Science‐based interviewing: Information elicitation

Abstract

This article describes an ethical and effective science‐based model of interviewing. An initial planning phase assists the investigative team in separating facts from inferences, decreases the likelihood of errors based on cognitive biases, and prompts careful preparation of the environment. The interview begins with an explanation of why the subject is being questioned. The interviewer then metaphorically hands the interview over to the subject, making him the talker and the interviewer the listener. The interviewer engages in active listening, soliciting as much information from the subject as possible by deploying tactics that enhance memory based on science, including elements of the cognitive interview. Cues to deception are found in the details of the story, rather than in signs of anxiety or nonverbal behaviours, and by deploying Strategic Use of Evidence. This model has been shown to increase cooperation, decrease resistance, and provoke useful information in real‐world criminal interviews.

“Tell me more about this…”: An examination of the efficacy of follow‐up open questions following an initial account

“…In this context, appropriate questions are open-ended, informationseeking questions that prompt the interviewee to elaborate in depth on what has been mentioned already (Gabbert et al, 2016). In fact, in their recent description of an effective evidence-based model of interviewing for practitioners, Brandon, Wells, and Seale (2018) discuss how interviewers might prompt the reporting of additional information using elements of the CI with broad and, if needed, more specific questions.…”

“…It may also be the case that interviewees are unaware of what details interviewers consider to be relevant (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992). Prompting for specific omitted details after an interviewee provides a free report to an open invitation for information can enable interviewers to elicit more details directly related to investigative objectives (Brandon et al, 2018).…”

What’s the room got to do with it?

“…In the "Preparation and planning" phase, interviewers focus on consolidating the evidence and constructing a plan for the interview. This can also include choosing the location of the interview (Brandon et al, 2018). In the "Engage and explain" phase, the goal is to build rapport and inform the interviewee of the purpose of the interview.…”

“…Police investigators' perspectives Investigative interviews are complex and dynamic social interactions (Kelly et al, 2016) and investigators must prepare how to best manage the flow of information with the suspect. Part of this preparation involves considering the setting in which the interview occurs -or context management (Brandon et al, 2018). Contextual aspects are thus related to the physical environment, and examples include, the furniture arrangement within the interview room, the room size, physically isolating the suspect, and the investigators' physical appearance.…”

“…Following Brandon, Wells, and Seale's (2018) suggestion that "because a sense of freedom to choose, or autonomy, facilitates rapport with the interviewer, the subject might be allowed to choose his chair and where he sits from among several options-and should not be put in a corner where he feels trapped" (p.136) , we designed a study in which participants (N = 103) either chose their seating prior to the start of the interview (choice condition), or were directed to a specific seat (no-choice condition). The interviews were related to a bike theft, in which the participants were considered to be accomplices.…”