library.college.police.uklibrary.college.police.uk/docs/theses/Oldershaw... · Web viewI confirm...

STUDENT NUMBER 475307 01

Why don't experienced specialist investigative police interviewers utilise cognitive techniques during

significant witness interviews?

Mark Oldershaw

University of Portsmouth

Institute of Criminal Justice Studies

October 2012

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment for the requirements of the MSc Criminology and Criminal Psychology degree

`

1



MSc Criminology and Criminal Psychology Degree

Dissertation submitted as partial requirement for the award of MSc in Criminology and

Criminal Psychology.

Title: Why don't experienced specialist investigative police interviewers utilise cognitive

techniques during significant witness interviews?

Submitted by Mark Oldershaw

I confirm that, except where indicated through the proper use of citations and references, this

is my own original work. I confirm that, subject to final approval by the Board of Examiners

of the Institute of Criminal Justice Studies, a copy of this Dissertation may be placed upon the

shelves of the library of the University of Portsmouth and/or made available electronically in

the Library Dissertation repository and may be circulated as required.

Signed

Date 18th October 2012

2


ABSTRACT

Why don't experienced specialist investigative police interviewers utilise cognitive

techniques during significant witness interviews?

The aim of this research was to identify the reasons why cognitive techniques taught during

specialist investigative interview training were not being utilised by practitioners in real life

interviews. The objective was to find out from the police interviewers themselves why the

cognitive techniques that form part of the ECI model are not being used. This was done by

interviewing forty specialist investigative interviewers of the Devon and Cornwall

Constabulary by way of a semi-structured questionnaire. The research identified a highly

significant positive correlation between the interviewers perceptions of effectiveness and their

reported frequency of use of each of the techniques. This study discovered that the cognitive

interview techniques of change perspective and temporal order were reported to be the least

frequently used and were also considered to be the least effective. It is argued that the

officers perceptions of ineffectiveness regarding the temporal order and change perspective

techniques are a direct cause for their lack of use in significant witness interviews. Several

reasons were identified as to why these techniques were considered ineffective. Both

techniques were reported to have been found to confuse witnesses during the interview

process and officers also stated that once these techniques had failed on one occasion they

would be reluctant to try them again. The change perspective technique was reported by

officers to be disliked and inadequately trained. Concerns were also raised about this

technique obtaining hypothetical information from witnesses, which may be unreliable in

court. The TO technique was reported to be too difficult to perform and was also considered

dependant on witness capability or intelligence as to whether it would be effective.

3


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It would not have been possible to undertake this piece of work without the assistance,

guidance and inspiration of a number of people whom I wish to thank:

Dr Becky Milne – my dissertation supervisor.

Detective Inspector Gregg Dawe my first line manager.

All of the ‘ABE Significant’ interviewer’s of the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary.

Most importantly my wife Alice and children Ellie and James, who have had to endure a

significant loss of quality family time whilst I have been taking the time out to study for this

research. Thanks guys it was hugely appreciated.

4


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Page

List of tables 6

Introduction 7

Chapter 1 – Literature Review 9

Chapter 2 – Methodology 26

Chapter 3 – Results 36

Chapter 4 – Discussion 50

Chapter 5 – Conclusion and Recommendations 62

Appendix ‘A’ – Questionnaire 65

Appendix ‘B’ – Excel and SPSS spreadsheets 73

Bibliography 74

5


LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page

Table 1 The Enhanced Cognitive Interview model 19

Table 2 Period of time since participants initial training 39

Table 3 Mean number of interviews undertaken as lead interviewer 40

Table 4 Mean number of interviews undertaken as monitor 41

Table 5 Means table for the participants reported use and their perceived 44

effectiveness of each of the ECI techniques

6


INTRODUCTION

Chapter one identifies the importance of witness evidence in criminal proceedings before

describing the history, nature and extent of police interview training in the United Kingdom.

It explores the development of both the cognitive and enhanced cognitive interviews together

with the research that has examined their effectiveness. It also discusses the research which

has looked at the practitioner’s practical application of the various techniques to real life

interviews highlighting how some techniques are used more frequently than others. It ends by

exposing that the research undertaken to date had failed to examine the reasons as to why

some techniques are used less frequently than others.

Chapter two details the methodology which has been used in this research. It describes the

questionnaire design and the subsequent processes which were undergone in order to perform

this research. It also provides information about the sample of officers who were interviewed

during this study and explains the ethical considerations made prior to the commencement of

this research.

Chapter three details the results of this study and begins with the identification of the

demographic information of the sample. It also examines the participant’s experience of

training and their cognitive interview knowledge. The chapter then identifies the samples

reported frequency of use and their feelings of effectiveness of each of the cognitive interview

7


techniques. In the final section of this chapter the participant’s experience of supervision and

feedback is examined.

Chapter four contains a discussion concerning the relevance of the results of this study in

relation to the real life application of the ECI model to significant witness interviews.

Comparisons are made between the results of the current study against the findings of that of

previous research. The chapter will also expose a number of reasons from the practitioners

themselves as to why the change perspective and change of temporal order techniques are not

so frequently used. At the end of this chapter the limitations of this research are examined.

Chapter five is the final chapter in this dissertation which contains the conclusions from this

research and also proposed recommendations which aim to improve the quality of witness

interviewing in the future.

8


Chapter 1 – Literature Review

This chapter begins by highlighting the importance of witness evidence in criminal

proceedings before moving on to identify the definition of both an interview and also the legal

classification of different categories of witnesses according to United Kingdom (UK) Law.

The chapter then identifies the history, nature and extent of police interview training in the

UK. The development of both the Cognitive Interview (CI) and Enhanced Cognitive

Interview (ECI) are also discussed before critical examination takes place of the research into

the effectiveness of the CI/ECI as methods of obtaining eye witness evidence. Finally

research which has explored the effects of CI training and also the perceived effectiveness and

frequency of use of each of the cognitive techniques is examined. A knowledge gap in this

area of research is identified as the reasons as to why certain cognitive techniques are not

being used by police interviewers, has not been fully explored. This gap in knowledge forms

the basis for the research being undertaken in this dissertation.

A police investigation generally seeks to answer two questions, namely what has happened

and who was responsible (Dando & Milne, 2009, p147). The answers to these questions in

modern criminal investigations can be established by gathering information from a range of

different sources. One of the most important sources in identifying a perpetrator of a crime is

the information provided by witnesses. The Core Investigative Doctrine produced by the

National Centre of Policing Excellence (NCPE) highlights how witness information can direct

an investigation from the outset (NCPE, 2005, p85) and the murder investigation manual

(NCPE, 2006, p198) states “the success of any homicide investigation depends largely on the

9


accuracy and detail of the material obtained from witnesses”. Witness evidence is also

considered to be of major significance to the criminal justice system (Dando, Wilcock, Milne

& Henry, 2009, p713) because comprehensive accounts can determine whether a case is

successfully prosecuted (Fyfe & Smith, 2007, p450). Two leading defence counsel

themselves contended, “The bedrock of the adversarial process is the evidence of witnesses

for the prosecution, not the confession of the accused” (Wolchover & Heaton-Armstrong,

1997, p855). Research has further identified that witness testimony when presented at court is

a significant factor that can influence the outcome of proceedings (Geiselman & Fisher, 1986,

p26). Therefore, obtaining full and accurate witness accounts is of paramount importance to

ensure justice prevails (Memon & Bull, 1991, p291).

The term witness is used hereafter to describe both a bystander who has seen a crime

occurring and also the victim of a crime themselves. Numerous agencies converse with

witnesses, although in the majority of criminal investigations it is the police who gather their

information. The term used for this process is an interview which involves communication

between the officer and witness to establish an account of the event that was seen or

experienced. Each individual involved in the interview process communicates information

based on how they define the world and also in relation to their own past encounters of life’s

many and varied experiences (Shepherd, 1991, p42). The interviewing of witnesses in

criminal investigations is a fundamental function of policing worldwide (Griffiths & Milne,

2005, p167). Traditionally police interviews were recorded by a written statement under

section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 although since the introduction of the Criminal

Justice Act 2003 a visual recording of the communication is now sometimes legally required.

This is dependent on whether a witness is legally defined as significant, vulnerable or

intimidated.

10


Vulnerable witnesses are defined by section 16 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999

(as amended by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009). Under section 16(1) Children under the age

of 18 are defined as vulnerable by reason of their age. Section 16(2) also identifies the

following three types of witness as vulnerable:

Witnesses who have a mental disorder as defined by the Mental Health Act 1983 (as

amended by the Mental Health Act 2007).

Witnesses significantly impaired in relation to intelligence and social functioning

(witnesses who have a learning disability); and

Witnesses who have a physical disability.

Intimidated witnesses are defined by section 17 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence

Act 1999 as those whose quality of evidence is likely to be diminished by reason of fear or

distress. These definitions have been defined in the Home Office Publication “Achieving Best

Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance on Interviewing Victims and Witnesses and

using Special Measures” (Home Office, 2011). Significant witnesses are defined in the

murder investigation manual (NCPE, 2006, p204) as such if they “Have claimed to have

witnessed, visually or otherwise, an indictable offence, part of such an offence or events

closely connected with it (including any incriminating comments made by the suspected

offender either before or after the offence); and/or have a particular relationship to the victim

or have a central position in an investigation into an indictable offence”. This definition is

rather subjective and serves as a catchall allowing any kind of witness to be included in this

category if they are deemed by the Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) to occupy a central

11


position in the investigation of an indictable offence. This research focuses specifically on the

officers of D&CC who have been trained to interview ‘significant witnesses’.

During the 1980s there were several high profile miscarriages of justice resulting from false

confessions being made by suspects (Snook, Eastwood, Stinson, Tedeschini & House, 2010,

p207) which led to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 being introduced to protect

detained persons’ rights. Part of this new legislation introduced the tape recording of suspect

interviews to prevent a repetition of these earlier miscarriages of justice. The availability of

these recordings led to a significant amount of research into police interviewing. This

prolonged period of scrutiny on suspect interviewing, has more recently led to focus falling on

the evidence of significant witnesses in criminal proceedings (Griffiths & Milne, 2005, p168).

In fact during the 1980s there were more empirical studies made into eyewitness testimony

than in any other area (Kapardis, 2003, p22).

Investigative interviewing is a highly complex skill which requires appropriate training

although prior to the early 1990s police officers received little or no interview training

(George, 1991, p5). Instead they relied upon learning from colleagues or supervisors ‘on-the-

job’ (Clifford & George, 1996, p231). As a result their interviews were found to be poorly

conducted due to ineffective communication on behalf of the officers (Dando & Milne, 2009,

p4). Following advice from academics in 1992 a national police training package for

interviewing called PEACE was introduced in England and Wales (Gudjonsson, 2007, p470).

The introduction of PEACE training was considered to be “a significant step in the evolution

of investigative interviewing” (Griffiths, 2008, p5). The package was primarily suspect

12


focused and provided two methods of obtaining information: conversation management (CM)

and the CI (Conway & Holmes, 2008, p32).

In 2001 Clarke and Milne (2001, p106) conducted an evaluation of police interviewing in the

UK and found that despite the introduction of the PEACE interview training model a poor

skill level of interviewing remained. Following their recommendations in 2002 the National

Investigative Interview Strategic Steering Group introduced a new five-tier interview strategy.

This tiered system was designed to equip officers with appropriate training depending on

service length and crime type (Griffiths & Milne, 2005, p167). The tiered system has more

recently been linked into the Professionalising Investigation Programme (PIP) which allows

police learning, development and also a structured assessment process according to levels of

investigative experience (NCPE, 2006a). Officers new to investigative roles start at PIP level

one, the more experienced detectives are PIP level two whilst SIO’s and interview advisors

are PIP level three. The PIP incorporates a limited amount of training in the CI/ECI into

interview training at all levels.

The proven effectiveness of the CI/ECI in the academic world has led to its inclusion in all

UK police interview training (Kebbell, Milne & Wagstaff, 1999, p102). The current England

and Wales police training is called the Initial Police Learning and Development Programme.

One week of this training package is dedicated to interviewing and it is delivered to all

officers during their two year probationer period in all 43 independent UK police forces.

However only two days of this training addresses the interviewing of witnesses. This is

clearly not long enough considering that witness evidence is of such high importance to the

obtaining of a successful prosecution.

