The effects of liking on informational elements in investigative interviews

Abstract

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.

An initial investigation into the nature and function of rapport in investigative interviews

“…After exiting that room and waiting, participants were escorted to a separate room in which a second, longer investigative interview occurred. 3 There were consequences to being believed and manipulation checks verified that participants were emotionally elevated during the experiment (differentially for truthtellers and liars) and that the stakes were perceived on a moderate-high level in all studies (for more information see Hwang & Matsumoto, 2020;, 2018b, 2019b.…”

“…Also, self-report rapport ratings by individuals in an interaction have tended to be unreliable (Abbe & Brandon, 2013;Bernieri, 1988;Bernieri et al, 1994;Tickle-Degnen & Rosenthal, 1990). Studies have reported no correlations between interviewers' and interviewees' self-reported rapport, or between interviewees' self-reported rapport and their own information production (Hwang & Matsumoto, 2020;Matsumoto & Hwang, 2019b).…”

“…In Samples 1 and 2, three informational elements (Relevant Details, Irrelevant Details, and Plausibility) were previously coded from the interviewees' responses to the initial, open-ended question in the interview and served as dependent variables. Reliabilities were high and acceptable (as reported in Hwang & Matsumoto, 2020;Matsumoto & Hwang, 2018b, 2019b. For Sample 3, two coders newly coded the informational elements provided by interviewees in both interviews and written statements using the same coding procedures.…”

“…Also, self‐report rapport ratings by individuals in an interaction have tended to be unreliable (Abbe & Brandon, 2013; Bernieri, 1988; Bernieri et al, 1994; Bernieri & Gillis, 1995; Tickle‐Degnen & Rosenthal, 1990). Studies have reported no correlations between interviewers' and interviewees' self‐reported rapport, or between interviewees' self‐reported rapport and their own information production (Hwang & Matsumoto, 2020; Matsumoto & Hwang, 2019b). Although many approaches to coding rapport in investigative interviews have been utilized (e.g., Alison et al, 2014; Alison, Alison, Noone, Elntib, & Christiansen, 2013; Brimbal, Dianiska, Swanner, & Meissner, 2019; Driskell, Blickensderfer, & Salas, 2013; Holmberg & Madsen, 2014; Houston, Russano, & Ricks, 2017), they generally focus on rapport assessment of either the interviewer or interviewee.…”

“…For example, rapport has been associated with positive interview outcomes (Walsh & Bull, 2010), the disclosure of meaningful and complete information earlier in an interview (Goodman‐Delahunty, Martschuk, & Dhami, 2014), reduction of counter‐interrogation tactics (Alison et al, 2014), and more accurate information in eyewitness testimony (Kieckhaefer, Vallano, & Schreiber Compo, 2013; Vallano & Schreiber Compo, 2011). Experiments have shown rapport to have both direct and mediational effects on informational elements produced in investigative interviews (Hwang & Matsumoto, 2020; Matsumoto & Hwang, 2018b, 2019b) and as effective in interviews with suspects and witnesses (Vallano & Schreiber Compo, 2015). These findings position the concept of rapport as an important factor in ethical, non‐confrontational, evidence‐based interviewing procedures.…”