How to make perpetrators in denial disclose more information about their crimes

Abstract

This study examined interview techniques for eliciting admissions from perpetrators of a crime. Two techniques derived from the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) framework (SUE-Confrontation and SUE-Confrontation/Explain) were compared to an Early Disclosure of Evidence technique. Participants (N = 75) performed a mock criminal task divided into three phases before being interviewed. In the SUE conditions, statement-evidence inconsistencies were obtained by strategic interviewing for Phases 1 and 2. For both SUE conditions, the interviewer confronted the suspects with these inconsistencies, emphasizing that withholding information undermined their credibility. For the SUE-Confrontation/Explain condition, the suspects were asked to explain each inconsistency. To restore their credibility, the suspects in the SUE-conditions were expected to become more forthcoming in Phase 3 (the phase which lacked information). The suspects in the SUE-Confrontation condition (vs. the suspects in the Early Disclosure condition) disclosed more admissions about Phase 3. As predicted, the suspects in the SUE conditions perceived the interviewer to have had comparatively more information about Phase 3. The suspects in the SUE-Confrontation/Explain condition strived to maintain their credibility either by fitting their story to the evidence or by sticking to the initial story. The study shows that the SUE technique is effective for eliciting admissions.

Interviewing Suspects in Denial: On How Different Evidence Disclosure Modes Affect the Elicitation of New Critical Information

“…In contrast to previous results (Tekin et al, 2016), no significant correlations were found within the individual SUE conditions. From this it seems that the suspects' overestimations about the critical phase of the crime were not the sole reason behind the amount of new information elicited.…”

Police officers' use of evidence to elicit admissions in a fictitious criminal case

“…A further possible outcome of strategic evidence disclosure is the collection of new information. In recent years, laboratory‐based studies, examining the effect of evidence disclosure on eliciting admissions, found that if the available evidence was used strategically, admissions could be obtained from mock suspects about a critical phase of a crime for which information was lacking (Tekin et al, ; Tekin, Granhag, Strömwall, & Vrij, ). The interview tactic tested in these studies rested on the assumptions that (a) a suspect's perception of how much evidence the interviewer held would affect his or her counter‐interrogation strategies and (b) these counter‐interrogation strategies would affect what the suspect reveals or conceals during the interview.…”

A comparison of different investigative interviewing techniques in generating differential recall enhancement and detecting deception

“…The research into DRE began with the recognition of the different cognitive and interpersonal demands placed upon deceptive versus honest respondents (Colwell et al, 2002;Colwell et al, 2007;Mann & Vrij, 2006;Vrij, Granhag, Mann, & Leal, 2011). For example, deceptive respondents are required to provide enough information to satisfy the interviewer without making contradictions or releasing sensitive information (Ansarra et al, 2011;Colwell et al, 2013;Colwell, Hiscock-Anisman, Memon, Taylor, & Prewett, 2008;Hartwig, Granhag, & Strömwall, 2007;Hines et al, 2010;Tekin et al, 2015;Tekin, Granhag, Stromwall, & Vrij, 2016).…”