Since the 1980s, a large body of research has proven the superiority of enhanced or modified cognitive interviews over the standard interviews used by police officers around the world. Although the cognitive interview is well grounded in theory and has proven practical value, this tool is not always used by police officers. The objective of the present study was to measure the various dimensions of Nielsen’s 1993 acceptability model and thus understand what prevents police officers in France from using a modified cognitive interview. We recruited 23 police officers who had an average of ~ 20 years of police force experience, and trained them for at least two days in how to perform a modified cognitive interview. We measured the modified cognitive interview’s social acceptability, compatibility, and usability at different time points during the training. Our results showed that (i) a modified cognitive interview is social acceptable, (ii) environmental conditions and time constraints appears to be crucial facilitating or blocking factors, and (ii) the usability of the modified cognitive interview’s components is variable. These findings may be of value in improving police training.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Boon R, Milne R, Rosloot E, Heinsbroek J (2020) Demonstrating detail in investigative interviews – an examination of the DeMo technique. Appl Cogn Psychol 34:1133–1142. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3700
Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3:77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brubacher SP, Powell M, Skouteris H, Guadagno B (2015a) The effects of e-simulation interview training on teachers’ use of open-ended questions. Child Abuse Negl 43:95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.02.004
Brubacher S, Powell M, Skouteris H, Guadagno B (2015b) The effects of e-simulation interview training on teachers’ use of open-ended questions. Child Abuse Negl 43:95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.02.004
Brunel M, Py J (2013) Questioning the acceptability of the Cognitive Interview to improve its use. L’Année Psychologique, 113:427-458. https://doi.org/10.4074/S0003503313003059
Brunel M, Py J, Launay C (2013) Cost and benefit of a new instruction for the cognitive interview: The open-depth instruction. Psychol Crime Law 19:845–863. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2012.684058
Clarke C, Milne R, Bull R (2011) Interviewing suspects of crime: The impact of peace training, supervision and the presence of a legal advisor. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling 8(2):149–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.144
Clifford BR, George R (1996) A field evaluation of training in three methods of witness/victim investigative interviewing. Psychol Crime Law 2:231–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683169608409780
Colomb C, Ginet M, Wright D, Demarchi S, Sadlet C (2013) Back to the real: Efficacy and perception of a modified cognitive interview in the field. Appl Cogn Psychol 27:574–583. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2942
Dando C, Wilcock R, Milne R (2008) The cognitive interview: Inexperienced police officers’ perceptions of their witness/victim interviewing practices. Legal Criminol Psychol 13:59–70. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532506X162498
Dando C, Wilcock R, Milne R (2009a) The cognitive interview: Novice police officers’ witness/victim interviewing practices. Psychol Crime Law 15:679–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160802203963
Dando C, Wilcock R, Milne R (2009b) The cognitive interview: The efficacy of a modified mental reinstatement of context procedure for frontline police investigators. Appl Cogn Psychol 23:138–147. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1451
Dando CJ, Wilcock R, Behnkle C, Milne R (2011) Modifying the cognitive interview: Countenancing forensic application by enhancing practicability. Psychol Crime Law 17:491–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160903334212
Davis MR, McMahon M, Greenwood KM (2004) The role of visual imagery in the enhanced cognitive interview: Guided questioning techniques and individual differences. J Investig Psychol Offender Profiling 1:33–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.6
Demarchi S, Py J (2006) L’entretien cognitif: son efficacité, son application et ses spécificités. Revue québécoise de psychologie 27:1–20
Demarchi S, Py J (2009) A method to enhance person description: A field study. In: Bull R, Valentine T, Williamson T (eds) Handbook of psychology of investigative interviewing: Current developments and future directions. Wiley, Chichester, pp 241–256
Fisher RP, Geiselman RE (1992) Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Charles C. Thomas, Springfield
Fisher RP, Geiselman RE (2010) The cognitive interview method of conducting police interviews : Eliciting extensive information and promoting therapeutic jurisprudence. Int J LawPsychiatry 33:321–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2010.09.004
Fisher RP, Geiselman RE, Amador M (1989) Field tests of the cognitive interview: enhancing the recollection of actual victims and witnesses of crime. J Appl Psychol 74:722–727
Fisher RP, Milne R, Bull R (2011) Interviewing cooperative witnesses. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 20:16–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410396826
Ginet M, Py J (2001) A technique for enhancing memory in eyewitness testimonies for use by police officers and judicial officials: The cognitive interview. Le Travail Humain 64:173–191. https://doi.org/10.3917/th.642.0173
