Traditionally, eyewitness researchers have focused on how different interviewing techniques affect the quantity and quality (accuracy) of information reported by interviewees, with less emphasis on precision – or the specificity of the reported information. To fill this important gap, the present study aimed to compare the quantity, accuracy and precision of reports obtained using the cognitive interview (CI) or a structured interview (SI) using data from Sneyd and Fisher (2024) .
Participants (n = 79) took on the role of an informant and listened to one of three conversations about a suspect’s plan to commit a crime and then were interviewed through a CI or a SI.
Results revealed that although the CI produced reports with a greater quantity of information than the SI, the accuracy of the reports did not differ between the two interviewing techniques, nor did the number of high and low precision responses.
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the present study was the first to examine the precision of reports obtained through the CI, which is considered to be the gold standard of investigative interviewing. Understanding how different interviewing techniques impact precision can help investigators tailor their approach to elicit precise, informative answers or encourage reluctant interviewees to provide low-precision answers instead of withholding information.
