise the CI components that most effectively elicit accurate
witness information (Colomb & Ginet, 2012; Fisher, 2010). As such, Milne and Bull (2002) examined
the efficacy of the original four mnemonic CI components when applied independently, relative to a
control interview. Although the results showed that each CI component elicited no more correct or
incorrect information relative to the control interview; a combination of the MRC and report
everything component elicited significantly more correct information relative to the individual
components, report everything, change perspective and change temporal order. As the MRC also
elicited more information relative to the other CI components, it is potentially one of the most
effective CI mnemonics (Milne & Bull, 2002). Similarly, more recent research by Colomb and Ginet
(2012) has replicated such findings by showing that a combination of the MRC and report everything
component is more effective than change perspective or change temporal order in enhancing the
amount of correct information recalled without compromising accuracy. Therefore, as the provision
of contextual cues at retrieval can elicit more correct information from witnesses without a drop in
accuracy (Wong & Read, 2011; Davis et al., 2005; Emmett, Clifford & Gwyer, 2003; Memon & Bruce,
1995), the MRC represents a highly effective CI mnemonic that should be prioritised in modified CIs
for frontline police officers. This research therefore advocates the current Tier 1 training, whereby
44
police officers are taught highly effective mnemonic CI components, namely a combination of MRC
and report everything.
Although research suggests that the MRC is one of the most effective CI components for eliciting
accurate witness information (Memon et al., 2010; Colomb & Ginet, 2012), it is frequently omitted
by police officers during CIs (Dando et al., 2009; Clarke & Milne, 2001; Clifford & George, 1996).
Although up to 20% of police officers do actually make an attempt to utilise the MRC component
(Dando et al., 2009), it is usually accompanied by incomplete and partial instructions that can impair
the efficacy of the MRC and the subsequent information elicited (Dando et al., 2011; Memon et al.,
1994). Additionally, the MRC is a time consuming and complex procedure that requires the
interviewer to utilise numerous pauses and a slow deliberate presentation style as well as identify
salient contextual retrieval cues compatible with each witness’ individual account (Dando, Wilcock &
Milne, 2009b). As frontline police officers have identified limited available time for full witness CIs in
volume crime investigation (Dando et al., 2008), the MRC component may be difficult to apply,
especially when officers are expected to generate witness-specific contextual retrieval cues.
Therefore despite the beneficial effects the MRC has on witness retrieval, many police officers are
unwilling and/or unable to effectively utilise the MRC during witness interviews (Dando et al.,
2009b). Research has therefore attempted to identify less complex and less time consuming
alternatives to the MRC that may be more practical for modified CIs intended for frontline police
officers.
Although police officers are made familiar with the benefits of sketch plans during interviews and
how they can help witnesses explain what they have experienced (NSLEC, 2004), they do not form
part of the current Tier 1 CI training. However, despite not being instructed to do so, Dando et al.
(2009) found that 44% of recently CI trained police officers still asked their witness to draw a
detailed sketch plan of the crime event during the interview. This suggests that officers therefore
recognise the forensic utility of sketch plans during the interview process. As such, Dando et al.
(2009b) suggested the sketch plan mental reinstatement of context (Sketch MRC) as an alternative to
the original MRC component. The sketch MRC potentially reduces the complexity and cognitive
demands for the interviewer as the witness is responsible for generating their own specific
contextual retrieval cues whilst drawing a sketch plan of the event. Furthermore, drawing a sketch
plan may potentially be less time consuming than the original MRC instructions and may also help
ensure against inappropriate and suggestive retrieval cues during the interview (Dando et al.,
2009b). As the sketch MRC is potentially less time consuming and complex than the original MRC
45
component, research has attempted to assess its effectiveness for potential use by frontline police
officers.
Therefore, in a study by Dando et al. (2009b), the efficacy of the sketch MRC interview was
compared against a traditional MRC and structured interview condition (no-MRC). The interviews
followed a similar phased structure in accordance with the PEACE framework, namely; greet,
establish rapport, explain the interview process, free recall, questioning and closure. The interviews
only differed in the free recall phase where the MRC component was manipulated. Twenty four
hours after viewing a mock-crime films, young adult witnesses (mean age 23) were interviewed with
either a sketch MRC, MRC or structured interview. Analysis of overall memorial performance
(amount of correct and incorrect information, accuracy rates and confabulations) showed that the
sketch MRC was just as effective as the MRC interview and significantly more effective than the
structured interview (no-MRC). Importantly, sketch MRC interviews were found to be significantly
shorter in duration than MRC interviews (10.14 and 12.15 minutes respectively). As the sketch MRC
elicited comparable levels of accurate information in a shorter duration, it potentially represents a
viable alternative to the original MRC component. Similarly, Dando et al. (2011) found that sketch
MRC CIs (excluding the change temporal order and change perspective components) elicited fewer
confabulations (false facts perceived to be true) and more accurate information in a shorter duration
relative to the full enhanced CI procedure (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992). These results therefore
suggest that the sketch MRC may represent a less complex and less time consuming component that
may be more practical for modified CIs intended for frontline police officers.