Griffiths L, Milne B (2006) Will it end in tiers?: police interviews with suspects in Britain. In: Williamson T (ed) Investigative interviewing: rights, research, regulation. Willan Publishing, Cullompton, pp 167–189
Hanway P, Akehurst L (2018) Voices from the front line: Police officers’ perceptions of real-world interviewing with vulnerable witnesses. Investigative interviewing : Research and Practice 9:14–33
Heidt CT, Arbuthnott KD, Price HL (2016) The effects of distributed learning on enhanced cognitive interview training. Psychiatr Psychol Law 23:47–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2015.1032950
Holliday, RE (2003) Reducing misinformation effects in children with cognitive interviews: dissociating recollection and familiarity. Child Dev 74:728–751. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3696226
Hope L, Gabbert F, Fisher RP (2011) From laboratory to the street: Capturing witness memory using the Self-Administered Interview. Legal Criminol Psychol 16:211–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02015
Kebbell MR, Milne R, Wagstaff GF (1999) The cognitive interview: A survey of its forensic effectiveness. Psychol Crime Law 5:101–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683169908414996
Launay C, Py J (2017) Capturing the scene: Efficacy test of the re-enactment investigation instruction. J Forensic Psychol Pract 19:174–189. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFP-02-2015-0012
MacDonald S, Snook B, Milne R (2017) Witness interview training: A field evaluation. J Police Crim Psychol 31:77–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-016-9197-6
Marques Barbosa P, Milne R (2019) The investigative interview contribution to law enforcement: Perceptions of Portuguese police officers and magistrates. European Law Enforcement Research Bulletin 18:1–16
Memon A, Holley A, Milne R, Koehnken G, Bull R (1994) Towards understanding the effects of interviewer training in evaluating the cognitive interview. Appl Cogn Psychol 8:641–659. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350080704
Memon A, Meissner CA, Fraser J (2010) The cognitive interview: A meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychol Public Policy Law 16:340–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020518
Memon A, Zaragoza M, Clifford BR, Kidd L (2010) Inoculation or antidote? The effects of cognitive interview timing on false memory for forcibly fabricated events. Law Hum Behav 34:105–117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9172-6
Nielsen J (1993) Usability engineering. Academic Press, Boston
Paulo RM, Albuquerque PB, Bull R (2013) The enhanced cognitive interview: Towards a better use and understanding of this procedure. Int J of Pol Sci & Management 15:190–199. https://doi.org/10.1350/ijps.2013.15.3.311
Paulo RM, Albuquerque PB, Bull R (2016) Improving the enhanced cognitive interview with a new interview strategy: Category clustering recall. Appl Cogn Psychol 30:775–784. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3253
Powell MB, Guadagno B, Benson M (2016) Improving child investigative interviewer performance through computer-based learning activities. Policing Soc 26(4):365–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2014.942850
Rivard JR, Fisher RP, Roberston B, Mueller DH (2014) Testing the cognitive interview with professional interviewers: Enhancing recall of specific details of recurring events. Appl Cogn Psychol 28:917–925. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3026
Schreiber Compo N, Hyman Gregory AR, Fisher RP (2012) Interviewing behaviors in police investigators: A field study of current U.S. sample. Psychol Crime Law 18:359–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2010.494604
Tulving E, Thomson DM (1973) Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychol Rev 80:352–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0020071
Tulving E, Watkins MJ (1975) Structure of memory traces. Psychol Rev 82:261–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076782
Wheatcroft JM, Wagstaff GF, Russell K (2014) Specialist police interviewer perceptions of the enhanced cognitive interview: usefulness, confidence and witness reliability. Pol Prac and Research 15:505–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2013.819616
Wright AM, Alison L (2004) Questioning sequences in Canadian police interviews: Constructing and confirming the course of events? Psychol Crime Law 10(2):137–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316031000099120
Wright AM, Holliday RE (2005) Police officers’ perceptions of older eyewitnesses. Legal Criminol Psychol 10(2):211–223. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532505X37001
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
This research was conducted within the framework of a partnership agreement between the University of Lille and the Nord-Pas-de-Calais Gendarmerie Region, signed on 15 October 2015. The authors would like to thank the military police force for its support. All opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Nord-Pas-de-Calais Gendarmerie Region. We thank David Fraser (Biotech Communication SARL, Ploudalmézeau, France) and Brian Stacy for copy-editing assistance. The copyediting assistance of this paper has been supported by the European center for humanities and social sciences (MESHS-Lille, France) and by the French Ministry of Higher education, research and innovation.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The full use of this component was defined as the interviewer asking the witness to recount absolutely everything that they remembered, even if the information appeared to be unimportant, trivial or only partially remembered, e.g. by saying “Please tell me absolutely everything that you remember about [the event], even if you think that what you remember is not important” and “Please tell me everything and don’t leave out any details—even if you can only remember some of them”
