You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly

Abstract

Investigative interviewing can be thought of as the interaction between two clusters of factors: questions and techniques. Analyses of question types and interview techniques are often treated discretely, where one is the focal point at the expense of the other, or they are conceptually indistinguishable. To explore these relationships further, the current study examined a sample of interviews using the Griffiths Question Map and a taxonomy of interview methods. In addition to presenting maps as example interviews, the article explores the associations between interview clusters and suspect cooperation. Results indicate that greater use of appropriate questions was associated with greater use of rapport-building techniques and greater suspect cooperation, and a reduction in the use of accusatorial interrogation tactics, which themselves were associated with suspect resistance. Implications for research and practice include understanding the interaction between these—and potentially other—clusters.

Evaluating the benefits of a rapport-based approach to investigative interviews: A training study with law enforcement investigators.

“…As noted by Griffiths and Milne (2006); the use of productive questions is critical to the collection of information but also foundational for the development of rapport and cooperation (Kelly & Valencia, 2020). Productive questions involve the use of open-ended questions (Clarke & Milne, 2001; Snook et al, 2012; Walsh & Bull, 2010); but discourage the use of closed-ended and leading questions, or interruptions, as these can interfere with an individual’s memory (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992) and prevent the individual from explaining their version of events.…”

“…Reflections (e.g., repeating back to the individual certain words or phrases and/or sharing observations relating to the individual’s emotion state) and summaries (i.e., offering back a concise, yet detailed, encapsulation of what the individual has said) demonstrate that the interviewer has listened to the individual and offered an opportunity for correction of the statement or transition within the interview. Researchers have demonstrated the importance of such tactics for the development of cooperation and the elicitation of information in forensic interviews (e.g., Alison et al, 2013; Alison et al, 2014; Kelly & Valencia, 2020).…”

Just a Normal Conversation: Investigative Interviews in a County Jail

“…This line of inquiry was most thoroughly developed by Alison et al (2013) in their ORBIT model that examined interpersonal characteristics of both interviewer and suspect. Future studies may wish to consider all three clusters simultaneously (Kelly & Valencia, 2020).…”

Police–suspect interactions and confession rates are affected by suspects’ alcohol and drug use status in low-stakes crime interrogations

“…The question types used in for example Kelly and Valencia's (2021) and 2). The presence of each question type was coded on the sequence level, similar to the coding of interrogation techniques.…”

“…In addition to the use of science-based and ethical interrogation techniques and domains, the present study examined an additional cluster of interrogation methods — question types. As suggested by Kelly and Valencia (2021) , the types of questions posed by the interrogator are also essential to consider when assessing the nature and quality of interrogations. The use of appropriate question types (e.g., open questions) is considered important for obtaining detailed and accurate information from a suspect ( Walsh and Milne, 2008 ; Oxburgh et al, 2010 , 2012 ; Phillips et al, 2012 ).…”