13


The CI was developed in 1984 by Ronald Fisher and Edward Geiselman, designed to enhance

both the quality and quantity of information obtained from witnesses. Several retrieval

strategies were identified which were effective in promoting the access of otherwise

inaccessible information (Geiselman, Fisher, Firstenberg, Hutton, Sullivan, Avetissian &

Prosk, 1984, p74). The CI enhances interviewee memory performance through cognitive

based retrieval-enhancement techniques. It utilises what psychologists know about human

memory and also knowledge on social interactions including how to best manage

communication between an interviewee and interviewer (Memon, 1999, p344). The original

CI consisted of four retrieval components namely; (i) mental reinstatement of context (MRC),

(ii) report everything (RE), (iii) recall in a variety of temporal orders (TO), and (iv) change

perspectives (CP) (Geiselman, Fisher, Cohen, Holland, & Surtes, 1986, p33). These four

components were included in the CI model based on earlier studies into memory by Tulving

and Thompson (1973, p353) and Bower in 1967 (Gross, 2009, p357).

The MRC technique encourages the witness to mentally reinstate the psychological and

physical environment at the time of the to-be-remembered (TBR) event in order to trigger

retrieval cues. Through a process of mini statements with regular pauses the interviewer

recreates the context of the TBR event (Dando & Milne, 2009, p151) helping interviewees to

focus and stopping other distractions from hindering memory recall. The beneficial effects of

MRC have been well established (Memon, 1999, p344).

The RE component allows witnesses to describe all the information they have stored

regarding the TBR event. Interviewees are unlikely to be familiar with the interview

procedure and will expect the police to have knowledge about the event and as a result may

14


withhold important information (Griffiths & Milne, 2009, p8). By reporting everything, more

information is available and composite pieces of information can be of great investigative

value (Dando & Milne, 2009, p154). Partial or apparently insignificant information may also

serve as a cue to other previously inaccessible memory codes. This component is also

important to a successful interview process as from an early age people learn to interact with

each other according to social rules. One such rule known as the ‘maxim of quantity’ is

where it is considered rude to dominate a conversation by doing the majority of the talking.

In order to break this communication rule the RE instruction lets the interviewee know it is

acceptable to be doing all the talking (Griffiths & Milne, 2009, p8). For these reasons the RE

component was included in the CI.

The TO component is based on the theoretical assumption that memory retrieval can be

influenced by prior knowledge and the application of schemas and scripts (Dando & Milne,

2009, p154). Bartlett’s 1932 (cited in Gross, 2009, p228) theory of reconstructive memory

contended knowledge was stored in memory as a set of schemas. A chronological witness’s

account allows the use of schemas and scripts from previous knowledge to assist in

formulating an account. Through encouragement to recall the TBR event in different

sequences the use of scripts to recall information is reduced. By recalling events in reverse

order the witness is forced to examine their actual memory looking for benchmarks

(Geiselman & Fisher, 1986, p28). This method causes the interviewee to examine memory in

a different way resulting in additional information being reported.

The CP technique aims to access memory codes that other methods failed to reach. In this

approach the interviewee is asked to recall the TBR event from the perspective of another

15


person who was present (Milne & Bull, 1999, p37). A study by Anderson and Pichert in 1978

(cited in Milne & Bull, 1999, p37) led to the inclusion of this technique. In this study

participants were asked to read a narrative about two boys who visited a house whilst

truanting from school. The narrative contained a lot of descriptive information about the

house such as the location of burglar alarms and rising damp as examples. The sample were

then split in two and were asked to supply as much information as they could about the house

from either the perspective of a house buyer or burglar. Once the participants had written

down as much information as they could remember about the narrative they were told to shift

perspectives. More detail was found to be forthcoming once the group had shifted

perspectives. This changing of perspectives afforded participants to remember more

information and was therefore included in the CI model as a method to assist with memory

recall. Despite this technique serving as a useful tool in obtaining more information there has

been some concern regarding its use as it may confuse witnesses or cause them to speculate

(Griffiths & Milne, 2009, p10).

Geiselman et al (1984, p79) conducted the first evaluation of the CI and found an 84%

accuracy rate. Another laboratory study by Brock, Fisher and Cutler (1999, p29) found that

the CI elicited approximately 70% more correct facts compared to a standard police interview

and at equivalent accuracy rates both five minutes and 2 weeks after viewing a recording of a

traffic accident. Several other similar studies have corroborated the CI’s usefulness regardless

of delay (Fisher, 2010, p34). Centofanti and Reece (2006, p678) discovered the CI increased

correct recall by 35% over a standard interview without an accompanying increase in errors or

confabulations. These findings have all been consistently corroborated by numerous other

studies (Dando & Milne, 2009, p12). Kohnken, Milne, Memom and Bull (1999, p19)

conducted a meta-analysis of 42 laboratory tests concerning the CI to see its effects on correct

16


and incorrect recall concluding 41% more correct information was recalled using the CI

compared to a standard interview. These findings have more recently been expanded upon by

Memon, Meissner and Fraser (2010, p2) who conducted a new meta-analysis including the

older research in company with twenty more recent papers. Their study again replicated the

earlier findings of a large and significant increase in correct details with only a small increase

of errors.

One criticism of a majority of the earlier research into the CI was that it was conducted in an

artificial context in laboratories using psychology students as interviewers and witnesses

(Memon, Bull & Smith, 1995, p57). This laboratory based research can however never fully

replicate real life experiences of lengthy and traumatic events (Griffiths & Milne, 2009, p26).

These factors can include the effect of violence, alcohol, drugs or stress at the time of

encoding information (Kapardis, 2003, p53). Earlier studies into the effectiveness of the CI

also failed to examine how competent interviewers were in their understanding of the

cognitive techniques (Memon & Bull, 1991, p292) and neglected to specify the amount and

quality of training provision (Memon & Higham, 1999, p190). These studies also relied on

questionnaires to the neglect of interviewer-interviewee interaction. Despite such

shortcomings research has consistently shown that the CI produces significantly more

information during recall without compromising its quality and as a result the CI has been

described as “one of the most exciting developments in the investigation of eyewitness

memory” (Memon & Higham, 1999, p192).

After acknowledging the downfalls of laboratory based studies Fisher, Geiselman and

Raymond (1987, p177) turned their attention to real-life, examining eleven tape recorded

17


police interviews undertaken by eight experienced detectives. They identified that police

interviews lacked structure and officers used poor questioning techniques, frequently

interrupted witnesses, and displayed a general lack of communication skills. These findings

were corroborated by Fisher, Geiselman, Raymond, Jurkevich, and Warhaftig (1987, p291)

who also found the style of police questioning to be poor with a direct affect on the level and

quality of information recalled. They proposed that interviewer behaviour could potentially

seriously hinder the recall of information. These findings meant the efficacy of the CI was

likely to be compromised also creating the possibility that valuable information would be lost

(Milne & Bull, 1999, p3). Fisher, Geiselman and Raymond (1987, p184) therefore made

several recommendations to improve police interview techniques based on the principles of

the social psychology of communication.

As a result the ECI was developed in order to adapt the original CI to incorporate these

changes with a conversational element added to the four original components (Dando &

Milne, 2009, p14). Several aspects of key communication skills were added to the model

addressing many of the problems identified during the analysis of real police officers

interviews (Memon, Bull & Smith, 1995, p55). The ECI consists of nine phases which are a

combination of effective communication skills and cognitive tools that can be used to assist

with memory retrieval (Griffiths & Milne, 2009, p12). The nine phases of the ECI are

displayed in the table overleaf:

18


Table 1 – The Enhanced Cognitive Interview model

Phase 1 Introduction Greet and personaliseEstablish rapport

Phase 2 Explain the aims of the interview

Focused retrieval Concentrate hardReport EverythingTransfer control

Phase 3 Initiate a free report

Context reinstatementOpen ended questionAllow pauses without interruptionAppropriate non verbal communication

Phase 4 Questioning

Report everythingInterviewee compatible questionsUse of don’t know or understand is okOpen and appropriate closed questions

Phase 5 Varied and extensive retrievalChange the temporal orderChange perspectivesFocus on all senses

Phase 6 Important Investigative Questions

Following advice from interview advisor or monitor

Phase 7 Summary Clarification, addition and amendment

Phase 8 ClosureReturn to rapportExplain future processesProvide contact details

Phase 9 Evaluation

(Adapted from Milne, 2004, p2)

As can be seen from these nine phases the interview model is structured in such a way as to

put the witness at ease, ensure effective communication and maximise the number of memory

recall attempts during the interview process.

19


The first empirical investigation into the effectiveness of the ECI revealed that the technique

elicited 45% more correct items of information compared to the original CI with no difference

in the amount of erroneous recall (Fisher, Geiselman, Raymond, Jurkevich & Warhaftig,

1987, p294). Fisher, Geiselman and Amador (1989, p722) discovered that 47% more

information was obtained by officers employing the ECI technique. A large amount of

research has now demonstrated that the CI/ECI is a reliable interviewing technique across

various populations (Milne & Bull, 2002, p743) including children (Milne & Bull, 2003, p21)

(Akehurst, Milne & Kohnken, 2003, p97), children and adults with or without learning

difficulties (Milne, 1997, p364) and the older adult (Wright & Holliday, 2005, p211). These

advantages in enhancing the quantity and quality of witness information have been

established in research conducted in the UK, USA, Canada as well as a number of European

countries (Dando & Milne, 2009, p165). Some studies have however reported a slight

increase in the amount of incorrect information recalled when using the CI (Dando, Wilcock

& Milne, 2008, p60) and also unreported information is ignored in terms of both amount and

nature as this information is unavailable to researchers (Memon & Higham, 1999, p186).

Despite such criticism the ECI is now the method globally acknowledged as the most

appropriate tool for obtaining witness evidence. All police forces in England and Wales now

incorporate the ECI into interview training with many utilising psychologists to deliver the

theory (Kebbell, Milne & Wagstaff, 1999, p102). More recent research into the CI/ECI has

started to focus on determining the efficacy of particular techniques of the CI rather than the

efficacy of the CI as a whole (Memon & Higham, 1999, p184). Several studies have

identified an entire lack of use of the CI components or that some parts of the CI are used

more frequently and effectively than others (Dando & Milne, 2009, p168).

20


Clifford and George (1996, p231) examined the nature of police interviewers behaviour and

the amount of information obtained following three different types of investigative interview

training. Their control group were not trained at all whilst the other groups were trained in

either, the CI, CM or both models. They discovered that the interview behaviour of the CI

only trained officers changed much more than any of the other groups between pre and post

training phases. One positive outcome of the CI training was that experienced detectives were

more likely to ask for uninterrupted free recall. Clifford and George (1996) had however

anticipated the use of cognitive techniques would have increased with the CI trained group

although they discovered reluctance by the interviewers to utilise each of the techniques

equally. The CP and TO technique were seldom used irrespective of the type of interviewer

or type of incident that had been witnessed (Clifford & George, 1996, p237). Similarly the CI

and CM trained grouped failed to use TO and only one participant used the CP technique

(Clifford & George, 1996, p238). They concluded that the CP technique may be perceived as

a difficult manoeuvre and the TO technique was restrictive to particular scenarios or sequence

of events (Clifford & George, 1996, p244). This study however only had a small sample and

it also failed to include many of the social components of the CI (Kebbell, Milne & Wagstaff,

1999, p103).

Kebbell, Milne and Wagstaff (1999, p101) interviewed 96 officers trained in the CI by use of

a questionnaire and identified a consensus by those officers that some of the techniques were

used more often than others and were perceived to be more effective. Rated as most effective

and more frequently used were rapport, RE, focused retrieval, witness compatible questioning

and MRC. Rated as less useful and less frequently used were transfer control, CP and TO.

This was found to be the case despite the majority of respondents in their study believing that

the CI elicited more correct information from witnesses than a standard interview (Kebbell,

21


Milne & Wagstaff, 1999, p109). They proposed that the less useful and frequently used

techniques were more difficult to communicate to witnesses and also witnesses might find

them confusing to use.

Clarke and Milne (2001, p108) examined 75 UK real-life witness interviews and found no

evidence at all of the CI procedure having been used in 83% of cases. Other UK research by

Dando, Wilcock and Milne (2009, p679) studied 48 inexperienced police officers interviews

and found that within a short time of their initial PEACE interview training that not even one

officer applied or even attempted to apply the CI in its entirety. They also discovered some of

the cognitive techniques were used significantly more frequently than others. The Tier 1

training did not however include the CP or TO technique so their research did not cover this.

