The cognitive interview and the assessment of the credibility of adults' statements.

Abstract

The authors examined whether a cognitive interview would negatively affect the accuracy of a criteria-based content analysis (CBCA) in distinguishing truthful and fabricated statements. Adults (N = 59 ) gave a truthful or a fabricated account of a blood-donation episode. They were interviewed with either a cognitive or a structured interview. The number of correct, incorrect, and confabulated details were counted from written transcripts of the accounts. The cognitive interview produced significantly more correct and confabulated details than did the structured interview. The transcripts were further evaluated according to a subset of CBCA criteria plus 6 additional criteria. The content characteristics reliably discriminated truthful and fabricated accounts. No interaction was found between truthfulness and the type of interview, indicating that the cognitive interview did not impair the potential of CBCA in distinguishing truthful and fabricated statements.