Examining the meso-level domains of the interrogation taxonomy.

Abstract

The current study sought to examine the 6 domains conceptualized in a recent taxonomy of interrogation methods (Kelly, Miller, Redlich, & Kleinman, 2013): rapport and relationship building, context manipulation, emotion provocation, confrontation/competition, collaboration, and presentation of evidence. In this article, the domains are first situated in the existing literature that has similarly examined a limited number of constructs used to describe and explain interrogation methods, and the analyses aimed to lend empirical support to what were previously only conceptual constructs. Using data from both a survey of interrogators and investigative interviewers and a content analysis of actual recorded interrogations, we examined reported and actual rates of use of the domains, the relationship of the domains to one another, and their association with suspect confession or denials. We found that the domains were reportedly used at significantly different rates, with rapport and relationship building being the most used domain and confrontation/competition the least. We found significant, positive associations between confrontation/competition, emotion provocation, and presentation of evidence in both sources of data, and these 3 domains were also significantly more likely to be used where the suspect denied involvement. The implications of the study are that the domains are meaningful, independent constructs that can be used in future research to describe and explain interrogation.

Japanese public opinion about suspect interviewing techniques

“…By contrast, if participants envisage evidence being presented in an accusatorial manner, they may anticipate more false confessions. Actually, a field study by Kelly et al (2015) in which American police interviews were content analysed revealed that the presentation of evidence was related to the confrontational approach. In their study, the presentation of evidence included contradictory techniques such as usage of actual evidence as well as fabricated evidence and bluffing.…”

“…Lastly, Discussion of the Crime involved techniques related to talking about crimes and their victims. Kelly, Redlich, and Miller () suggested that the last category is arguably similar to ‘emotion provocation’, that is, a series of techniques targeting suspects’ raw emotions (e.g., feelings of guilt). Among the techniques identified by Wachi et al .…”

Detainee and layperson’s expectations and preferences regarding police interview rooms

“…We gathered responses from current detainees because they are the most representative of the 'target' individual during investigative interviews [14]. While majority of the research on interview strategies have relied on police investigator's data [15][16][17] few studies have examined detainees' perspectives (see 9, 14, for exceptions). Gathering information from the target population is essential, as cooperation is ultimately the suspect's decision, researchers must then also examine what suspects think of the interview to obtain a more complete picture of what occurs in the interview room [14].…”

What Science Can Teach Us about “Enhanced Interrogation”

“…Professionals who conduct police interviews or child sexual abuse interviews are frequently advised to establish rapport before beginning to question a witness 49 and law enforcement officials recognize the importance of building rapport with witnesses and suspects. 50 Some researchers, using field research to examine the impact of rapport-building in law enforcement interrogations, have shown it to be generally effective in producing successful interrogation outcomes. 51 An examination of police interviews of criminal suspects in Britain found a strong relationship between an interviewer's rapport-building skills and successful interview outcomes.…”