Although research supports the efficacy of the sketch MRC procedure, its application has been
typically limited to young adult participants (Dando et al., 2011). Although research has widely
identified modified CI procedures that are appropriate and effective for both child and older
participants (Holliday & Albon, 2004; Holliday, 2003; Akehurst, Milne & Köhnken, 2003; Wright &
Holliday, 2007; Holliday et al., 2011), research so far has not attempted to replicate the efficacy of
the sketch MRC with such age groups.
Older adults’ memory and the cognitive interview
Research suggests that memory performance declines with age as older adults tend to perform
worse than younger adults on various memory tasks such as recalling prose (Carlesimo et al., 1998)
or long word lists (Cohen, Sandler & Schroeder, 1987). Older adults are also less accurate and less
complete when recalling events from simulated crimes in relation to younger adults (Aizpurua,
46
Garcia-Bajos & Migueles, 2009). Furthermore similar to children, it has also been found that older
adult’s memories are prone to the misinformation effect; whereby exposure to suggestive and
inaccurate information after an event is typically integrated into their original memory for the event
(Mitchell, Johnson & Mather, 2003; Marche, Jordan & Owre, 2002). Therefore it is important to
establish appropriate CI procedures that are effective at enhancing recall and minimising the
misinformation effect in older adults.
Limited research has addressed the applicability of age-specific modified CI procedures on older
participants. For example, Holliday et al. (2011) assessed the efficacy of a modified CI procedure
(excluding the CP technique) with an older sample aged 60-73. In comparison with a structured
interview, older adults given the modified CI recalled significantly more correct details and were
more accurate overall. Importantly, misinformation effects observed in the structured interview
condition were eliminated when older adults were given the modified CI. These results therefore
suggest that modified CIs are able to enhance recall but more importantly are able to eliminate
misinformation effects in older participants (Holliday et al., 2011). Furthermore, research has shown
that older people benefit more from the CI than young adult as recalling more correct information
(Memon et al., 2010). According to the environmental support hypothesis (Pachman & Ke, 2010;
Craik, 1994), older adults are less likely to spontaneously use their own retrieval strategies during an
interview due to a depletion of available cognitive resources. Therefore the MRC component, which
provides external contextual retrieval cues, may be particularly beneficial to older adults who cannot
implement such memory enhancing strategies unaided (Holliday et al., 2011; Morrow & Rogers,
2008). This research therefore suggests that older adults may be able to take advantage of the
contextual retrieval cues provided by the opportunity to draw a detailed sketch of their memory for
the original event during the sketch MRC procedure.
Therefore the present study aims to replicate previous research by showing that the sketch MRC is a
viable alternative to the original MRC component, by showing that it can elicit a similar level of
accurate information with reduced complexity and duration. Such findings are considered relevant
to establishing a modified CI procedure that is more applicable to frontline police officers who do
not have the necessary time or training to fully implement the current Tier 1 CI procedure.
Furthermore, the present study also aims to assess whether the efficacy of the sketch MRC is
applicable to older participants who are more prone to memory decline and the misinformation
effect. Such findings are considered relevant to establishing a shorter less complex version of the CI
for frontline police officers to use with older witnesses in the investigation of volume crime.
47
Method
Design
A 2 (Age: young, old) x 3 (Interview condition: structured interview, MRC cognitive interview, sketch
MRC cognitive interview) between subjects experimental design was used. The dependent variable
was participants’ memory performance as measured by the amount of correct items recalled,
amount of incorrect items recalled, amount of confabulations, accuracy (proportion of correct recall
as a percentage of overall recall) and type of information recalled (action, environment, object or
person). The duration of each interview was also measured.