Dando, Wilcock and Milne (2008, p59) interviewed 221 inexperienced police officers

regarding their perceived witness interviewing practices. They discovered some officers

reported that they used some of the PEACE CI techniques more frequently than others and

also perceived some techniques to be more effective than others. Reported as the most

frequently used techniques were establish rapport, uninterrupted account, explain the

interview process and RE. The techniques least used were recall in a variety of TO and CP

which most subjects reported never or rarely using.

To date only a limited amount of research has examined the effects of CI interview training

on actual interviewer behaviour. Memon and Higham (1999, p191) proposed that the effects

of training are complex and can depend on a number of factors including duration, quality,

22


background of the interviewers and also attitudes towards training. Memon, Bull and Smith

(1995, p53) examined the effect of CI training on 38 experienced police officers and found

the training to have little impact on the interviewing style of officers as the CI techniques

were not appropriately used and did not produce any significant increases in information

elicited from witnesses. The techniques of MRC, CP and free recall were only made

moderately clear by officers and were not always appropriately used (Memon, Bull & Smith,

1995, p63). It seemed the interviewers had difficulty in explaining what was required to

witnesses and did not make full use of the CI techniques available to them. Memon, Bull and

Smith (1995, p64) argued such a finding questions the ecological validity of the previous

laboratory based studies of the CI/ECI. They also proposed, that without sufficient training

and motivation to use the techniques appropriately the CI would not be effective (Memon,

Bull & Smith, 1995, p66). Their study did however only use a limited detail training phase of

four hours duration.

Why then after the plethora of research identifying such positive outcomes regarding the

CI/ECI aren’t police investigative interviewers using them to their full capability? It seems

various complex and interlinked factors are associated with the practical application of the CI

procedure. Fisher, Geiselman and Amador (1989, p726) noted the CI makes extensive

demands on the interviewer. Dando, Wilcock and Milne (2008, p68) identified inexperienced

investigators found it difficult and cumbersome for use with volume crime interviews also

identifying that participating officers felt under pressure, inadequately trained and ill equipped

to conduct a PEACE CI. Research by Kebbell, Milne and Wagstaff (1999, p103) identified

front line officers felt they did not have the time to conduct a full CI. A finding confirmed by

Dando, Wilcock and Milne (2009, p22) who highlighted that the CI takes a long time to

conduct and police officers experience considerable time constraints whilst on duty. Other

23


factors which have been identified as affecting the practical application of a CI include

officer’s workloads and minimal supervision (Dando, Wilcock & Milne, 2008, p62). Dando,

Wilcock and Milne (2009, p679) proposed either the CI procedure taught to novice police

officers is either too complex or the training they received was insufficient to equip them with

the necessary skills to effectively apply the procedure. A conclusion which could therefore be

drawn from the actual application of the CI is that officers appear un-convinced about its real

world applicability in its full form (Griffiths & Milne, 2009, p23).

Only a scarce amount of research has examined the implications of training for specialist or

advanced investigative interviewers. Griffiths (2008, p5) conducted the first evaluation of an

advanced tier three interview programme for 35 experienced detectives who received three

days ECI training in addition to a 3 week ‘suspect’ interview course. Griffiths examined

interviews with witnesses for major crimes discovering that despite the ECI training the

officers did not make full use of the CI techniques and some techniques were frequently

omitted. He discovered that rapport building, summarising, CP and TO were all poorly

performed or even missing in their entirety from the interviews he assessed. This situation is

not unique to the UK as cognitive techniques taught in training have also been found to be

missing from interviews conducted by the Canadian police (Snook & Keating, 2010, p160)

(Wright & Alison, 2004, p137). Griffiths (2008, p171) suggests that one explanation for these

omissions may be that officers were electing not to use areas of the model they perceived to

be less effective. He concluded that “rather than a deliberate use of certain mnemonics

through a conscious decision the evidence suggests the advanced interviewers lack skill in this

area even after specialist training” (Griffiths, 2008, p172). However his results could be

attributable to the short period of only three days training.

24


More recent research by Gartrell (2011, p38) has studied the transference of interview skills

training into the workplace through the examination of 40 real life interviews from live

investigations’ in Devon and Cornwall. His study looked at the interviewing practices of

‘ABE Significant’ interviewers who had undergone a five day witness interviewing training

course. He discovered the overall interview quality of these advanced investigative

interviewers was below PIP Level 1 PEACE standard and also that the trained cognitive

techniques remained essentially unused, a finding which corroborates the earlier research.

Gartrell’s study also identified both a lack of demonstration and a lack of understanding of the

cognitive techniques used during significant witness interviews. His research did not however

examine the reasons why the cogntive techniques were ommitted from use.

This literature review has identified from numerous academic studies, that cognitive

techniques are not being transferred from interview training into practice during real life

interviews (Dando & Milne, 2009, p168). The previous research undertaken to date however

has not been consistent as to which of the ECI techniques are viewed as the most effective by

investigative interviewers (Griffiths, 2008, p172) and has also failed to identify why certain

techniques of the ECI are used less frequently than others. This research project therefore

aimed to examine why, certain techniques of the CI aren’t being used by a sample of

experienced PIP level two detectives whose interviews had already been found by Gartrell

(2011) to be lacking in the use of the CI techniques taught during training. The research has

explored whether the officers had understood the component parts of the ECI and also

identified from the participants themselves the reasons behind why the techniques are not

being used. The findings of this research are important as they begin to fill the knowledge

gap in this area and can also be used to adapt future interview training to ensure a better use of

cognitive techniques in the future promoting more reliable significant witness information.

25


CHAPTER 2 - METHODOLOGY

Aims

As detailed in the first chapter the literature review identified a significant amount of research

which shows that various cognitive techniques are not being used by practitioners of

investigative interviewing. Despite such findings the reasons as to why specialist

investigative interviewers failed to use certain cognitive techniques has not been fully

explored. As a result this research aimed to explore specialist investigative interviewers

understanding of the nine phases of the ECI and identify from the practioners themselves why

certain cognitive techniques were not being used in significant witness interviews.

Research Strategy

An inductive research strategy was undertaken to explore why specialist investigative

interviewers were not using the cognitive techniques taught during training. This research

design was chosen as it is more flexible than deductive research (Perri & Bellamy, 2012, p77)

and also allowed the researcher to probe for detailed information regarding the samples’

reluctance to use certain cognitive techniques. The collection of this kind of primary research

data can take place using one of three methods namely (i) questionnaires, (ii) interviews or

(iii) observations. Careful consideration was given to the administration of the data gathering

phase of the research. Self administered interviews were avoided as they receive a low

response rate and any questions that appear ambiguous or are misunderstood lead to the

provision of false data by participants (Allison, O’Sullivan, Owen, Rice, Rothwell &

Saunders, 1996, p48). Instead semi-structured face to face interviews using a questionnaire

26


were chosen as this was the most likely method of obtaining current, detailed and accurate

information from the investigative interviewers. This method also allowed the researcher to

seek clarification on any points directly from the subjects (Allison, O’Sullivan, Owen, Rice,

Rothwell & Saunders, 1996, p25).

Procedure

In order to gain authorisation for interviewing Devon and Cornwall Constabulary (D&CC)

police officers an e-mail was sent to the Superintendant who was the organisational lead on

investigative interviewing. His approval was granted on the condition that the information

obtained during the research could be used to improve the quality of investigative

interviewing within the researchers organisation, through the identification of best practice

and also modification of future training. Following authorisation for the study an internal e-

mail explaining the purpose of the research and also asking for participatory consent was sent

out to a target sample of 40 participants. Initially the researcher received a low response rate

to the e-mail so follow up phone calls and e-mails were made eventually resulting in a more

satisfactory response level. All participants were required to e-mail the researcher with their

full informed consent to participate in the study. The sample were not offered any form of

payment for their assistance with the research and the time during which they were

interviewed formed part of their normal working day.

The sample size (N=40) was chosen to ensure an appropriate quantity of responses could be

obtained and analysed from a significant representative proportion (75%) of those employed

to undertake significant witness interviews in the force area studied (N=53). A sample size of

this magnitude was considered to be beneficial as it increases the generisability of the results

27


obtained during the study (Allison, O’Sullivan, Owen, Rice, Rothwell & Saunders, 1996,

p53). The sample selection was not random and consisted of a 20/20 split of male to female

participants. Half of the participants (n=20) were also chosen as they had formed part of

Gartrell’s (2011) sample group of specialist investigative interviewers whose significant

witness interviews had already been identified as demonstrating inadequate use and

understanding of the cognitive techniques. This was a deliberate decision made to ensure that

at least half of the sample had already been found to not be using all the cognitive techniques

during their significant witness interviews.

Ethics

Numerous ethical issues were considered prior to the commencement of this study despite the

fact that none of the participants were ever going to be subject to any form of harm. All of the

participants were suitably briefed regarding the purpose of the research and were also made

aware they could withdraw at any point. The anonymity of the interviews assessed by

Gartrell (2011) meant the researcher conducting this research would not be aware of the level

to which each individual interview was scored thus reducing the risk of role conflict. All data

obtained from participants was held securely on a professional organisations computer

network in accordance with the policing area's internal policies regarding the storage of

confidential data. During the process of the results analysis all data obtained had identifying

features removed to ensure confidentiality for participants. Only a limited amount of personal

data was obtained from the sample during the data collection process which further

guaranteed anonymity for them. The author of this research project alone was the sole

collector of the initial data further reducing the possibility of any issues regarding

participant’s anonymity. The research costs for this project were kept to a minimum as the

28


researcher conducted the interviews within his own workplace with the D&CC incurring all

costs in relation to transport when undertaking the interviews.

Materials

A questionnaire was devised (see appendix A) which allowed critical examination of

specialist investigative interviewers understanding of the nine phases of the ECI and also

exploration as to why the cognitive techniques therein were not being used in real life

significant witness interviews. A semi-structured questionnaire was chosen as it provides

structure to the interview and allows the interview to flow smoothly and in an orderly manner.

This method likewise assists with the recording and documentation of data in a standard

format which aids the processing of data (Hague, 1993, p12). This design was also chosen as

it allows flexibility and increased ability to probe participants in order to identify the reasons

behind certain answers allowing a more detailed, accurate and full understanding of the

information given by each participant (Hague, 1993, p12). It also afforded the participants the

freedom to explore the meaning of questions and ensure that any misunderstandings could

immediately be checked (Allison, O’Sullivan, Owen, Rice, Rothwell & Saunders, 1996,

p108). Descriptive research of this nature also allowed the researcher to seek clarification on

any points directly from the subjects (Allison, O’Sullivan, Owen, Rice, Rothwell & Saunders,

1996, p25). Although this method was time consuming it was favoured as it was the most

likely method to ensure a detailed understanding from the participants as to their choice of use

of one ECI technique over another and also allowed detailed exploration of their

understanding of the ECI model (Bell, 2007, p157).

29


The questionnaire included a mixture of one hundred and two open and closed questions. The

use of open questions was chosen as it allowed the gathering of ‘rich detail’ qualitative

information and also placed no restriction on the amount of detail in any given response

(Lowe, 2007, p79). Closed questions were also asked in order to establish quantitative data

which would allow later statistical analysis. The obtaining of information utilising this

method can however be fallible due to interviewer error whereby the researcher may read

questions incorrectly or record data incorrectly (Willis, 2005, p14). Another disadvantage of

this method is that the data gathering can be time consuming (Allison, O’Sullivan, Owen,

Rice, Rothwell & Saunders, 1996, p48).

A draft questionnaire was sent to the dissertation supervisor and a number of amendments

were made before a pilot of the questionnaire was undertaken. Piloting a questionnaire is

deemed beneficial as any ambiguity or questions requiring clarity can be identified and

changed (Allison, O’Sullivan, Owen, Rice, Rothwell & Saunders, 1996, p95). The pilot was

undertaken with a participant who is a fellow student at the University of Portsmouth who

holds a similar interest in the academic study of the ECI. The feedback was positive and only

a few minor changes were made to the questionnaire before the data gathering process began.

The questionnaire was stored on a laptop computer and was designed in such a way that there

was no limit to the responses given. It was divided into five sections:

Demographic information: In this section participants were asked for their age, gender,

ethnicity, rank, length of service, current role and educational achievements.

30


Cognitive Interview Training: This section explored participants experience of ECI training

and identified when people had been trained, how they rated the training, how the training

could be improved and how confident they felt after the training had been completed.

