1. Yr 13 mock exam KQ: Can you answer questions on how we should acquire knowledge from witnesses?

2. Questions A) Describe the cognitive interview. (10) B) Discuss the qualitative and quantitative approaches to collecting information when interviewing witnesses. (15)

3. Mark scheme 10 The CI = Geiselman and Fisher. It was a response to the police interviews of abrupt, questioning/interrogation style which seemed to lead to much omission; the cognitive interview encourages the witness to re-visit the context, being asked about sounds, the weather and other contextual cues as well as the directly relevant facts. Witnesses are encouraged to say everything whether they think it is relevant or not. They are asked to consider other perspectives, of time and other people. 6-8 marks – Psychological terminology is competent and mainly accurate. Description of evidence is mainly accurate and relevant, coherent and reasonably detailed. Elaboration/use of Example/quality of description is good. There is some evidence of interpretation and explanation in the context of the question. The answer has good structure and organisation. The answer is mostly grammatically correct with few spelling errors. 9-10 marks – Correct and comprehensive use of psychological terminology. Description of evidence is accurate, relevant, coherent and detailed. Elaboration/use of example/quality of description is very good and the ability to interpret/explain the evidence selected in the context of the question is very good. The answer is competently structured and organised. Answer is mostly grammatically correct with occasional spelling errors.

4. Mark Scheme 15 When interviewing witnesses, data collected can be clinical i.e quantitative or more descriptive ie qualitative. It is possible to consider strengths and weaknesses of the approaches as well as in terms of evaluative issues. For example, the depth and richness of data is superior in the qualitative approach. Quantitative data is easier to record, easier and clearer to analyse and more objective. An attempt to address the question or a highly superficial discussion would constitute an answer in the bottom (1-3) band. This improves to a more accurate if somewhat limited response, maybe simply stating the two side-by-side without any link or continuity; a more detailed or broader response; and at the top level a more developed and/or elaborated response containing more precise evaluative points and/or issues. 4-7 marks – Argument and organisation is limited, and some points are related to the context of the question. Limited evaluative points. Valid conclusions that effectively summarise issues and arguments are evident and demonstrate some understanding. 8-11 marks – Some evaluative points covering a range of issues. The argument is well organised, but may lack balance or development, and is related to the context of the question. Good use of examples. Valid conclusions that effectively summarise issues and arguments are competent and understanding is good. 12-15 marks – Many evaluative points covering a range of issues. The argument is competently organised, balanced and well developed. The answer is explicitly related to the context of the question. Effective use of examples. Valid conclusions that effectively summarise issues and arguments are highly skilled and show thorough understanding

5. Discuss the qualitative and quantitative approaches to collecting information when interviewing witnesses. (15) When collecting information from witnesses we can aim to gather two types of data, quantitative or qualitative. That is data in the form of numbers or statistics or data in the form of opinions, words or beliefs. Essentially quantitative data is a more reliable method of data collection and qualitative data is likely to be a more valid representation of what a witness saw. The key issue when gathering data from witnesses is the correct identification of any perpetrator or suspect. It is clear from some of the studies into witness testimony that witnesses may not be that reliable if we just gather quantitative data from them. In Bruce’s study the aim was to see if witnesses could correctly identify faces and their scores were gathered from them in a quantitative style of frequency of correct identifications. Those studied only identified whole composite pictures and those with external features remaining the same at a level of 35% accuracy. This means that if we are to get witness to “correctly” recall what they saw we would probably need them to provide information other than a simply identification. Perhaps we might even need to use triangulation and gather qualitative data from our witnesses at the same time if we are to really work out what they saw. This is not to say that quantitative data has no place in the interviewing of witnesses. It would be incredibly useful for prosecution lawyers to have access to the types of quantitative information provided by studies such as Loftus and Loftus when they were deciding whether or not to use a witness’ testimony in court. The eye fixation data in this study about weapon focus could be vital in determining the likelihood of the witness being correct in their identification of a suspect. This is because the quantitative manner in which it was gather means that the data is not tainted by researcher bias or socially desirable answers, which both observation or direct questioning of witnesses would be. Thus, gathering quantitative data could offer reliable support to what a witness claims that they saw. This obvious problem of gathering data in this way is that it would not be possible. We cannot strap cameras to everyone's’ head and hope that they witness crimes. It also lacks ecological validity and mundane realism to do so in an experiment such as this because it is not normal and would change the balance of the head and therefore the focus of the eyes as well. This approach to gathering data from witnesses is theoretically a sound one in the laboratory but as soon as we are trying to apply the data to the real world it’s lack of validity and practical application begin to lesson its value to the study of witness testimony Ultimately the Police will now use the qualitative approach to gathering data from witnesses as they now believe it is the most valid way to do so. Fisher’s study into the cognitive interview shows that the police can gather up to 63% more information from witnesses through trying to allow witnesses to recall in as ecologically valid as way as possible. This only possible if we try to place the witness back to when they saw a crime through reinstatement and focussed retrieval. If as we stated earlier the aim is to gather witness information that is as useful to the police and courts as possible then the qualitative approach to witnesses seems to be the best.