1.

Witness interviewing: Is there evidence for the effectiveness of witness

interviewing in obtaining accurate information? How effective are witness interviewing
methods?
Importance of witness interviewing: To gather information in a structured manner,
such that it may later considered by others as evidence in court (McKenzie, 1992)
Two main witness interviewing approaches: The Cognitive Interview (CI) and The
Self-Administered Interview (SAI)
The Cognitive Interview (CI)
Geiselman & Fisher (1984) developed The Cognitive Interview
o Includes 4 main mnemonics to help a witness recall an event:
Reinstate the context
Encourage to report everything (even fragments of which they have
low confidence)
Change the order of events (e.g. backtrack) help witness
encounter more retrieval and also help detect deception
Change their perspective i.e. describe scene as seen by another
witness more retrieval cues
Fisher, Geiselman & Raymond (1987)
o Analysed audio recordings of interviews by US cops
o Found that there were:
Constant interruptions by cops
Excessive use of short questions
Inappropriate sequencing of questions
George (1991): Found untrained UK police asked significantly more questions per
minute than trained officers
Fisher et al. (1987) revised the CI (enhanced CI)
o Reduces emphasis on change order and change perspective
mnemonics
o Greater emphasis on social aspects and listening skills of interviewer e.g.
Rapport building
Interviewer explicitly transfers control to the witness (encourage
free report)
Focused memory guidelines allow long pauses, open-ended
questions, avoid interruptions
Extensive retrieval techniques e.g. context reinstatement (relive
event)
Summary and closure
Evaluation of CI
Lab studies
Memon & Bull (1991): reviewed realistic lab studies testing the utility of the CI
and found that it led to about 25-35% more information, without increases in
errors
However, some studies have shown an increase in errors with use of CI likely
since Ps are encouraged to report everything
Field Trials
Fisher et al. (1989): Compared experienced detectives trained on the CI to
those who werent. Found CI-trained detectives obtained 63% more info from
witness than untrained detectives, and 47% more info after training. Also found
that CI does not make witnesses more susceptible to leadings Qs
Clifford & George (1995): Obtained and compared real interview tapes by UK
officers before and after CI training and found more info gathered after training
less use of short questions = more info gathered (quantitatively)
However, Newlands et al. (2010): Reanalysed previous studys tapes and found
no evidence for increase in quality of info, only quantity

Problems/Limitations of CI:
o Kebbell et al. (1999): Surveyed CI-trained police and found they thought
CI was useful by that it was too time-consuming
o Memon et al. (1994): Suggested ECI places higher cognitive demands on
interviewer need for more training

Conclusions:
Large support for usefulness of CI in investigative interviews
Strong case presented for more training in interviews
Greater support for some of the mnemonics use in CI more than others (hence
ECI)
The Self-Administered Interview (SAI) or First Response Interview + Evaluation
Problems with CI led to development of the SAI a quick high quality recall task
that can be administered asap after an incident, which will help protect witness
memory from contamination
Lab studies
Gabbert, Hope and Fisher (2009)
o Experiment 1:
Compared SAI to CI and free recall
Found recall using SAI was as good as CI and better than free recall
o Experiment 2:
Ps watched video of a crime, then half completed the SAI.
1 week later, completed free recall test
SAI participants recalled more than control (no SAI)
o Conclusion: Some support for SAI
However, Kemp & Paterson: Attempted to replicate Gabbert et al. (2009) but
found that CI was better than SAI and SAI was better than free recall
Hope, Gabbert, Fisher and Jamieson (2014):
o Sought to determine impact of an initial retrieval attempt using SAI,
compared to free recall, on subsequent recall at interview
o Ps exposed to a mock crime video, then completed an SAI or a free recall
(FR), or did not engage in an initial retrieval (control)
o 1 week later, Ps were interviewed with CI
o Found SAI Ps reported more correct info and were more accurate than FR
and control Ps
o Greater preservation of originally recalled items
o Strengths: Good control of variables, ground truth known
Paterson, Eijkemans & Kemp (2015): Showed that SAI leads to better
subsequent recall provided it occurs within ~24 hours of the original event. Effect
is lost at longer delays
Field trials
Hope, Gabbert & Fisher: Described field trials with UK police e.g. a witnessed
incident involving a serious road traffic collision, and found that the use of SAI
contributed significantly to investigation and subsequent building of a case
against defendants
Conclusions:
CI is helpful in witness interviews
Some mnemonics better than others
Most important impact may have been that CI research helped highlight bad
interviewing practice (e.g. standard police interviews) and presented a strong
case for interview training
CI has led to other developments in interviewing e.g. SAI
Both more effective than free recall by a witness