Interviewer training
The present researcher (a 23 year old male) conducted all interviews. The researcher attended an
intensive one-day cognitive interview training session at the University of Portsmouth conducted by
experienced CI interviewers (including the co-creator of the procedure, Professor Ron Fisher). The
session covered the basic principles of the CI procedure including social dynamics, rapport building
and non-verbal behaviour such as the use of pauses and eye contact. Also as part of the session, the
researcher completed several mock interviews which were observed and evaluated by an
experienced CI interviewer.
Interview conditions
The procedure of the three interview conditions was based on the phased structure currently taught
to UK police officers (Ministry of Justice, 2011; NPIA, 2009). As such, interviews followed five distinct
phases; (i) greet and establish rapport, (ii) explain, (iii) free recall, (iv) questioning, and (v) closure. All
phases were identical between interview conditions with the exception of the free recall phase,
where the manipulation of the MRC technique took place.
Therefore, each interview began with an informal greet and establish rapport phase where the
interviewer put the participant at ease by greeting them and briefly discussing neutral topics not
associated with the simulated-crime video. The inclusion of such rapport-building during an
interview has been shown to be crucial to improving the accuracy of eyewitness accounts (Vallano &
Schreiber Compo, 2011). During the explain phase, the interviewer explained the nature of the
48
interview to the participant, namely that they would be assisted to remember information from the
simulated-crime video and that they would lead the interview by giving an uninterrupted free
narrative account. Additionally participants were instructed to report everything they could recall,
never guess at information and concentrate as much as possible. In the questioning phase, the
interviewer encouraged participants to elaborate on specific details by asking open-ended questions
based on notes taken during their account in the free recall phase. Additionally, the interviewer used
silent pauses after each answer to prompt further recall and also reminded participants not to guess
and to report everything. During the closure phase, the interviewer summarised the participant’s
account and allowed them the opportunity to amend or alter any details they had provided. The
participants were then thanked for their time and effort. As the manipulation of the MRC technique
occurred in the free recall phase, each manipulation according to interview condition is now
described.
Structured Interview (SI).
In the free recall phase of interviews in this condition, participants were asked to give a full account
of everything they could remember from the simulated-crime video. Importantly the interviewer did
not interrupt this account and allowed sufficient time between pauses to encourage further detail.
Brief notes taken by the interviewer during this account were used to ensure that the questions
asked in the subsequent questioning phase were compatible to the participant’s account.
MRC.
In the free recall phase of interviews in this condition, the interviewer provided verbal instructions to
assist the participant to mentally reinstate the environmental and psychological context related to
the simulated-crime video. These instructions were in accordance with the MRC procedure currently
taught to UK police officers (refer to Appendix A; Ministry of Justice, 2011). The interviewer
delivered the instructions in a slow and timely manner, using 5 second pauses between instructions
to allow sufficient time for the participant to mentally recreate the desired context. Participants
were then asked to give a full account of everything they could remember from the simulated-crime
video whilst the interviewer did not interrupt and made brief notes. Similar to the SI condition, the
interviewer allowed sufficient time between pauses to encourage further detail and used the brief
notes to guide the subsequent questioning phase.
Sketch MRC.
49
In the free recall phase of interviews in this condition, participants were provided with paper and a
pencil and instructed to draw a detailed sketch/plan of the event in the simulated-crime video.
Participants were encouraged to draw as much detail in the sketch as they wished in order to help
them remember and clearly explain the original event. Participants were given unlimited time to
draw the sketch plan before the free recall phase.
Data issues & analysis
Data collection issues
For the purposes of this research, ethical approval has been obtained for a maximum of 80 older
participants. However due to time constraints and previous research, a minimum target of 60 older
participants will be set in order to conduct an effective analysis. In order to overcome any sampling
issues in obtaining enough elderly participants in the community, numerous leaflets, emails and
correspondence have been sent out to ensure a wide coverage of locations. Furthermore, in order to
screen for any memory disorders in older participants, such as dementia, a basic and short dementia
screening questionnaire will be administered before each testing session.
Analysis
For the purposes of this MSc research, all recorded interviews will be transcribed and coded by the
investigator (where appropriate the anonymous transcripts may be coded by an additional volunteer
to assess inter-rater reliability). Information that is reported will be scored as either correct,
incorrect or as a confabulation (mentioning a detail that was not present or did not happen)
according to a coding protocol for the specific crime-video used. A series of ANOVA’s will be used to
analyse content, accuracy and amount of information recalled by the participants in each interview
condition, and compared across the two-age groups. A series of post-hoc tests will be able to
illustrate whether the MRC or sketch MRC interview procedures are able to elicit additional and
more accurate information relative to a structured interview. A further ANOVA will be used to
compare the mean duration of each type of interview.
