The dynamic nature of interrogation.

Abstract

Building on a substantial body of literature examining interrogation methods employed by police investigators and their relationship to suspect behaviors, we analyzed a sample of audio and video interrogation recordings of individuals suspected of serious violent crimes. Existing survey research has focused on the tactics reportedly used, at what rate, and under what conditions; observational studies detail which methods are actually employed. With a few notable exceptions, these foundational studies were static examinations of interrogation methods that documented the absence or presence of various approaches. In the present study, we cast interrogation as a dynamic phenomenon and code the recordings in 5-min intervals to examine how interrogation methods and suspect cooperation change over time. Employing the interrogation taxonomy framework, particularly 4 discrete domains-rapport and relationship building, emotion provocation, presentation of evidence, and confrontation/competition-we found that the emphasis of the domains varied across interrogations and were significantly different when suspects confessed versus when they denied involvement. In regression models, suspect cooperation was positively influenced by the rapport and relationship building domain, though it was negatively impacted by presentation of evidence and confrontation/competition. Moreover, we found that the negative effects of confrontation/competition on suspect cooperation lasted for up to 15 min. The implications of the findings for practice and future research include the benefits of a rapport-based approach, the deleterious effects of accusatorial methods, and the importance of studying when, not just if, certain interrogation techniques are employed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Interviewers’ approaches to questioning vulnerable child witnesses: The influences of developmental level versus intellectual disability status

“…There are other techniques that could help us understand better the relative influences of children and interviewers and how their exchanges may unfold throughout the course of an interview (Kelly et al, 2016). Sequential analysis (e.g., Ahern, Hershkowitz, Lamb, Blasbalg, & Winstanley, 2014;Gilstrap & Ceci, 2005;Klemfuss et al, 2014;Melinder & Gilstrap, 2009;Wolfman et al, 2016b) offers a useful method of illuminating underlying processes.…”

Science‐based interviewing: Information elicitation

“…Rapport is assumed to include elements of mutual attention (indicated by good listening), coordination (the degree to which the conversation is “in‐sync,” which might be reflected in verbal or nonverbal mimicry and matching motivational frames), and positivity (a generally pleasant demeanour; Abbe & Brandon, , ). Analyses of video recorded police interviews in the United States and the UK have found rapport to be essential to a successful interview if rapport was not something developed only at the outset of the interview but maintained throughout (Alison et al, ; Kelly, Miller, & Redlich, ).…”

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

“…Also, a series of complex observational studies using a dynamic-interactive approach and content analysis of videorecorded interactions has shown that suspect cooperation was positively influenced by rapport and relationship building techniques, though it was negatively impacted by direct presentation of alleged evidence and confrontation/competition. Moreover, the dynamic, negative effects of confrontation/competition approaches lasted for up to 15 minutes compromising all of the interview that followed (Kelly, Miller, & Redlich, 2016). Importantly, in a specific study analysing 418 video interviews with 58 convicted terrorists, Alison, Alison, Noone, Elntib, & Christiansen (2013) with a multidimensional measure of strategies, interactions and outcomes, present a structural equation model revealing that motivational interviewing was positively associated with adaptive interpersonal behaviour from the suspect's side, which, in turn, increased interview results, and exactly the opposite for even minimal expression of maladaptive interpersonal interrogator behaviour.…”

“…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.…”