2. Effective prison & psychological treatment/rehabilitation of offenders (e.g.

sex offenders): Is there evidence for the treatment of offenders? How effective are
treatment interventions for offenders?
Background/Intro current prisons
The prison population in NSW, Australia has been increasing over the years (AIC,
2014; Weatherburn et al., 2016)
56% having previously been imprisoned and 40% reimprisoned within 10 years
(ABS, 2010)
Intervention is therefore important

Treatment
1. CBT
Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) involves helping a person to change
unhealthy habits of thinking, feeling and behaving to improve quality of life and
reduce reoffending in the case of offenders.
Landenberger & Lipsey (2005):
o Conducted a meta-analysis of 58 studies on the effects of CBT on the
recidivism of adult and juvenile offenders
o Found that offenders given CBT were 1.5 times less likely to reoffend
compared to controls within 12 months
o Also examined the predictors of better CBT outcomes
o Found that larger recidivism reductions were associated with
Treatment of higher risk offenders
High quality treatment implementation, and
A CBT program that included anger control and interpersonal
problem solving but not victim impact or behaviour modification
2. Treatment for offenders, esp. sex offenders
(On side if needed): Quinsey et al. (1993) examined the methods used in earlier study
reviews criticized that studies reviewed must:
o Have control groups
o Consider those who drop out of treatment program
o Be cautious when comparing recidivism data across jurisdictions
o Concluded: the effectiveness of treatment (CBT) in reducing sexual recidivism
remains unclear
o More recent evaluations with more studies, better designed methodologically
sound interventions below

Hansen et al. (2002) general offenders + sex offenders + CBT

o Conducted a meta-analysis on 43 treatment outcome studies (with notreatment control groups and over 9000 subjects)
o Found CBT and systemic therapy (family therapy-for younger offenders)
were most effective treatments
o Tmt sig. reduced both:
Sexual reoffending (12.3% cases in treated, and 16.8% in nontreated), and
General reoffending (27.9% cases in treated and 39.2% in nontreated)
o Strengths: used control groups for comparison
Losel & Schmucker (2005) sex offenders
o Meta-analysis of 69 studies containing over 22, 000 sex offenders
o Treated sex offenders had an average
6.4% drop in sexual recidivism
5.2% drop in violent recidivism
11.2% drop in any recidivism

(On side: Marshall, 2001 Possible that tmt for child molesters is more
effective than for rapists)
Marshall et al. (1991) sex offenders + CBT
o Little evidence that hormonal treatments alone (e.g. castration, antiandrogens) work to reduce recidivism
o Suggest that CBT combined with hormonal treatments may be most
promising
o

3. RNR model
Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model is a framework used to assess and
rehabilitate offenders
It involves focusing on 3 principles:
o Who should be treated the model suggests that recidivism can be
reduced if the level of treatment services provided to the offender is
proportional to the offenders risk of reoffending
o What should be treated use professional judgement and evidence-based
tools to assess an offenders dynamic risk factors (e.g. anti-social
personality pattern, substance abuse, etc) also called criminogenic needs
o How treatment should be provided general vs. specific; need to provide
the right treatment at the right level e.g. cater to specific abilities of
offender when before giving treatment e.g. learning style, strengths,
motivation
Bonta & Andrews (2007)
o Evaluated the efficacy of RNR model for offender assessment and
rehabilitation
o In 374 tests of the Risk principle, they found that interviews using RNR
model led to a greater reduction in recidivism in high risk offenders than
low risk offenders
o Suggests perhaps that this may be due to more room in high risk offenders
to achieve an improvement
o Also found that the greater the no. of principles employed, the greater the
reduction in recidivism (by avg. of 29%)
o Limitations of RNR model: Transferring it into real world settings
difficulty in maintaining the assessment expertise of staff in the long-term
given that assessments become less accurate due to errors and reduced
integrity (Bonta et al., 2001).
o Strengths:
While it may not be a great % decrease in recidivism, when
compared to other interventions used in law and medical settings,
offender treatment using RNR model has a comparably higher
success rate (Bonta & Andrews, 2007)
Model also provides useful info for offender treatment

Conclusions:
With increasing prison population, interventions are very important
Evidence-based interventions like CBT within a sound framework like the RNR
model show promise for reducing reoffending risk
Regardless, still need to more research to improve treatments
3. Desistance from crime: Is there evidence for the role of identity in desistance
(narrative approach)?
The role of self-identity or self-narrative is seen as

Maruna (1997): analysed life stories of 20 successfully reintegrated ex-convicts

and found a common story amongst them. They had contaminated origins which

led to their delinquent quest and criminality. After getting caught (and serving
time), they sought redemption and tried to pick themselves up again
The Liverpool Desistance Study by Maruna (2001): Distinguished two types of
narrative scripts (refer to notes)
Evidence for cognitive transformation and social hooks (e.g. marriage) in
previous offenders (Giordano, Cernkovich & Ruldolph, 2002) limitation: quite
intuitive and little quantitative analysis (therefore not very robust)
The Sydney Desistance Project (see notes)