The partial use of this component was defined as the interviewer instructing the witness to recount what they remembered but failing to emphasize the importance of recounting everything, however trivial (e.g., failing to say “Tell me everything you remember” or “Explain everything to me”)
Mental reinstatement of context
The full use of this component was defined as the interviewer instructing the witness to reconstruct the environmental and emotional context of the to-be-remembered event. This could be done by asking the witness to recall all the features of the physical environment, and to describe their emotions through a series of instructions and by giving the witness to think between each instruction, e.g., “Try to think back to the day you witnessed [the event]”; “Try to create a picture in your mind of what you witnessed,” “On the day that you witnessed [the event], how were you feeling? Where were you going?” and “Try to think about what you could hear… who were you with… and what the weather was like?”
The partial use of this component was scored as if the interviewer’s instructions were too brief or insufficiently clear to facilitate mental reinstatement of the context (i.e. usually just a single instruction like “think back to that day” or “think about who you were with when you saw[the event]”)
The full use of this component was defined as the interviewer asking the witness to give an additional freely recalled account (with or without specific mnemonic instructions) of what they had experienced and not interrupting that account
The partial use of this component was defined as the interviewer asking the witness to give an initial freely recalled account but then interrupting that account
Open depth instruction
The full use of this component was defined as the interviewer asking the witness to give an additional free recall by focusing his/her attention on details that he/she had not been able to report. The interviewer specified that repetition was not a problem, and that the witness could “freeze” on each mental image and describe it.
The partial use of this component was defined as the interviewer asking the witness to give an additional free recall of details but failing to emphasize the importance of repeating details and/or “freezing” on certain images
The full use of this component was defined as the interviewer asking the witness for additional free recall by focusing his/her attention on actions. The interviewer specified that the witness should break down the event into actions and positions, and that the objective was to accurately re-enact the event on the basis of his/her testimony
The partial use of this component was defined as the interviewer asking the witness for additional free recall of the event but failing to emphasize the importance of breaking down the event into actions and positions
The full use of this component was defined as the interviewer asking the witness to give an additional free recall of the events in reverse order. The witness could begin with the last event and describe what happened just before that event, and then what happened just before that.
The partial use of this component was defined as the interviewer asking the witness to describing the event in reverse order but without suggesting how this might be done.
The full use of this component was defined as the interviewer asking the witness to remember a moment of the event where she had best seen the object or the person. The interviewer then suggested that the witness should concentrate on this image before fully describing the object.
The partial use of this component was defined as the interviewer asking the witness to remember a moment where she had best seen the object but failing to give the witness enough time to concentrate on the image before having to describe it.
The component was scored as not being used if the interviewer merely asked the witness to describe the object.
Person description instruction
The full use of this component was defined as the interviewer asking the witness to describe a person in a general-to-specific manner (i.e., the witness is asked to first describe general features and then describe specific features). After the initial general description, the interviewer asked the witness to describe the face of the person by starting with the lower part (the chin) and then moving up
The partial use of this component was defined as the interviewer giving only one of the instructions or giving both instructions but failing to let the interviewee give an initial description.
The component was scored as not being used if the interviewer merely asking the witness to describe the person but failing to give specific instructions.
The full use of this component was defined as the interviewer asking the witness to sketch a plan. Otherwise, the component was scored as not having been used
About this article
Cite this article
Brunel, M., Launay, C., Hermant, M. et al. Perception of Acceptability and Usability of a Modified Cognitive Interview in the Evaluation of Police Training in France. J Police Crim Psych (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-020-09416-9
- Cognitive interview
- Police officers