Experience as a cognitive interviewer: This section was designed to identify the number of

interviews undertaken by the participants together with their experiences of using the ECI

with witnesses identifying other factors that affect the interviewing process. It also looked at

deployment to interviews and whether participants ever felt rushed to complete the ECI

process.

Current Cognitive Interview Knowledge: In this section the participants were asked to

name the four primary CI techniques and then explain their understanding of each of the

techniques. Then a number of questions were asked regarding the frequency of use and

perceived effectiveness of each of the techniques that form the ECI model. The participants

were invited to respond their answers by indicating on a five point Likert scale their own self

reported use of each of the techniques on a scale of 5 to 1. A ‘5’ rating showed a participant

to always try a technique, 4 often, 3 occasionally, 2 rarely with 1 indicative of never using the

technique. After the frequency of use in respect of each of the ECI phase’s participants were

then asked using a similar scale how effective they felt each technique was with 5 indicating

highly effective, 4 very, 3 quite, 2 not very, to 1 indicating not at all effective. Such scaled

response categories are advantageous because they allow the participant to make reliable

judgement on the scale (Hibberd & Bennett, 1990, p81). It was this section that had been

designed to ensure a full understanding as to why techniques were not being used.

Supervision and Feedback: In the final section several questions explored participant’s

experience of supervision and feedback with regard to their use of the ECI.

31


Some of the questions which were included as part of the questionnaire were there on the

basis they would assist the researcher with the delivery of future training in the application of

the ECI within his own organisation. These questions have not formed part of this

dissertation.

Once the questionnaire design had been finalised the researcher began travelling across the

D&CC to interview participants. Initially the administration of the questionnaire was done in

the form of face to face interviews. However due to the time involved and the economic cost

of travelling long distances to interview participants in this manner after 30 interviews had

been completed it was decided the last 10 should take place over the phone. The interviews

lasted between thirty and forty-five minutes each in duration.

Participants

D&CC currently has 3176 police officers and only 53 (2%) of these officers are currently

trained in obtaining evidence from significant witnesses using the ECI. This 2% of ECI

trained officer’s are spread across a vast geographical area covering the counties of both

Devon and Cornwall. They also work in a wide range of departments including local

investigation, major crime investigation, child abuse investigation, traffic, armed response,

financial investigation, uniformed response, rape investigation and the Coroner’s office. The

sample selection for this research was not random and participants were selected from a range

of different locations and a number of different departments. This was done in order to ensure

an accurate reflection of information from the sample without bias towards any particular area

or department. At the time of the interviews the participants all held the skill title ‘ABE

32


Significant’ and were the officers who D&CC would rely on to obtain eye witness evidence

from ‘significant witnesses’ to any major crimes committed within its boundaries.

The samples’ interview experience included obtaining evidence from eye witnesses who had

witnessed some of the most serious of incidents including terrorism, murder, rape, fatal

accidents and armed robberies. The interview process is conducted in one of two ways by the

D&CC. They mainly take place in one of ten interview suites located across the geographical

force area. The suites are situated away from main police buildings and are furnished to make

victims and witnesses feel relaxed in order to assist with rapport building. Next door to the

actual interview room is a room with the monitoring equipment where a second ‘ABE

Significant’ officer will monitor the interview process. The monitoring room is equipped

with Home Office approved recording equipment. Some circumstances dictate that remote

monitoring equipment is used so that interviews can take place at a witness’s home address,

hospital or any other appropriate destination. It is the responsibility of the interviewing team

to choose the most appropriate location in order to obtain the best possibly quality of evidence

from a witness.

The interviewing of practitioners was the only feasable way to answer the research question

and also served to increase the fundamental ecological validty of this research. The specialist

investigative interviewers in this study had all undertaken a one week Tier 2 PEACE

interviewing skills training course and also a one week ECI training course. On the first day

of the latter course legislation, policy and procedure was covered. Then two full days were

dedicated to memory theory and the ECI model of investigative interviewing. Over the final

two days of training practical application of the interview model was attempted by students

33


with stooge witnesses who had witnessed a staged incident. Immediately following this mock

interview process, students underwent peer assessment and received feedback from the

interviewees themselves. The student’s interviews were then also assessed by the course

trainer who is a Tier 5 interview advisor. Once the interviews had been formerly assessed and

were considered to be at a suitable level of ability the students were accredited with the skill

title ‘ABE Significant’ thus making them available to SIO’s for significant witness

interviews. No formal assessment of student’s knowledge occurred at the end of the course

and to date no student has failed to be accredited following the course.

The selection process for applicants to attend the course was role specific and required a

departmental recommendation to cover a skills gap within a given area. The majority of those

selected for training would have demonstrated the necessary interviewing attributes within

their roles and would have been put forward for ECI training by their first line supervisors.

The researcher underwent this training course in 2004 and has interviewed approximately

fifty witnesses using this model since that time. The courses commenced in 2000 and since

this time a total of 144 officers have been trained in the application of the ECI to real life

interviews. This number of trained officers has reduced to the current number of 53 following

retirement, promotion and a change of roles leading to a decline in the numbers of officers

accredited with the skill. The officers who deliver the training are Tier 3 interviewers and

Tier 5 interview advisors who hold current teaching qualifications.

To maintain the skill title ‘ABE Significant’ officers are required to attend a yearly one day

update training session. The training session involves a refreshment of knowledge around the

ECI model and serves to allow the discussion of issues surrounding its practical application.

34


D&CC policy dictates interviewers are also required to undertake a minimum of at least one

interview as monitor and one as lead interviewer each year to maintain the skill title. In

reality the skill title is maintained even if officers are not undertaking this minimum

requirement of interviews provided they can justify why they have not used the skill within

the given time period.

Scoring, Coding and Analysis

All data obtained during this research was saved on the researchers own personal laptop and a

back up copy of all data was also saved on a D&CC computer hard drive. In accordance with

the British Society of Criminology code of ethics towards participants (British Society of

Criminology, 2011) completed questionnaires were anonymised with each document being

attributed a random number of 1-40. Once sanitized the data provided by participants was

then transfered onto an Excel spreadsheet and also Version 20 SPSS to allow analysis of the

data. The Excel spreadsheet also contains the original questions from the questionnaire in

order to assist the reader. An electronic copy of both of these files is attached on a disc at

appendix B. The data obtained in response to the questionnaires was both quantative and

qualative in nature. The quantative data was transferred directly onto the spreadsheets whilst

the qualitative data was coded in order to assist with the analysis of the results. Details of the

coding used is also displayed on both of the attached spreadsheet files. The participants were

asked for information on a Likert scale about their reported frequency of use of the various

cognitive techniques and also how effective they believed each of the techniques to be. The

answers to these questions allowed analysis of the results utilising Pearson r to establish if the

two were correlated. The next chapter details the results obtained during this study following

the analysis which has been undertaken on the raw data.

35


CHAPTER 3 - RESULTS

This chapter reports on the findings of this research firstly by identifying the demographic

details of the sample. Then the participant’s experience of ECI training is explored before

information is provided about their practical experience of undertaking real life ECI’s.

Following on from this factors that affect both interviewer and interviewee performance

during the interview process are highlighted. The samples knowledge and understanding of

the nine phases of the ECI model is then examined together with the interviewers reported use

and their perceived effectiveness of each of the ECI techniques. In the final section of this

chapter the level of supervision and assessment that officers in the D&CC receive is

identified.

Demographic information

In this section of the questionnaire participants were asked questions regarding their age,

gender, ethnicity, rank, length of service, length within current role, other relevant police

interview training and educational achievements. The interviewed sample (N =40) consisted

of twenty male and twenty female participants all of whom self-defined themselves as of

White European ethnicity. The mean age of participants was 44.63 years (SD 6.04) with a

range of between 34 and 57 years. Eight of the participants were uniformed police officers,

twenty-six were detective constables and six were supervisors of the rank of Sergeant. The

participants worked in the following roles for the D&CC: Major Crime Investigation (n=17);

Child Abuse Investigation (n=5); Uniform, Armed Response or Traffic Constables (n=10);

36


Financial Investigation (n=1); Local Criminal Investigation Department (n=5); Crime

Training (n=1) and the Coroner’s Office (n=1). The participants had served in their current

role on average 5.22 years (SD 4.02) with a range of between 3 months and 18 years. The

mean length of service was 20.68 years (SD 6.24) with a range from 10 to 40 years.

With regards to education 11 participants held degree level qualifications, 4 held a diploma or

equivalent qualification, 13 held A-levels with the remaining 12 holding GCSE or O-Level

equivalents. Other relevant interview training undertaken by the sample shows that 28 were

also ‘ABE vulnerable’ trained, 14 were ‘ABE child’ trained, 14 were ‘Advanced Suspect

Interview’ trained and one participant was trained as a Tier 5 interview advisor. The ‘ABE

vulnerable’ trained officers are trained to deal with witnesses who are defined vulnerable by

section 16(2) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (as amended by the

Coroners and Justice Act 2009). The ‘ABE Child’ trained officers have been trained to

interview young persons under the age of 18 years in accordance with section 16(1) of the

Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (as amended by the Coroners and Justice Act

2009). The ‘Advanced Suspect Interview’ training is a three week course which prepares

officer’s to interview for the most complex or serious of crimes such as murder. A ‘Tier 5

Interview Advisor’ is a supervisory officer who has been trained to oversee the interviewing

practices during serious investigations.

What did participants think about their cognitive interview training?

This section of the questionnaire explored participant’s experience of CI training and

identified when people had been trained, how they rated the training, and also how confident

37


they felt to undertake an ECI after the training. Participants were asked how they rated the

training course utilising a Likert scale with 5 representing excellent, 4 representing good, 3

representing average, 2 representing below average and 1 representing poor. This identified

that half (n=20) of the participants rated the training as excellent with a further 19 rating it as

good. The training was reported to be appropriate in length by 34 (85%) participants and 39

(97.5%) claimed they had fully understood the course content. A Likert scale was again used

to establish participants feelings of competence to undertake ECI’s after training with 5

representing fully, 4 representing fairly, 3 representing indifferent, 2 representing not so and 1

representing not at all. This showed 12 (30%) participants felt fully competent with a further

17 (42.5%) feeling fairly confident to lead interviews after the training. Only one person who

did not want to attend the training course in the first instance reported they were not at all well

equipped or competent to conduct interviews.

When asked how an improvement in confidence to undertake CI could be made, 18 (45%)

reported their confidence would increase after practical experience with 7 (17.5%) stating

they had felt confident straight after the training based on their previous ABE visually

recorded interview experience. With regards to the yearly update training offered by D&CC

only 22 (55%) participants felt they had received regular and meaningful training. All bar one

participant (n=39) felt the update training would improve performance. Table 2 shows the

participant’s period of time since initial ECI training and reveals that 36 (90%) of the

participants had been trained at least four years prior to this study and 17 (42.5%) participants

had been trained at least eight years prior to this research. Only 5 (12.5%) participants had

been trained over ten years ago.

38


Table 2 showing period of time since initial training

Time since training (years) Participants M SD

Over 10 5 11.00 NaN

Between 8 and 10 12 8.76 0.86

Between 4 and 7 19 5.49 0.90

Under 4 4 2.25 0.50

The mean period of time since training was 6.83 years (SD 2.65). When asked if participants

had been allowed the opportunity to conduct enough ECI’s to maintain skill and motivational

levels, 22 (55%) reported they had not, expressing a desire to undertake more interviews. A

further 7 (17.5%) members of the sample believed that the D&CC should have less people

trained to allow more opportunity for undertaking interviews. Three officers reported that

candidates for the training should not have been forced onto the course.

What information did the sample provide about their experience as

cognitive interviewers?

This section was designed to identify the experience of the sample gauged by the number of

interviews they had undertaken. It looked at the deployment of officers to interviews and

explored whether participants ever felt rushed to complete the ECI process. It also examined

their experiences of using the ECI with witnesses identifying other factors that affected the

interviewing process. The use of some of the cognitive techniques, although not specific as to

which, were reported by 26 (65%) participants as being used in all other areas of investigative

interviewing including written witness statements, visually recorded ABE interviews, as well

39


as suspect interviews. When participants were asked for the total number of times they had

ever performed the role of lead interviewer in ECI’s a mean of 13.5 (SD 11.11) was identified

with a range of between 2 and 50. Table 3 shows that half of the sample had only undertaken

ten or less interviews as lead interviewer since they had been trained. The mean number of

interviews for these 20 participants was 5.85 (SD 2.78). A further 13 participants had

completed between 11 and 20 interviews since their initial training. Only 7 (17.5%)

participants reported undertaking more than 21 interviews since they had been trained.

