A taxonomy of interrogation methods.

Abstract

With a few notable exceptions, the research on interrogation, suspect interviewing, and intelligence collection has been predominantly focused on either broad categories of their methods (e.g., information gathering vs. accusatorial models) or very specific techniques (e.g., using open-ended questions, appealing to the source's conscience). The broad categories, however, are not meaningful enough to fully describe the dynamic between interrogator and subject, whereas the specific techniques may be too detailed to understand and research the process of interrogation. To remedy this and advance the academic and operational fields, we identified 71 unique techniques and sorted them into six domains: Rapport and Relationship Building, Context Manipulation, Emotion Provocation, Collaboration, Confrontation/Competition, and Presentation of Evidence. The resulting three-level structure consisting of broad categories, the six domains, and specific techniques form a taxonomy of interrogation methods. In addition, we propose a testable model of how the domains may interact in the process of interrogation. The taxonomy and theoretical model offer heuristic devices for both researchers and practitioners searching for a parsimonious and more meaningful way to describe, research, and understand the interviewing and interrogation of those accused of wrong-doing or possessing guilty knowledge.

The Effect of Rapport Building in Police Interrogations: Can Rapport Improve the Diagnosticity of Confession Evidence?

“…The authors of this taxonomy of interrogations argue that rapport building allows police investigators to move smoothly between other interrogation techniques (e.g., minimization, maximization) and without rapport building, police investigators would have difficulty transitioning to other interrogation techniques and thus would be less likely to have a successful interrogation (Kelly et al, 2013). The taxonomy also argues that relying solely on rapport to interrogate suspects may not yield successful interrogations.…”

“…A recent taxonomy of interrogations has suggested that interrogations are more likely to be successful when rapport is established than interrogations where rapport is not established (Kelly et al, 2013). The authors of this taxonomy of interrogations argue that rapport building allows police investigators to move smoothly between other interrogation techniques (e.g., minimization, maximization) and without rapport building, police investigators would have difficulty transitioning to other interrogation techniques and thus would be less likely to have a successful interrogation (Kelly et al, 2013).…”

“…Suspects who are guilty may have information that they wish to conceal and thus may be unwilling to talk to investigators. Therefore, it is crucial for law enforcement to spend some time establishing a relationship with the suspect in order to overcome communication barriers that may hinder their ability to gather crime-related information and obtain a confession (Kelly et al, 2013).…”

“…Specifically, the current study investigated whether building rapport influences participants' decisions to confess to a wrongdoing. The effect of rapport building on confession decisions merits empirical attention because (a) researchers and practitioners have long advocated its use during police interviews and interrogations (e.g., Fisher & Geiselman, 1992;Inbau et al, 2013;Kelly et al, 2013; National Institute of Justice Guidelines, 1999) and (b) to date, no research has examined whether using rapport as a sole interrogation technique has the power to influence the outcome of police investigations (Vallano & Schreiber Compo, in press). Results of the present study will shed light on the role rapport plays in police interrogations and whether building rapport with suspects is a technique that can be used to improve the diagnostic value of confessions.…”

Drawing the fine line between interrogation and torture: towards a Universal Protocol on Investigative Interviewing

“…There is no point in distinguishing between interrogation and torture based on the use of certain allowed techniques without considering the context. Some, if not all, of the techniques used in the Enhanced Interrogation program (which has been found to constitute torture) appear on the most recent taxonomy of interrogation techniques (Kelly et al, 2016;Kelly, Miller, Redlich, & Kleinman, 2013;Kelly, Redlich, & Miller, 2015). As the testimonies of survivors demonstrate, the most benign interrogation procedure can destroy a person when he or she has been subjected to a 'softening' period, or when used in a cumulative or sequential way, or in a context of exhaustion and confusion.…”