50
References
ACPO (2004). Management of volume crime. Bramshill: National Centre for Policing Excellence.
Aizpurua, A., Garcia-Bajos, E., & Migueles, M. (2009). False memories for a robbery in young and
older adults. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 174-187.
Akehurst, L., Milne, R., & Köhnken, G. (2003). The effects of children’s age and delay on recall in a
cognitive and structured interview. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 97-107.
Bensi, L., Nori, R., Gambetti, E., & Giusberti, F. (2011). The enhanced cognitive interview: A study on
the efficacy or shortened variants and single techniques. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23, 311321.
Bower, G. (1967). A multicomponent theory of memory trace. In K.W. Spence & J.T. Spence (Eds.),
The psychology of learning and motivation. New York: Academic Press.
Boyce, M. A., Lindsay, S, D., & Brimacombe, C. A. E. (2008). Investigating investigators: Examining the
impact of eyewitness identification evidence on student-investigators. Law and Human Behaviour,
32, 439-453.
Carlesimo, G. A., Mauri, M., Graceffa, A. M. S., Fadda, L., Loasses, A., Lorusso, S., & Caltagirone C.
(1998). Memory performances in young, elderly, and very old healthy individuals versus patients
with Alzheimer's disease: Evidence for discontinuity between normal and pathological aging. Journal
of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 20, 14-29.
Clarke, C., & Milne, R. (2001). National evaluation of the PEACE investigative interviewing course.
London: Home Office.
Clifford, B. R., & George, R. (1996). A field evaluation of training in three methods of witness/victim
investigative interviewing. Psychology, Crime & Law, 2, 231-248.
Cohen, R. L., Sandler, S. P., & Schroeder, K. (1987). Aging and memory for words and actions: Effects
of item repetition and list length. Psychology & Aging, 4, 280-285.
Colomb, C., & Ginet, M. (2012). The cognitive interview for use with adults: An empirical test of an
alternative mnemonic and of a partial protocol. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 35-47.
Craik, F. I. M. (1994). Memory changes in normal aging. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
5, 155–158.
Dando, C. J., Wilcock, R., Behnkle, C., & Milne, R. (2011). Modifying the cognitive interview:
Countenancing forensic application by enhancing practicability. Psychology, Crime & Law, 17, 491511.
51
Dando, C., Wilcock, R., & Milne, R. (2008). The cognitive interview: Inexperienced police officers’
perceptions of their witness/victim interviewing practices. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13,
59-70.
Dando, C., Wilcock, R., & Milne, R. (2009). The cognitive interview: novice police officers’
witness/victim interviewing practices. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 679-696.
Dando, C., Wilcock, R., & Milne, R. (2009b). The cognitive interview: The efficacy of a modified
mental reinstatement of context procedure for frontline police investigators. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 23, 138-147.
Dando, C., Wilcock, R., Milne, R., & Henry, L. (2009a). A modified cognitive interview procedure for
frontline police investigators. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 698-716.
Davis, M. R., McMahon, M., & Greenwood, K. M. (2005). The efficacy of mnemonic components of
the cognitive interview: Towards a shortened variant for time-critical investigations. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 19, 75-93.
Emmett, D., Clifford, B. R., & Gwyer, P. (2003). An investigation of the interaction between cognitive
style and context reinstatement on the memory performance of eyewitnesses. Personality and
Individual Differences, 34, 1495-1508.
Fisher, R. P. (2010). Interviewing cooperative witnesses. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 25–
38.
Fisher, R. P., Geiselman, R. E., Amador, M. (1989). Field test of the cognitive interview: Enhancing the
recollection of the actual victims and witnesses of crime. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 722-727.
Fisher, R. P., Geiselman, R. E., Raymond, D. S. (1987). Critical analysis of police interview techniques.
Journal of Police Science and Administration, 15, 177-185.
Fisher, R. P., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2011). Interviewing cooperative witnesses. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 20, 16-19.
Fisher, R., & Geiselman, R. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The
cognitive interview. Springfield: Charles Thomas.
Fisher, R., & Geiselman, R. (2010). The cognitive interview method of conducting police interviews:
Eliciting extensive information and promoting therapeutic jurisprudence. International Journal of
Law and Psychiatry, 33, 321-328.