Table 3 showing mean number of interviews undertaken as lead interviewer

Number of interviews Participants M SD

2 – 10 20 5.85 2.78

11 – 20 13 14.62 3.04

21-30 4 26.5 3.11

31-40 1 32 NaN

41-50 2 47.5 3.54

The mean period of time elapsed since participants had last undertaken an ECI as lead

interviewer was 12.6 months (SD 10.7) with 17 (42.5%) officers reporting their last interview

had been more than 12 months ago. Two participants reported not having undertaken any

interviews during the previous 3 years. Only eight participants reported having undertaken 3

or 4 interviews during the preceding 12 months. Not even one member of the sample had

undertaken more than four interviews during the previous twelve months. Not surprisingly

when participants were asked whether they had had enough opportunity to conduct interviews

to maintain a good skill and motivational level only 18 (45%) believed they had.

40


When participants were asked the total number of times they had performed the role of

monitor in ECI’s a mean of 11.32 (SD 10.49) interviews was identified with a range of

between 0 and 50. All participants believed the monitor’s role to be crucial to the success of a

good interview and they also all had a very good understanding of their responsibilities when

undertaking this role. Every single participant stated it was the monitor’s role to ensure that

all investigative important questions were covered. Table 4 shows that 25 (62.5%)

participants had undertaken the role of monitor on less than ten occasions with a mean of 5.08

(SD 3.57). Only 7 (17.5%) participants had performed the role of monitor on more than

twenty-one occasions.

Table 4 showing number of ECI interviews undertaken as monitor

Interviews as monitor Participants M SD

0 – 10 25 5.08 3.57

11 – 20 8 14.75 2.60

21-30 6 26.33 2.16

31-40 0 - -

41-50 1 50 NaN

What other factors were identified as effecting the practical application of

the ECI?

This section of the questionnaire was designed to look at the pre-interview processes

including ECI preparation time and pre-interview witness assessment. It also sought to

identify any other factors which could affect the quality of the interview process before finally

examining the deployment of investigative interviewers to significant witness interviews.

Only four participants reported they did not get enough time to prepare for interviews.

41


Overall the sample indicated they would prefer to have a mean average of 41.63 minutes (SD

33.02) in order to prepare for an interview although in reality they reported only having a

mean average time of 34.46 minutes (SD 27.30) to prepare. Nine (22.5%) participants

reported they felt under pressure to rush the actual interview procedure itself. When asked in

what way the interviewers felt under pressure to rush interviews 29 (72.5%) participants

reported they had rushed witnesses into the interview process without the witnesses having

adequate rest and 10 (25%) participants felt rushed to complete the interview as a suspect had

been detained in custody thus needing to be processed within a certain time limit.

It was suggested by 16 (40%) participants that it was the monitor’s role to carry out pre-

interview witness assessments. No formal pre-interview witness assessment taking place

was reported by 12 (30%) of the interviewers with only 2 (5%) reporting utilising the

‘ABE Vulnerable’ witness assessment forms for this purpose. When asked whether in their

experience the ECI had been used with appropriate witnesses 14 (35%) officers reported it

was always used with appropriate witnesses whilst 17 (42.5%) officers reported it was

frequently used with appropriate witnesses. The participants were also asked for their

opinion on what other factors they could identify as affecting the effectiveness of an ECI.

Their responses to this included: police tiredness (n=9), witness tiredness (n=1), the

witnesses willingness to engage or try the techniques (n=5), the deliberate withholding of

information (n=1), the emotional state of the witness (n=2), distance travelled to interview

suite (n=3), period of time into shift or time in the day at which the interview starts (n=2),

lack of food for the interviewer prior to the interview (n=1), commitments with family or

friends after the shift (n=4), hostile or non co-operative witnesses (n=2), officer workload

(n=1), the relationship between the two people in the interview process (n=2) and finally

the role of the witness in the incident (n=1).

42


When asked if they were able to undertake ECI’s when requested 30 (75%) participants stated

they could. Those who could not reported lack of resources (n=2), the period of time to

produce the statement (n=1), workload (n=1), supervisor’s refusal (n=2), annual leave (n=1)

and other operational commitments (n=3) as the reasons why interviews could not be

conducted. Thirty-five (87.5%) of the participants reported that they found conducting an

ECI mentally demanding.

How well did the participants actually know the Cognitive Interview?

In this section participants were asked about their knowledge and understanding of the ECI.

They were asked to describe the ECI model before a number of questions were asked

regarding their frequency of use and their perceived effectiveness of each of the nine phases

of the model. This section had been designed to establish a fuller understanding as to why the

techniques were not being used. Twenty-eight (70%) participants considered themselves to

be up to date with legislation and policy in relation to the interviewing of witnesses. Thirty-

three participants (82.5%) believed that the ECI model was well structured and worked well

as a method for obtaining witness accounts although one person stated it was too “based on

psychology and not police user friendly”. Thirty six (90%) participants were not aware of the

difference between the CI and ECI. Overall the samples’ knowledge of the ECI model was

good as 10 (25%) of them could name all phases of the model with nine of these participants

capable of describing how each of the techniques worked without any reference to an aid

memoire. A further 16 (40%) could name 3 out of the 4 main component parts of the model

with 12 of these participants offering a good explanation as to how each of these techniques

43


functioned. Disappointingly 6 (15%) participants could not name any of the main component

parts of the ECI claiming they relied on a crib sheet to assist when interviewing.

Table 5 shown below clearly identifies that the participants reported that they utilise some

techniques more frequently than others and also that those which are not used as often,

namely CP and TO, are also perceived to be the least effective.

Table 5 showing means for participants reported use and perceived effectiveness of the ECI

techniques.

Technique Frequency Effectiveness

M SD M SD

Rapport 4.85 0.36 4.58 0.59

Focused Retrieval 4.73 0.78 4.4 0.90

Report Everything 4.88 0.65 4.37 0.84

Transfer Control 4.68 0.76 4.58 0.59

MRC 4.82 0.45 4.50 0.72

Temporal Order 3.35 1.23 3.00 1.55

Change Perspectives 2.25 1.06 2.05 1.09

Compatible Q’s 4.85 0.36 4.85 0.36

Sensory Focus 4.43 0.96 4.03 1.12

Sketch Plans 4.6 0.74 4.58 0.93

The CP technique was reported to be the least frequently used and was also considered to be

the least effective. The TO technique was the second least frequently used technique and

again was not considered to be effective. Apart from the CP and TO technique all of the other

44


techniques were reported to be frequently used and were also reported as being effective tools

in obtaining information from witnesses.

Analysis of the mean scores shown in table 5 for the frequency of use and perceived

effectiveness of each of the various techniques using Pearson’s r (two variable parametric

testing) showed the results for both to be highly significantly positively correlated, r(10) =

0.98, p < 0.001. Thus identifying that the techniques rated as the most effective were also

most frequently reported to be used and similarly those rated as the least effective were also

reported to be the least frequently used.

Rapport building was frequently reported to be used and was also considered to be effective.

Rapport building began as soon as the interviewer met the witness according to 22 (55%)

participants and this would take place before the recording equipment was switched on. The

rapport building phase was not reported as being recorded anywhere by 14 (35%) participants

with 2 reporting they kept a formal written record of it in a witness contact log.

Focused Retrieval was also reported to be frequently used and was also considered to be

effective. It was considered effective for the following reasons: it informed witnesses of what

was expected of them preparing them for the hard work required (n=8), it kept witnesses

minds’ focused (n=10) and obtained a lot of information and detail during an account (n=4).

However participants reported some witnesses chose not to engage with this technique (n=2)

whilst other witnesses were found to be easily distracted (n=1). Witness ability or

understanding (n=5) was also considered to affect the effectiveness of this technique.

45


RE was reported to be the most frequently used technique and was also considered to be

effective. It was considered effective as it caused witnesses to offer a large amount of

information (n=14), and made witnesses understand the process being clear of the amount of

information that was required (n=5). Participants also reported some witnesses were selective

in reporting information so detail could be lost (n=5) and that it depended on witness

capability and understanding as to how effective this technique was (n=8).

The transfer control instruction was frequently reported to be used and was also considered to

be effective. It was considered effective as it enables the witness to understand that they will

be doing most of the talking (n=14) and also empowers the witness obtaining a lot of

information as a result (n=15).

MRC was reported to be frequently used and was also considered effective. Participants

reported the technique produced lots of accurate information and detail during a witness

account (n=15) and also that they could actually watch the witness reliving the account during

the interview process (n=5). Several participants reported that witness capability (n=4) or

witness engagement (n=2) affected the effectiveness of this technique. One witness was

reported as unwilling to try the technique as they did not want to relive the trauma of the

original incident. Five (12.5%) participants stated they were not willing to use this technique

with rape victims and only one person reported that they had not had any success using this

method.

46


The TO technique was reported to be the second least frequently used and was also

considered as the second least effective. Ten officers (25%) had used it once and when it had

not worked they would not try it again. One officer reported the technique was too difficult to

perform. It was also reported that the technique had caused confusion amongst witnesses by 6

(15%) participants and was dependant on witness capability (n=5) as to whether the technique

would be successful. Three (7.5%) interviewers reported that the technique was useful to

assess if a witness was telling them the truth. One participant reported they were embarrassed

to use the technique with another reporting that the witness would think they are mad for

trying this technique. Twelve (30%) participants did however report that it had worked in

their experience and gained extra information from witnesses.


the least effective. Only 2 (5%) participants reported they had found the technique to work

whilst 8 (20%) reported the technique had not worked in their experience. When asked why

this technique was not considered to be effective 10 (25%) participants stated it involved

speculation or hypothetical assumptions by the witness and therefore produced unreliable

information. Concerns were also raised (n=3) about how useful evidence obtained using this

method would actually be at court. The technique was also reported as confusing for

witnesses by 6 (15%) participants. Five interviewers reported they did not understand the

technique due to inadequate training. Two participants reported they would get the

information they needed from a witness anyway without having to utilise this technique.

Three of the participants (7.5%) reported they thought the concept was nonsense or they did

not like it.

47


Witness compatible questions were reported to be frequently used and were also considered

effective. This type of questioning was reported to be effective by 20 (50%) of the

participants as it assisted communication and ensured that the witness found the questions

simple and easy to understand. The use of this type of questioning was also considered to put

witnesses at ease allowing them to provide more information during the interview process

(n=9). Nine (22.5%) participants reported that they avoided the use of police jargon anyway

so as to not to alienate witnesses.

The sensory focus technique was reported to be frequently used and was also considered

effective. Significantly 24 (60%) participant’s reported that use of the technique gained extra

information through the triggering of other memories. Only 7 (17.5%) participants reported it

had not worked in their experience.

Sketch plans were reported to be frequently used and were also considered to be effective.

This technique was considered useful in assisting a witness to explain their account and also

for the interviewer to visualise the account or scene by 22 (55%) of participants. Nine

(22.5%) participants identified the technique as a useful further recall attempt which increased

the amount of information obtained. The actual drawing itself had been found to be useful for

either the investigation or court by 3 (7.5%) participants.

How much assessment and feedback regarding their ECI’s did the sample

receive?

48


In the final section of the questionnaire participants were asked a number of questions

regarding their experience of supervision and feedback in relation to their use of the ECI.

Regular interview assessment and feedback was considered as essential to improving both

performance and the quality of information obtained from witnesses by 39 (95%) participants.

In fact 35 (87.5%) participants reported they reviewed their own performance after each

interview undertaken. Despite this only one participant reported they had had their

performance during an ECI formerly assessed by their supervisor although 9 (22.5%)

participants reported that at some point their ECI had been watched as it was taking place by

an interview advisor. Seventeen (42.5%) participants reported they had not received any

feedback regarding their interview performance whilst a further 17 (42.5%) reported they had

received positive feedback for the statement quality from either: the SIO, monitor, CPS or the

Prosecution Counsel. Thirty-four (85%) of the participants had reported that the content of

their written statements had not been compared to that of the DVD recording.

Summary

The most significant finding during this research was the highly significant positive

correlation between the participants reported frequency of use and their perceived

effectiveness of each of the cognitive techniques. The reasons behind these perceptions

which were identified by the investigative interviewers themselves are detailed in the next

chapter.

