In criminal investigations, it may happen that the police will collect and use information that is actually incorrect. Making sure that such error is detected and corrected is part of the legal and operational burden placed on any investigating officer, but especially on the Senior Investigative Officer (SIO). This present study explored to what degree different interview styles will affect SIO decision-making, since interviewing witnesses and suspects is an important source of information for the police. A sample of 115 Dutch and Norwegian SIOs therefore performed an online vignette task. They read about a fictitious, but realistic case and received a report of an interview with the suspect. In this interview, the suspect had provided an alibi for one of the pieces of information that were disclosed to her and that actually was an incorrect piece of information. In the report the SIOs received, the interviewer either picked up the alibi (adaptive style), reacted indifferently to it (neutral) or discredited it right away (maladaptive). A significant effect was found for interview style being associated with SIOs’ responsiveness: the SIOs who read the adaptive or neutral interview report were significantly more responsive to the alibi than those who read the maladaptive report. The implications of this finding are discussed.
Skillfully presenting evidence/information to suspects is one of the few interviewing techniques that increases the likelihood of guilty suspects providing information or making a confession, without making innocent ones do so as well. It is important that this evidence/information is correct, since deliberately disclosing incorrect evidence poses some risks. Also, in real-life interviews, police interviewers may unwittingly disclose incorrect evidence, for example when a witness was mistaken and provided the police with incorrect information. The present study examined the behavior of fifty police interviewers in interviews with “suspects” of a scripted crime: what is their response when the interviewees try to explain to them that some of the evidence/information just disclosed by them is incorrect? Eleven interviewers responded adaptively (by actively picking up on this new information), 35 responded in a neutral way and four responded maladaptively (by discrediting the interviewee’s claim). Experience and a full interview training had a significant negative relationship with adaptiveness. These results indicate that, when preparing and conducting interviews with suspects, greater awareness is needed of the possibility that some of the evidence/information that is to be disclosed could be incorrect, and therefore it is crucial that suspects’ responses which suggest such may be the case are taken into account.
Enquete: Danske hajer
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.