Gabbert, F., Hope, L., & Fisher, R. P. (2009). Protecting eyewitness evidence: Examining the efficacy
of a self-administered interview tool. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 298-307.
Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., Firstenberg, I., Hutton, L. A., Sullivan, S. J., Avetissian, I. V., & Prosk, A.
L. (1984). Enhancement of eyewitness memory: An empirical evaluation of the cognitive interview.
Journal of Police Science & Administration, 12, 74–80.
Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., MacKinnon, D. P., & Holland, H. L. (1986). Enhancement of eyewitness
memory with the cognitive interview. American Journal of Psychology, 99, 385-401.
52
George, R. C., & Clifford, B. (1992). Making the most of witnesses. Policing, 8, 298-307.
Hewitt, M. (2001). Nine force attrition study. London: The Association of Chief Police Officers of
England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.
Holliday, R. E. (2003). Reducing misinformation effects in children with cognitive interviews:
Dissociating recollection and familiarity. Child Development, 74, 728-751.
Holliday, R. E., & Albon, A. J. (2004). Minimising misinformation effect in young children with
cognitive interview mnemonics. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 263-281.
Holliday, R. E., Humphries, J. E., Milne, R., Memon, A., Houlder, L., Lyons, A., & Bull, R. (in
press). Reducing misinformation effects in older adults with Cognitive Interview
mnemonics. Psychology & Aging, doi: 10.1037/a0022031.
Kebbell, M. R., Milne, R., & Wagstaff, G. F. (1999). The cognitive interview: A survey of its forensic
effectiveness. Psychology, Crime & Law, 5, 101-115.
Köhnken, G., Milne, R., Memon, A., & Bull, R. (1999). A meta-analysis on the effects of the Cognitive
Interview. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 5, 3–27.
Köhnken, G., Thürer, C., & Zoberbier, D. (1994). The cognitive interview: Are the investigators’
memories enhanced too? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 13-24.
Marche, T. A., Jordan, J. J., & Owre, K. P. (2002). Younger adults can be more suggestible than older
adults: The influence of learning differences on misinformation reporting. Canadian Journal on
Aging, 21, 85-93.
Memon, A., & Bruce, V. (1995). Context effects in episodic studies of verbal and facial memory: A
review. Current Psychological Research and Reviews, Winter, 349-369.
Memon, A., Holley, A., Milne, R., Köhnken, G., & Bull, R. (1994). Towards understanding the effects
of interviewer training in evaluating the cognitive interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 641659.
Memon, A., Meissner, C. A., & Fraser, J. (2010). The cognitive Interview: A meta-analytic review and
study space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 340-372.
Mitchell, K. J., Johnson, M. K., & Mather, M. (2003). Source monitoring and suggestibility to
misinformation: Adult age-related differences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17, 107- 119.
Morrow, D. G., & Rogers, W. A. (2008). Environmental support: An integrative framework. Human
Factors, 50, 589-613.
NPIA. (2009). National investigative interviewing strategy 2009. Wyboston: Special Operations
Centre.
NSLEC. (2004). Practical guide to investigative interviewing. Wyboston, UK: National Centre for
Policing Excellence.
Pachman, M., & Ke, F. (2012). Environmental support hypothesis in designing multimedia training for
older adults: Is less always more? Computers & Education, 58, 100-110.
53
Shepherd, E. (1986). Conversational core of policing. Policing, 2, 294-303.
Shepherd, E. (1993). Resistance in interviews: The contribution of police perceptions and behaviour.
Issues in Criminological & Legal Psychology, 18, 5-12.
Stein, L. M., & Memon, A. (2006). Testing the efficacy of the cognitive interview in a developing
country. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 597-605.
Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. M. (1973). Encoding specificity and the retrieval processes in episodic
memory. Psychological Review, 80, 352–373.
Wells, G. L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness evidence: Improving its probative value.
Psychological Science in the public interest, 7, 43-75.
Westera, N. J., Kebbell, M. R., & Milne, R. (2011). Interviewing rape complainants: Police officers’
perceptions of interview format and quality of evidence. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 917-926.
Wong, C. K., & Read, J. D. (2011). Positive and negative effects of physical context reinstatement on
eyewitness recall and identification. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 2-11.
Wright, A. M., & Holliday, R. E. (2007). Enhancing the recall of young, young-old and old-old adults
with cognitive interviews. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 19-43.
54