Chapter 4 – Discussion

49


This chapter discusses the relevance of the findings of this research in relation to the real life

application of the ECI. It compares the findings of the current study to those of previous

research. It exposes several different reasons identified by the investigative interviewers

themselves as to why the TO and CP techniques are not being utilised during significant

witness interviews. In the final section of this chapter several limitations regarding this

research project are identified.

This research aimed to explore the witness interviewing practices of seventy-five percent of

the D&CC’s most experienced specialist investigative interviewers. The studies specific

focus was to explore why the cognitive techniques which are taught during initial ECI training

are not being used when applying the ECI model to real life significant witness interviews. In

order to answer this question this research explored the participant’s self-reported frequency

of use and their perceived effectiveness of each of the ECI techniques. It identified that the

TO and CP techniques were reported to be the least frequently used and were also considered

to be the least effective. It is argued that the officer’s perceived effectiveness of each of the

techniques is directly linked as to how frequently they would choose to use them. As will be

discussed later in this chapter a number of reasons were uncovered as to why the CP and TO

techniques are not being used by practitioners.

This research also examined the participants understanding of the ECI model together with

other factors which affected the practical application of the model in interviews. Overall the

majority of the findings of this study are in corroboration with those of earlier academic

research. Firstly it was discovered that the officers in this study portrayed the ECI as an

invaluable method of obtaining information from witnesses a finding which has previously

50


been identified in other studies (Kebbell, Milne & Wagstaff, 1999, p114). To quote one of

the participants from this study “I am a big fan of the quality of the witness evidence obtained

in this method. I have done ‘ABE Significant’ interviews with people who have already

provided a written statement and you cannot compare the amount of quantity and quality that

the ‘ABE Significant’ method provides”. This study also identified that the ECI was a

welcomed process for the witnesses themselves as the following quotes show “they go away

feeling they have given the best evidence they can. They feel that the police service were

very interested in what they had to say and we are investigating whatever they have witnessed

to the highest degree” and “young to old witnesses provide really detailed statements and

accounts making comments like ‘bloody hell I cannot believe I am remembering all this’ and

they surprise themselves. It is the benefit of putting the witness back there and reliving the

experience.” The fact that the ECI process is welcomed by the interviewees is a positive

finding given the central role that witnesses are currently afforded in the criminal justice

system.

The interviewers genuine belief in the beneficial aspects of the ECI model led a majority of

the participants (n=26) 65% to utilise some of the cognitive techniques in all other areas of

investigative interviewing. This included suspect interviews, the taking of written witness

statements and also visually recorded interviews with vulnerable people. The current research

failed to identify specifically which of the techniques were used in these other areas of

investigative interviewing so future research should examine which techniques are used and

how effective these techniques are. Despite such a positive acceptance of the ECI model as a

successful tool for interviewing these positive beliefs and confidence in the model are not

always being transferred for use in the practical environment (Kebbell, Milne & Wagstaff,

1999, p101).

51


Consistently with previous research this study confirmed that some cognitive techniques are

reported to be used more frequently than others (Memon & Higham, 1999, p192). A majority

of the participants in this study reported they always or often used most of the component

parts of the ECI including rapport building, focused retrieval, RE, transfer control, MRC,

witness compatible questioning, sensory focus and the use of sketch plans. It should however

be noted that during Gartrell’s (2010, p48) study of actual interviewer performance involving

half of the current sample he found that only the RE technique was frequently used. This

could mean that the sample have over reported their use of some of the other techniques. In

this study, only two components, namely CP and TO were frequently and significantly

reported to be omitted from use during the significant witness interviews. This finding does

provide corroboration to Gartrell’s (2011, p48) research which discovered that both of these

techniques were virtually unused and that no understanding of their mechanics was

demonstrated by his sample. Similarly Savage (2007, p50) in his research also reported that

21 officers of West Yorkshire Police also perceived the CP and TO technique to be the least

effective and that these perceptions were in correlation with the perceived frequency of use of

those techniques. Clifford and George (1996, p237) also identified that the CP and TO

techniques were seldom used in their study irrespective of the type of interviewer or type of

incident that had been witnessed.

Why then is it so often found that CP and TO are the least frequently used techniques of the

ECI model? Dando, Wilcock and Milne (2008, p66) suggest it could be that CP and TO are

the most demanding cognitive techniques to use. Whilst Kebbell, Milne and Wagstaff (1999,

p111) propose they are more difficult to communicate to witnesses and may cause confusion.

This study identified that thirty-five of the participants had reported they found conducting an

52


ECI mentally demanding a finding previously highlighted by Dando, Wilcock and Milne

(2008, p61). Fisher, Geiselman and Amador (1989, p726) have noted that the ECI makes

extensive demands on the interviewer and these demands include the interviewer having to

listen attentively, storing questions until an appropriate point and then being prepared to adapt

to the witnesses structuring of detail (Memon, Bull & Smith, 1995, p56). It could be that the

mental capacity required to complete the ECI reduces the interviewer’s ability to use all of the

techniques equally. This research set out to identify the exact reason behind the lack of use of

certain techniques from the investigative interviewers themselves.


the least effective. Surprisingly only two participants reported in their experience that they

had found the technique to work whilst eight reported the technique had not worked when

they had tried it. Two of these participants also reported they had not tried to use the CP

technique again after it had been unsuccessful on the first occasion. Other reasons which

were offered as to why this technique was omitted from use or deemed as an ineffective tool

were as follows: the concept was considered to be nonsense or was disliked (n=4), it had been

found to confuse witnesses (n=6), the training had been misunderstood or was considered

inadequate (n=5), witnesses had already provided a full and detailed account using the other

techniques so application of the CP technique was not necessary (n=2) and finally it was

deemed to provide the least reliable information from witnesses through speculation or

hypothetical assumption which could lead to potential court challenges arising from non

visualised accounts being offered during testimony (n=7).

53


In academic literature this last reason was previously suggested as a potential reason as to

why the CP technique is not being used. As George (1991, p117) states it is not surprisingly a

little used technique as “it is not an easy concept to ask someone to put themselves in

someone else’s shoes to review an event asking them to say what they think they would have

seen, and remain confident that there will be no confabulation”. Similarly as Memon, Bull

and Smith (1995, p64) noted officers have been concerned that this technique could be judged

as inviting fabrication. Memon and Higham (1999, p179) also identified that some police

officers who reported not using CP had also expressed a concern about the possibility of

misleading the witness with this instruction. As detailed above this study has identified that

there are in fact a number of reasons why the CP technique is not being used by practitioners

of investigative interviewing.

In this research the TO technique was reported to be the second least frequently used and was

also considered to be the second least effective of all the techniques. One quarter of the

participants (n=10) reported they had used it once and when it hadn’t worked they simply

failed to try the technique again. The participants also reported not to use this technique as it

had caused confusion amongst witnesses (n=6), was dependant on witness capability as to

whether the technique would be successful (n=5), was considered too difficult a procedure to

perform (n=1) and there was also a perception that the witness would think that interviewers

are trying to trick them or catch them lying (n=1). One participant reported they were too

embarrassed to use the technique. Another officer believed the technique was not something

that came naturally and another commented “I tried this with a witness once… and he said

‘You are having a frigging laugh aren’t you?’ Whenever I have used it the witness looks at me

as if I am mad”. Three of the participants reported that the technique was useful to assess if a

witness was telling them the truth. This is not what the TO was designed to do so it is

54


interesting that these officers consider this technique as a useful tool in detecting lies. Despite

such a negative perception of this technique 12 participants did report the technique had been

found to work in their experience by gaining extra and valuable information from witnesses.

Perhaps somewhat unsurprisingly this study identified a highly significant positive correlation

between the participant’s reported frequency of use and their perceived effectiveness of each

of the techniques. Griffiths (2008, p171) had earlier proposed that this may be a likely cause

as to why some techniques were found not to be used. The interpretation of the results in the

current study leads one to the conclusion that the interviewers only choose to utilise the

cognitive techniques they consider to be effective in obtaining information from witnesses. It

should however be noted as highlighted above that a number of reasons have been identified

by the practitioners as to why the CP and TO techniques are considered to be ineffective.

Interestingly in respect of both CP and TO a number of officers reported that once a technique

had failed on the first occasion they would not try it again in future interviews. It was also

reported that both these techniques had been found to be confusing for witnesses. This

confusion is more than likely to have taken place due to the way in which the techniques were

explained to the witnesses as Gartrell (2010, p48) had discovered the technique instructions

were found to be poorly communicated to witnesses. The lack of use of any of the cognitive

techniques reduces both the activation of memory codes used to recall information and also

the number of retrieval attempts therefore lessoning the amount of information obtained from

the interviewee (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992, p97). Therefore the positive experience of these

techniques in gaining extra witness information by some of the interviewers is something that

55


should be discussed on future update training to increase the use of these techniques by all

interviewers in the future.

The majority of the previous research which has examined the real life application of the ECI

in UK police interviewing has mainly examined the interviewing practices of some of the

least experienced officers in the UK. Dando, Wilcock and Milne (2009, p679) proposed that

the CI procedure was too complex for police recruits at an early stage in their career and/or

the current training was insufficient to equip officers with the skills necessary to effectively

apply the procedure. As we have seen the participants in this study had an average length of

service of 20.68 years making them some of the most experienced officers ever to form the

sample of a research study examining investigative interviewing practices. This vast amount

of policing experience did not however lead to all the ECI techniques being applied in

interviews. The length of service is therefore an unlikely cause for the lack of the cognitive

techniques use. The participants in this study were well educated with just over a quarter

holding degree level qualifications and they also generally demonstrated a good

understanding of the ECI model and its component parts. It is therefore also unlikely that the

officer’s levels of intelligence or understanding of the model are a reason as to why some

techniques are not used.

The actual ECI experience of the sample varied hugely with officers undertaking the lead in

interviews with a range of between 2 and 50 interviews. Only eight participants reported

having undertaken 3 or 4 interviews over a twelve month period and not one participant

reported undertaking more than four interviews during the preceding twelve months. The

researcher knows from employment within the D&CC that in practice the same interviewers

56


are used repeatedly for two reasons i) once an officer has been identified as undertaking a

good interview the SIO, for the success of their own investigation, will want to utilise their

skills again and ii) willing volunteers who undertake interviews without hesitation are asked

to interview repeatedly in order to save time in resourcing other officers for interviews. A

concern which was identified in this study was that seventeen officers (42.5%) reported their

last interview had been more than 12 months ago. This is a finding consistent with Savage’s

(2007, p53) study of Yorkshire Police CI trained officers, half of whom were also found to

have not undertaken an interview in the preceding twelve months. This is a real issue as

unless the interviewers undertake regular interview experience they are likely to lose the

specialist skills and knowledge taught during their training (Fisher, 2010, p33). One way to

improve the number of interviews undertaken by officers could be to have a significant

witness interview co-ordinator who deploys interviewers to interviews on a rota basis.

Another factor which was identified in preventing officers gaining valuable interview

experience was that twenty-five percent of the sample reported they were unable to undertake

interviews when requested. Again in line with previous research findings by Dando, Wilcock

and Milne (2008, p62) this was identified to be related to workloads, other operational

commitments, and a general lack of resources and time preventing officers from typing up the

lengthy detailed statements. This lack of practical interview experience was highlighted by

18 (45%) participants who reported they felt they had not had enough opportunity to conduct

interviews to maintain a good skill and motivational level. This is a major concern

considering the crucial nature of the quality of witness information in ensuring a successful

prosecution (Memon, Bull & Smith, 1995, p63).

57


Several of the earlier studies identified that time, was considered to be an issue which affected

the quality of an ECI. Dando, Wilcock and Milne (2008, p65) discovered that 74% (n=160)

of their sample usually or always felt pressured to rush interviews. Similarly Kebbell, Milne

and Wagstaff (1999, p101) interviewed 96 officers who investigated volume crime

discovering that many of them reported they did not have enough time to complete a CI and

felt the process was burdensome. In this study only 4 officers (10%) reported that they had

felt rushed in their preparation time for an interview although 29 (65%) reported they had at

some stage rushed a witness into the interview process before the witness had received an

adequate rest period. With so few participants in this study reporting feeling under pressure

when preparing for or completing interviews it seems cognitive techniques are omitted from

use for reasons other than time constraints.

As shown in the first chapter training provision has been identified as one area which is

considered of high importance to improve and maintain the quality of interviewer

performance. The importance of repeated exposure to meaningful training has been

previously highlighted by Powell (2008, p191) with Griffiths (2008, p264) also suggesting

that in order to prevent the erosion of complex skills the provision of ongoing tuition is

essential. As we have seen with regards to the yearly update training offered by D&CC only

22 (55%) participants felt they had received regular and meaningful training. This will

inevitably have some negative effect on the interviewers’ ability to perform to a high standard

during interviews.

