What you'll learn

• How interview evidence helps with offence analysis and case formulation.
• How the cognitive interview improves eyewitness recall using memory principles.
• What makes an interview ethical, including BPS safeguards.
• How to evaluate these techniques for AO3 exam answers.

Why interviews matter in criminological psychology

In criminological psychology, interviews may be used with eyewitnesses, victims, suspects, offenders, police officers, or other people connected to an offence. The aim is not just to “get a story”. A good interview should gather accurate information, reduce contamination of memory, and protect the person being interviewed.

A formulation might include triggers, emotions, thinking patterns, social pressures, substance use, previous trauma, or learned behaviour. It should be evidence-based and provisional, not a label that “proves” why someone offended.

The memory problem: recall is not a recording

A major reason interview technique matters is that human memory is reconstructive. This means people rebuild memories using stored information, expectations, emotions, and later information.

Bartlett (1932) showed that recall can be shaped by schemas, which are mental frameworks based on previous experience. Tulving (1972) also argued that retrieval works best when helpful cues are available.

This matters for eyewitness testimony because a poorly worded question can change what a witness reports. For example, “Did you see the knife?” suggests there was a knife. “What, if anything, did you see in the person’s hand?” is less leading.

The cognitive interview

The cognitive interview was developed by Geiselman et al. (1985), later expanded by Fisher and Geiselman (1992). It is mainly used with eyewitnesses to improve the amount and accuracy of recall.

The diagram shows the main flow of a cognitive interview and the ethical safeguards that should run through the whole process.

The four core cognitive interview techniques

1. Context reinstatement

Context reinstatement means asking the witness to mentally return to the situation. They may be asked to think about the location, weather, sounds, smells, lighting, their emotions, and what they were doing just before the event.

This is based on the encoding specificity principle: recall is better when the cues available during retrieval match the cues present when the memory was first encoded.

2. Report everything

The witness is encouraged to report every detail, even if it seems trivial, incomplete, or out of order. A small detail may cue another memory or become useful when combined with other evidence.

3. Recall in a different order

The witness may be asked to recall events from the end backwards, or from a different starting point. This can reduce the influence of schemas because the person is less able to rely on a neat, expected “story”.

4. Recall from a changed perspective

The witness may be asked to describe the event from another viewpoint, such as where another witness was standing. This can sometimes cue further details.

However, this technique must be used carefully because it may encourage guessing or imagination, especially with children or distressed witnesses.

The enhanced cognitive interview

The enhanced cognitive interview adds social and communication techniques to the original four methods. Fisher et al. (1987, 1989) found that interviewer behaviour matters: witnesses recall more when they feel listened to and are not constantly interrupted.

Useful features include:

• Rapport-building: creating a calm, respectful relationship.
• Open-ended questions: questions that allow detailed answers, such as “Tell me everything you remember.”
• Witness-compatible questioning: following the witness’s mental order rather than forcing the interviewer’s checklist.
• Active listening: showing attention without suggesting answers.
• Transfer of control: making it clear that the witness, not the interviewer, has the information.

Ethical interview techniques

An ethical interview gathers information while respecting rights, dignity, welfare, and the integrity of evidence. In UK psychology, this links to the BPS Code of Ethics and Conduct (2009): consent, protection from harm, confidentiality, right to withdraw, debrief, and honesty.

In forensic settings, ethics also link to legal safeguards such as PACE and the PEACE model used in investigative interviewing:

• Planning and preparation
• Engage and explain
• Account, clarification and challenge
• Closure
• Evaluation

PEACE is non-accusatory and information-gathering, which makes it more ethical than coercive interrogation.

Key ethical safeguards

Interviewers should:

• Explain the purpose of the interview and what will happen.
• Avoid deception, threats, false promises, and leading questions.
• Allow breaks and monitor distress.
• Respect the right to stop where possible, or explain legal limits clearly.
• Protect confidentiality and explain its limits.
• Use appropriate adults or specialist support for children and vulnerable people.
• Debrief by explaining next steps and checking wellbeing.

Using interviews for case formulation

Interview information can help psychologists understand patterns in offending, but it must be combined with other evidence such as official records, victim statements, psychometric assessments, and observations.

A formulation may consider:

• Predisposing factors: long-term vulnerabilities, such as childhood abuse or impulsivity.
• Precipitating factors: immediate triggers, such as debt, alcohol, humiliation, or peer pressure.
• Perpetuating factors: things that maintain risk, such as antisocial peers or hostile thinking.
• Protective factors: strengths that reduce risk, such as employment, family support, or motivation to change.

Evaluation: strengths and weaknesses

Strengths

The cognitive interview has strong research support. Geiselman et al. (1985) found that it improved recall compared with standard police interviews and hypnosis. Köhnken et al. (1999) and Memon et al. (2010) reviewed evidence showing that cognitive interviews generally increase correct detail.

It also has real-world value. Fisher et al. (1989) trained police detectives and found improvements in witness recall, suggesting the technique can be applied outside the laboratory.

Ethically, cognitive and PEACE-style interviews reduce pressure on witnesses and suspects. This may improve both wellbeing and evidence quality.

Weaknesses

The cognitive interview can take longer than a standard interview and requires training. In busy policing contexts, interviewers may not use all components properly.

Some techniques are more demanding than others. Recall in reverse order can increase cognitive load, and changed perspective can risk speculation. Evidence is also more mixed with very young children, people with learning difficulties, and highly traumatised witnesses unless the interview is adapted.

Many studies use staged events or videos, so ecological validity can be limited. Real crimes involve stress, fear, weapons, delay, and personal consequences, which may affect recall differently.

There is also an ethical tension: context reinstatement may improve recall but could make a victim relive distressing details. A skilled interviewer must balance evidence gathering with protection from harm.