Improving the Effectiveness of Suspect Interrogations

Meissner, Christian A.; Kelly, Christopher E.; Woestehoff, Skye A.

doi:10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120814-121657

Cited by 75 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 133 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In other words, rapport aided interviewees in sharing more information. These findings correspond to a growing literature demonstrating the importance of rapport in investigative interviews (Abbe & Brandon, 2014;Alison et al, 2014;Goodman-Delahunty et al, 2014;Holmberg & Madsen, 2014;Matsumoto & Hwang, 2018, 2019Meissner et al, 2015;Walsh & Bull, 2010). More importantly, the current findings extend our understanding of the role of rapport on the production of informational elements in combination with social influence principles and tactics.…”

Section: Informational Elements From the Written Statementsupporting

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effects of liking on informational elements in investigative interviews

Hwang¹,

Matsumoto

2020

Journal Invest Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The efficacy of principles of persuasion and influence in aiding uncooperative individuals to become more cooperative has been well documented in the basic science literature. Less known is their effects in investigative interviews. This study examined the effects of liking (positivity) on informational elements produced in investigative interviews. Interviewees participated in a mock theft experiment and were randomly assigned to tell the truth or lie about the potential theft. Half the interviews were conducted in a high liking condition, the other half in a low liking condition. High liking produced less relevant details in both the interviews and written statements for truthtellers. Rapport had direct, positive effects on relevant and irrelevant details in the interviews but not the written statements and mediated the association between liking and relevant and irrelevant details in the interviews. Veracity condition moderated the association between liking and informational elements; liking had negative effects on relevant details for truthtellers in the interviews and written statements but positive effects on irrelevant details for liars in written statements. These findings suggested the need to examine how and when liking as a social influence tactic may be effective in investigative interviews.

show abstract

Section: Informational Elements From the Written Statementsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Rapport has also been reported as a good elicitor of valid information not only from suspects but also from witnesses (Vallano & Compo, 2015). Reviews of the literature (see Meissner, Kelly, & Woestehoff, 2015) have reported positive albeit indirect effects of rapport in forensic interviewing contexts.…”

Section: The Importance Of Rapportmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of liking on informational elements in investigative interviews

Hwang¹,

Matsumoto

2020

Journal Invest Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is an increasing interest among psycho-legal researchers to find ways to elicit information from suspects using effective and ethical techniques (e.g., Meissner, Kelly, & Woestehoff, 2015;Tekin et al, 2015, Walsh & Bull, 2015. The research literature shows that humane approaches (e.g., to build rapport), as opposed to oppressive approaches (e.g., to press for information), increase the likelihood of eliciting true confessions (see Meissner et al 2014) and yield more information (e.g., Evans et al, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Tekin

Granhag

Strömwall

et al. 2016

Psychology, Crime & Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…What has become known as the Scharff Technique -a conversational style of interviewing with open-ended questioning, conducted in a situation of respect and active listening -is at the core of many modern investigative interviewing methods (e.g. Meissner et al, 2015). Similarly, there have been remarkable developments in the detection and understanding of lies and deception during investigative interviewing (Vrij, 2008).…”

Section: The Science On Torturementioning

confidence: 99%

It's not biology bro: Torture and the Misuse of Science

O’Mara¹,

Schiemann²

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contrary to the (in)famous line in the film Zero Dark Thirty, the CIA's torture program was not based on biology or any other science. Instead, the Bush administration and the CIA decided to use coercion immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and then veneered the program's justification with a patina of pseudoscience, ignoring the actual biology of torturing human brains. We reconstruct the Bush administration’s decision-making process from released government documents, independent investigations, journalistic accounts, and memoirs to establish that the policy decision to use torture took place in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks without any investigation into its efficacy. We then present the pseudo-scientific model of torture sold to the CIA based on a loose amalgamation of methods from the old KUBARK manual, reverse-engineering of SERE training techniques, and learned helplessness theory, show why this ad hoc model amounted to pseudoscience, and then catalog what the actual science of torturing human brains – available in 2001 – reveals about the practice. We conclude with a discussion of how process of policy-making might incorporate countervailing evidence to ensure that policy problems are forestalled, via the concept of an evidence-based policy brake, which is deliberately instituted to prevent a policy going forward that is contrary to law, ethics and evidence.

show abstract

Improving the Effectiveness of Suspect Interrogations

Cited by 75 publications

References 133 publications

The effects of liking on informational elements in investigative interviews

The effects of liking on informational elements in investigative interviews

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

It's not biology bro: Torture and the Misuse of Science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About