The attitude and motivation of interviewers (Memon, Bull & Smith, 1995, p65) together with

prior experience (Memon & Higham, 1999, p190) has also been suggested as more important

than the amount and quality of training in determining the success of a CI. Three members of

58


the sample in this research reported that willing students should have been selected for the

ECI training course as opposed to forcing unwilling people to learn. One of the unwilling

candidates had reported they did not feel at all well equipped or competent to conduct an ECI

interview. It seems therefore there is no point in trying to train officers who are unwilling to

learn. Future research should consider what characteristics of an individual contribute to

them being a good interviewer and whether investigative interviewing is an innate or learned

skill.

Another key area closely associated with training is the supervision and monitoring of

interviewer performance. According to Shepherd and Milne (2006, p144) supervision is

essential to ensure consistent and quality performance in investigative interviewing. The

positive impact of feedback has also been identified by Powell (2008, p196) to be essential

when trying to maximise performance. Despite such suggestions in the academic literature

only one participant in this research reported their interviewing skills had been formerly

assessed by their supervisor making it very clear only limited interview assessment takes

place within D&CC. This is a worrying finding considering 95% (n=39) of the participants

considered regular assessment and constructive feedback is essential in improving both

interviewer performance and also the quality of information obtained from witnesses. Several

of the participants did however point out that with the police facing huge budget cuts and a

significant drop in police officer numbers that in reality there would be no time to assess

interview performance.

Another problem is that the supervisors have, little or more often no ECI training, so they are

not in a position to assess the quality of interviewer performance. As Gartrell (2011, p51)

pointed out the necessity for review and assessment in the workplace is hindered by the

59


D&CC’s lack of Tier 5 Interview Advisors who are Tier 3 ECI trained. The training of police

supervisors was identified as an important issue over a decade ago by Memon, Bull and Smith

(1995, p65) yet despite this no national ECI assessment training is yet delivered to

supervisors. The lack of regular training, formal assessment and the monitoring of

interviewer performance could be one of the contributing factors which have allowed the use

of TO and CP to slip from the ECI model within the D&CC. Further research should explore

the importance of both training and supervision in ensuring an improved quality of

interviewing performance in the future.

Limitations of this research

The first area of caution to consider when interpreting the results of this study relates to the

sample selection. The sample for this research consisted only of D&CC officers and is

therefore not representative of investigative interviewing across the UK. To allow

generalizations future research should utilise a broader sample of officers from the 43

independent police forces in England and Wales. This study also only examined the

interviewing practices of the officers who held one form of investigative interview training

namely ‘ABE Significant’. This was to the neglect of the other officers within D&CC who

had been trained in other areas of investigative interviewing such as ‘ABE Vulnerable’.

Another criticism of this research design which involved the gathering of self reported

information was that the reliability of the data obtained could be questionable. Some of the

participants for example may have over reported their frequency of use of the cognitive

techniques. This seems likely to have occurred as Gartrell (2010, p4) reported he found a

60


poor level of use of many of the cognitive techniques during his assessment of the actual

interview performance of half the sample in the current study.

This was the first time the researcher had undertaken primary research involving the gathering

of raw data through semi-structured interviews. The questionnaire design could have been

improved in order to ease the data analysis process by coding the answers prior to the data

gathering phase. This would have assisted with the later analysis of the data albeit with the

negative effect of restricting the participant’s responses. During the analysis of the raw data

in this research it was discovered that a couple of the questions were found to be duplicated

allowing participants to give differing answers to what effectively was the same question

worded in a different manner. However this happened to have a positive effect as the data

obtained from these questions remained consistent across the answers to both questions

making the findings more robust in nature.

As detailed above and despite the limitations that have been identified the researcher achieved

the objective of answering the question ‘Why don't experienced specialist investigative police

interviewers utilise cognitive techniques during significant witness interviews? The

conclusion and recommendations resulting from this research are summarised in the next

chapter.

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

61


Conclusion

This research identified that there was a highly significant positive correlation between the

reported frequency of use and perceived effectiveness of each of the cognitive techniques. In

line with the previous research findings the CP and TO techniques were reported to be the

least frequently used during the real life application of the ECI model to significant witness

interviews. This lack of use was directly attributable to the D&CC officer’s perceptions that

these techniques were not effective in obtaining information from witnesses. As discussed in

the last chapter a number of reasons were discovered as to why these techniques were not

used or considered to be effective. These reasons included a failure of these techniques

during an earlier interview leading to their neglect of use in following interviews. The CP

technique was also reported to be disliked, poorly trained and concerns were also raised about

obtaining hypothetical information from witnesses which, could be viewed as problematic by

the court. The TO technique was reported to be too difficult to perform and also dependant

on witness capability or intelligence. Both the CP and TO techniques were reported not to be

used as they had been found to confuse witnesses during previous interviews. Future research

needs to explore whether, how and why these techniques confuse witnesses. Despite such

negativity with regards to these techniques some participants did report positive experience of

their use in obtaining extra detail and information during interviews. It seems clear therefore

that a new and modified training package is required which promotes the use of the TO and

CP technique in order to improve the future quality and quantity of witness evidence.

Recommendations

The findings of this research suggest that if adopted the following recommendations would

improve the quality of investigative interviewing in the future:

62


i) Ensure appropriate candidates are selected for future ‘ABE Significant’ training

based on a desire by the applicant to undertake the training coupled with an

appropriate length of basic investigative interviewing experience.

ii) A review of the theoretical content of the initial training course should take place

with appropriate tailoring therein to ensure that the TO and CP mnemonics are

taught in a manner they can be understood by the interviewing practitioners. The

training should incorporate examples of how to correctly explain these techniques

to witnesses.

iii) The refresher training needs to be delivered more frequently and consistently with

compulsory attendance in order for officers to maintain the ‘ABE Significant’ skill

title.

iv) A managerial service level agreement should be made allowing those with the skill

to be freed from other operational commitments to allow them to undertake ‘ABE

Significant’ witness interviews when requested to do so.

v) The proper co-ordination of significant witness interviews should take place to

ensure all those trained with the skill are more regularly putting their expertise to

use.

vi) Following accreditation officer’s interviews should be subject to ongoing and

intrusive supervisory workplace assessment with feedback to ensure an improved

quality of obtaining witness evidence.

vii) Those responsible for the supervision and review of interviewer performance

should receive appropriate training to perform this role.

The findings of this research have been made available nationally to other police forces

through inclusion on a National Police Improvement Agency database and also through the

63


attendance of the researcher on police quarterly regional investigative interview meetings. It

is hoped that the findings of this study will contribute to an improved quality of witness

interviewing in the future.

APPENDIX ‘A’ – QUESTIONNAIRE

64



COGNITIVE INTERVIEWING QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Participant,

The purpose of my study is to ascertain your views regarding your specialist role as a ‘witness testimony’ trained officer within the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary. I will be asking you questions about your opinions regarding a range of issues associated with your unique role and also your understanding of the various phases of the cognitive interview.

All of your answers will be anonymous All the information that you provide me will be treated in the strictest confidence and will be

used solely for the purpose of research. I am looking for general trends and will not be analysing or evaluating individuals’ responses Your rights in research are explained in the handout below


65


Your Rights in Research

1. You will remain anonymous throughout this study and no identifying data will be kept on record.

2. You have the right to withdraw at any time.

3. If you wish you are welcome to discuss the research at any stage, and see the results and findings once the research is complete.

4. At completion and when the research findings are published you are welcome to express your feelings about the research, the researcher and your participation.

5. If you so wish, you can withdraw your data retrospectively and any consent that you have given. You may also request that any data, recordings or notes, be destroyed.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for your time and participation.

THE CONTENTS OF THIS FORM ARE CONFIDENTIAL. INFORMATION IDENTIFYING THE RESPONDANT WILL NOT BE DISCLOSED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

Demographic Information Date:

1. What is your current role?

2. Period of time spent in current role?

3. How long have you worked for the police?

66


4. What is you gender?

5. What is your ethnicity?

6. How old are you? Years

7. What is the highest educational achievement you hold?

8. Do you possess any other similar skills or qualifications?

Your Cognitive Interview Training

9. When did you receive your training in cognitive interview techniques?

10. How did you rate the training course?Excellent 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Poor

11. How well equipped and competent do you feel to conduct cognitive interviews after the training?Fully 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Not at all

12. Please explain you answer.

13. Did you understand all parts of the training?

14. What changes would you make to the cognitive training?

15. What examples provided during the cognitive interview course do you use?

16. Why do you use that example?

17. Would you welcome more examples?

18. Was the training sufficient in length?

19. Do you receive regular and meaningful update training?

20. What format does this take?

21. What effect do you feel this has on the quality of your use of the cognitive interview?

Your Experiences as a cognitive interviewer

22. How many cognitive interviews have you performed the role of lead interviewer?

67


23. How many of these have been within the last year?

24. When did you last perform that role?

25. How many cognitive interviews have you performed the role of monitor?

26. What is the role of the monitor?

27. Have you normally been able to conduct cognitive interviews when requested?Yes No

28. If you answered no, why were you unable to undertake the cognitive interview?

29. Do you consider that you have had the opportunity to conduct enough cognitive interviews to maintain your skill and motivation levels?Yes No

30. What assessment of witnesses do you make pre interview?

31. In your experience is the cognitive interview used with appropriate witnesses?

Always 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Never32. Do you ever consider that it is not appropriate to try a cognitive technique with a

witness? If so why

33. How is this documented?

34. How much time would you like to prepare for a cognitive interview?

35. In reality how much time do you get to prepare?

36. Do you feel under pressure to rush interviews?

37. In what way?

38. What other factors affect you conduct during the CI?

39. How could an improvement be made to the quality of interviewers interviewing skills?

40. What do you believe to be the most significant evidential area of an investigation?Forensic Evidence Witness Evidence Suspect Admissions CCTV Other

41. How have your cognitive interview skills affected other investigative interviews you conduct (Section 9 Witness statements and Suspect interviews)?

42. Do you find conducting the cognitive interview mentally demanding?

43. If so Why?

68


Your Current Cognitive Interview Knowledge

44. What is the main difference between the cognitive interview and the conversation management interview?

45. Name the four primary techniques that are used in cognitive interviewing.

46. Describe your understanding of each of these.

47. What is the difference between the cognitive interview and the enhanced cognitive interview?

48. Do you consider that you are up to date with current legislation and policy in relation to the interviewing of witnesses?

49. Considering each of the phases of the cognitive interview in turn, how frequently have you used them and to what affect?

50. Establishing Rapport with the witness.

How frequently used?Very 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Never Used

How effective do you feel this technique is?

Very 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Not at all

When and where do you establish rapport?Is this recorded?

51. Focused Retrieval / Instructing the witness to concentrate hard.

How frequently do you use this instruction?Very 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Never Used


Very 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Not at allWhy?

52. Report Everything




Why?

53. Transfer of control of the interview.

How frequently do you use this instruction?

69


Very 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Never Used



Why?

54. Mental Reinstatement of Context.




Why?

55. Witness Compatible Questioning

How frequently do you use this?Very 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Never Used



Why?

How important do you consider non verbal communication to be?


Why?

56. Changing the Temporal Order.




Why?

57. Sensory Focus

How frequently do you use this?

70


Very 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Never Used



Why?

58. Change Perspectives.




Why?

59. Use of Sketch plans.




Why?

60. How do you ensure all investigative important questions are covered during the interview?

61. How frequently do you summarise what has been said during an interview?Very 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Never Used

62. Why is the summary included within the model?

63. Following giving the witness a summary of their account do you ask for clarification and amendments?

Always 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Never64. Do you offer your contact details?

Always 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Never65. Do you explain future processes to witnesses?

Always 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Never66. How well do you think the component parts of the cognitive interview work together

within the nine phases of the interview?

71


67. Which technique do you use most often and why?

69. Which technique would you not use and why?

70. Are there any other methods you use to assist witnesses with memory recall?

Supervision and Feedback

71. Has a PIP level 3 interview advisor ever monitored your performance whilst conducting a cognitive interview?Yes No

72. Have any of your interviews ever been assessed?

73. Have you ever received any feedback about cognitive interviews that you have conducted?

74. Do you ever review your own performance?Yes No

75. Has your supervisor ever compared the content of your statement with the DVD or video recording?

76. What effect do you feel regular interview assessment and constructive feedback would have on the quality of your use of the CI?

77. Did you form part of Peter Gartrell’s academic study?

APPENDIX B – SPREADSHEET’S

Please find on the attached disc a copy of the Excel and SPSS spreadsheets used to store the raw data from this research project.

72


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Akehurst, L., Milne, R., & Kohnken, G. (2003). The effects of children’s age and delay on

recall in a cognitive or structured interview. Psychology Crime and Law, Vol 9,

97-107.

Allison, B., O’Sullivan, T., Owen, A., Rice, J., Rothwell., & Saunders, C. (1996). Research

skills for students. London: Kogan Page Limited.

73


Bell, J. (2007). Doing your Research Project. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Birge, A. (1994). The Cognitive Interview Technique: An Effective Investigative Tool. Law

and Order, Vol 42, 39-42.

Boon, J. & Noon, E. (1994). Changing Perspectives in Cognitive Interviewing. Psychology

Crime and Law, Vol 1, 59-69.

British Society of Criminology (2011), Code of Ethics for Researchers in the Field of

Criminology. Retrieved May 13, 2011 from

http://www.britsoccrim.org/codeofethics.htm

Brock, P., Fisher, R., & Cutler, B. (1999). Examining the Cognitive Interview in a Double

-Test Paradigm. Psychology Crime and Law, Vol 5, 29-45.

Brown, R. & McNeill, D. (1966). The ‘tip-of-the-tongue’ phenomenon. Journal of Verbal

Learning and Behaviour, 5, 325-337.

Canter, D. & Youngs, D. (2009). Investigative Psychology. West Sussex: Wiley.

Centofanti, A. & Reece, J. (2006). The Cognitive Interview and its Effect on Misleading

Postevent Information. Psychology Crime and Law, Vol 12(6), 669-683.

Clarke, C. & Milne, R. (2001). National Evaluation of the PEACE interview Course. Police

Research Award Scheme. Home Office: London.

Clifford, B. & George, R. (1996). A Field Evaluation of Training in Three Methods of

Witness/Victim Investigative Interviewing. Psychology, Crime & Law 2, 231-248.

Clifford, B. & Gwyer, P. (1999). The effects of the cognitive interview and other methods of

74


context reinstatement on identification. Psychology, Crime & Law, Vol 5, 61-80.

Conway, M. A. & Holmes, E. A. (2008). Guidelines on Memory

and the Law: Recommendations from the Scientific Study of Human Memory.

Leicester: The British Psychological Society.

Dando, C. J. & Milne, R. (2009). Cognitive Interviewing. In Kocsis, R. (2009). Applied

Criminal Psychology: A guide for forensic Behavioural Sciences. Springfield: Charles

C Thomas.

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 and Law, Vol

15(8), 679-696.

Dando, C., Wilcock, R., & Milne, R. (2009). The Cognitive Interview: The Efficacy of a

Modified Mental Reinstatement of Context Procedure for Frontline Police

Investigators. Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol 23, 138-147.

Dando, C., Wilcock, R., & Milne, R. & Henry, L. (2009). A Modified Cognitive Interview

Procedure for Frontline Investigators. Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol 23,

698-716.

Davis, M., Mcmahon, M., & Greenwood, K. (2004). The Role of Visual Imagery in the

Enhanced Cognitive Interview: Guided Questioning Techniques and Individual

75


Differences. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, Vol 1,

33-51.

Fisher, R. (2010). Interviewing Cooperative Witnesses. Legal and Criminological

Psychology, Vol 15, 25-38.

Fisher, R., Geiselman, R. & Amador, M. (1989). Field Test of the Cognitive Interview:

Enhancing the Recollection of Actual Victims and Witnesses of Crime. Journal of

Applied Psychology, Vol 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.

Fisher, R. P., Geiselman, R. E., Raymond, D. S., Jurkevich, L. M., & Warhaftig, M. L.

(1987). Enhancing Enhanced Eyewitness Memory: Refining the Cognitive Interview.

Journal of Police Science and Administration, Vol 15, 291-297.

Fyfe, N., & Smith, K. (2007). Victims and Witnesses in Criminal Investigations. In

Newburn, T., Williamson, T., & Wright, A. (Ed) Handbook of Criminal Investigation.

Cullompton: Willan Publsihing

Gartrell, P. (2010). Does Tier 3 Significant Witness Interview Training Work? (Unpublished

undergraduate dissertation). University of Portsmouth.

Gartrell, P. (2011). Significant Changes. The Investigator, Vol 2, 38-39.

Gartrell, P. (2011). The Cognitive Interview in the Real World. The Journal of Homicide

76


and Major Incident Investigation, Volume 7, Issue 2, November 2011.

Geiselman, R. E. & Fisher, R. P. (1986). Interviewing Victims and Witnesses of Crime.

Police, March 1986.

Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., Cohen, G., Holland, H., & Surtes, L. (1986). Eyewitness

Responses to Leading and Misleading Questions Under the Cognitive Interview.

Journal of Police Science and Administration, Vol 14, 31-39.

Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., Firstenberg, I., Hutton, L., 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 and Administration, Vol 12,

74-80.

Geiselman, R. E., Fisher, R. P., Holland, H., & Surtes, L. (1986). Eyewitness Responses to

Leading and Misleading Questions Under the Cognitive Interview. Journal of Police

Science and Administration, Vol 14, 31-39.

George, R. (1991). A Field and Experimental Evaluation of Three Methods of Interviewing

Witnesses/Victims of Crime. Phd Thesis. Polytechnic of East London.

Granhag, P. A., Jonsson, A & Allwood, C. M. (2004). The Cognitive Interview and its Effect

on Witnesses’ Confidence. Psychology, Crime & Law, Vol 10(1), 37-52.

Griffiths, A. (2008). An examination into the efficacy of police advanced investigative

interview training? (Unpublished PhD thesis). University of Portsmouth.

Griffiths, A. & Milne, R. (2005). Will it all end in tiers? Police Interviews with Suspects in

77


Britain. In T. Williamson. (Ed), Investigative Interviewing: Rights, Research,

Regulation. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

Griffiths, A. & Milne, R. (2009). The application of cognitive interview techniques as part

of an investigation. Invited chapter to appear in Ireland, A, C. and Fisher, M. (2009).

Consulting and advising in forensic practice: Empirical and practical guidelines.

Chichester: Wiley.

Gross, R. (2009). Psychology The Science of Mind And Behaviour. Dubai: Hodder Arnold.

Gudjonsson, G. (2007). Investigative Interviewing. In Newburn, T., Williamson, T., &

Wright, A. (Ed) Handbook of Criminal Investigation. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

Hague, P. (1993). Questionnaire Design. London: Kogan Page Limited.

Hammond, L., Wagstaff, G., & Cole, J. (2006). Facilitating Eyewitness Memory in Adults

and Children with Context Reinstatement and Focused Medication. Journal of

Investigative Psychology and Offending Profiling, Vol 3, 117-130.

Hibberd, M. & Bennett, M. (1990). Questionnaire and Interview Surveys. London: The

Police Foundation.

Home Office. (2011). Acheiving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance on

Interviewing Victims and Witnesses, and using Special Measures. London: Home

Office.

Kapardis, A. (2003). Psychology and Law: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

78


Kebbell, M. R., Milne, R. & Wagstaff, G. F. (1999). The Cognitive Interview: A Survey of its

Forensic Effectiveness. Psychology Crime and Law, Vol 5, 101-114.

Kebbell, M. R., Wagstaff, G. F., & Preece, D. (1998). The Effect of Belief that Testimony

was Elicited with a Cognitive Interview on Jurors Judgements of Guilt. Psychology,

Crime and Law, Vol 4, 17-25.

Kohnken, G., Milne, R., Memon, A. & Bull, R. (1999). The Cognitive Interview: A Meta

-Analysis. Psychology, Crime and Law, Vol 5, 3-27.

Lawrence Neuman, W. (2011). Social Research Methods. Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches. Boston: Pearson Education Inc.

Lowe, M. (2007). Beginning Research. A guide for foundation degree students. Padstow:

Routledge.

Memon, A. (1999). Interviewing Witnesses: The Cognitive Interview. In Memon, A. & Bull,

R. (1999). Handbook of the Psychology of Interviewing. Chichester: Wiley.

Memon, A. & Bull, R. (1991). The Cognitive Interview: its Origins, Empirical Support,

Evaluation and Practical Implications. Journal of Community & Applied Social


Memon, A., Bull. R., & Smith, M. (1995). Improving the Quality of the Police Interview:

Can Training in the use of Cognitive Techniques Help? Policing and Society, Vol 5,

53-68.

Memon, A. & Higham, P. (1999). A review of the cognitive interview. Psychology, Crime

and Law, Vol 5, 177-196.

79


Memon, A., Meissner, C., & Fraser, J. (2010). The Cognitive Interview: A meta-analytic

review and study space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychology, Public Policy and

Law, Vol 6, 340-372.

Milne, R. (1997). Analysis and Application of the Cognitive Interview Volume 2. Ph D

Thesis.

Milne, R. (2004). The Enhanced Cognitive Interview. Unpublished training guide:

University of Portsmouth.

Milne, R. & Bull, R. (1999). Investigative Interviewing: Psychology and Practice. West

Sussex: Wiley.

Milne, R. & Bull, R. (2002). Back to Basics: A Componential Analysis of the Original

Cognitive Interview Mnemonics with Three Age Groups. Applied Cognitive


Milne, R. & Bull, R. (2003). Does the Cognitive Interview Help Children to Resist the

Effects of Suggestive Questioning? Legal and Criminological Psychology. Vol 8,

21-38.

National Centre of Policing Excellence. (2005). Practical Advice on Core Investigative

Doctrine. Cambridgeshire: ACPO Centrex.

National Centre of Policing Excellence. (2006). Murder Investigation Manual.

Bedfordshire: ACPO Centrex.

80


National Centre of Policing Excellence. (2006a). Implementation Support Plan for the

Professionalising Investigation Programme (PIP). Bedfordshire: ACPO Centrex.

Perri, 6. & Bellamy, C. (2012). Principles of Methodology. London: SAGE PublicationsLtd.

Powell, M. (2008). Designing Effective Training Programs for Investigative Interviews of

Children. Current issues in Criminal Justice, Vol 20, 189-208.

Savage, P. (2007). What is the current state of witness interviewing within West Yorkshire

Police? (Unpublished undergraduate Dissertation). University of Portsmouth.

Shepherd, E. (1991). Ethical Interviewing. Policing, Vol 7(1), 42-60.

Shepherd, E. & Milne, R. (2006). ‘Have you told management about this?: Bringing

Witness Interviewing into the twenty-first Century. In Heaton-Armstrong, A.,

Shepher, E., Gudjonsson, G., & Wolchover, D. (2006). Witness Testimony.

Psychological, Investigative and Evidential Perspectives. Oxford: University Press.

Snook, B., Eastwood, J., Stinson, M., Tedeschini, J., & House, J. (2010). Reforming

Investigative Interviewing in Canada. Canadian Journal Of Criminology and Criminal

Justice, Vol 52(2), 203-217.

Snook, B., & Keating, K. (2011). A Field Study of Adult Witness Interviewing Practices in a

Canadian Police Organisation. Legal and Criminological Psychology, Vol 16,

160-172.

Tulving, E. & Thompson, D. (1973). Encoding Specificity and Retrieval Processes in

Episodic Memory. Psychological Review, Vol 80, 352-373.

81


Walsh, D. & Milne, R. (2008). Keeping the PEACE? A study of investigative interviewing

practices in the public sector. Legal and Criminological Psychology. Vol 13, 39-

57.

Willis, G. (2005). Cognitive Interviewing. A tool for Improving Questionnaire Design.

London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Wolchover, D. & Heaton-Armstrong, A. (1997, June 6). Tape recording witness

statements. New Law Journal, 855-857.

Wright, A., & Alison, L. (2004). Questioning Sequences in Canadian Police Interviews:

Constructing and Confirming the Course of Events? Psychology, Crime and Law, Vol

10(2), 137-154.

Wright, A. & Holliday, R. (2005). Police perceptions of older eyewitnesses. Legal &

Criminological Psychology, 10, 211-223.

82

Date post:	24-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ngodien
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

library.college.police.uklibrary.college.police.uk/docs/theses/Oldershaw... · Web viewI confirm...

Documents