Kirk Luther

We continue to see vivid accounts of new and ongoing human rights crises worldwide. One of our many thoughts about these crises is always concern about the quality of the victim and witness interviews (henceforth referred to as witness interviews) being conducted by those investigating such human rights abuses. We are acutely aware that the successful resolution of such investigations is fundamentally linked to obtaining detailed and accurate information from witnesses and victims, and that interviewing quality in the field is often imperfect. Obtaining high-quality information allows investigators to make informed and safe decisions that can stand up to scrutiny and allow courts/tribunals to bring perpetrators to justice, while also advancing other meaningful goals such as healing communities and building trust with investigative agencies and governments. Being able to achieve the aforementioned investigative interviewing goals requires interviewers that are proficient in the delivery of ethical, culturally-appropriate, science-based interviewing protocols. In this chapter, we outline the key components of current science-based interviewing training and protocols, including basic memory processes, communication fundamentals, and questioning practices, as relevant to witnesses/victims. While we acknowledge significant progress in the investigative interviewing field, we also lament about knowledge gaps and propose potential pathways forward to improve the effectiveness of witness interviewing worldwide. Ultimately, we hope such discussions help ensure all victims, regardless of where they reside, receive the justice they deserve.

This research examines how suspects attempt to influence interviewers during investigative interviews. Twenty-nine interview transcripts with suspects accused of controlling or coercive behavior within intimate relationships were submitted to a thematic analysis to build a taxonomy of influence behavior. The analysis classified 18 unique suspect behaviors: the most common behaviors were using logical arguments (17% of all observed behaviors), denial or denigration of the victim (12%), denial or minimization of injury (8%), complete denials (7%), and supplication (6%). Suspects’ influence behaviors were mapped along two dimensions: power, ranging from low (behaviors used to alleviate investigative pressure) to high (behaviors used to assert authority), and interpersonal alignment, ranging from instrumental (behaviors that relate directly to evidence) to relational (behaviors used to bias interviewer perceptions of people and evidence). Proximity analysis was used to examine co-occurrence of influence behaviors. This analysis highlighted combinations of influence behaviors that illustrate how different behaviors map onto different motives, for example shifting attributions from internal to external to the suspect, or to use admissions strategically alongside denials to mitigate more serious aspects of an allegation. Our findings draw together current theory to provide a framework for understanding suspect influence behaviors in interviews.

Late disclosure of evidence within investigative interviews with guilty suspects has been shown to increase statement-evidence and within-statement inconsistencies, which are indicators of deception. We experimentally tested whether such inconsistencies were influenced by the timing and strength of the disclosed evidence. We also tested whether evidence disclosure timing or strength had any effect on the provision of novel investigative information, or the rapport and trust between interviewer and interviewee. We employed a 2(Evidence disclosure timing: Early vs Late) x 2(Evidence strength: Weak vs Strong) between-participants design. Participants (N = 101) role-played a suspect guilty of theft, and were interviewed via videoconference. Participants were instructed to convince the interviewer that they were innocent. Late disclosure of evidence led to more statement-evidence inconsistencies and within-statement inconsistencies than early evidence disclosure. Evidence disclosure timing did not affect rapport or the provision of novel investigative information. There were no clear indications of the impact of evidence strength, however, we observed that for our sample the manipulations of evidence proximity and reliability were not always perceived as changing how strong or weak evidence was. Given this, we also discuss the theoretical and methodological implications of our evidence strength manipulation.

This research examines how suspects attempt to influence interviewers during investigative interviews. Twenty-nine interview transcripts with suspects accused of controlling or coercive behavior within intimate relationships were submitted to a thematic analysis to build a taxonomy of influence behavior. The analysis classified 18 unique suspect behaviors: the most common behaviors were using logical arguments (17% of all observed behaviors), denial or denigration of the victim (12%), denial or minimization of injury (8%), complete denials (7%), and supplication (6%). Suspects’ influence behaviors were mapped along two dimensions: power, ranging from low (behaviors used to alleviate investigative pressure) to high (behaviors used to assert authority), and interpersonal alignment, ranging from instrumental (behaviors that relate directly to evidence) to relational (behaviors used to bias interviewer perceptions of people and evidence). Proximity analysis was used to examine co-occurrence of influence behaviors. This analysis highlighted combinations of influence behaviors that illustrate how different behaviors map onto different motives, for example shifting attributions from internal to external to the suspect, or to use admissions strategically alongside denials to mitigate more serious aspects of an allegation. Our findings draw together current theory to provide a framework for understanding suspect influence behaviors in interviews.

Summary: A growing body of research illustrates consensus between researchers and practitioners that developing rapport facilitates cooperation and disclosure in a range of professional information gathering contexts. In such contexts, rapport behaviors are often intentionally used in an attempt to facilitate a positive interaction with another adult, which may or may not result in genuine mutual rapport. To examine how rapport has been manipulated and measured in professional contexts we systematically mapped the relevant evidence‐base in this field. For each of the 35 studies that met our inclusion criteria, behaviors associated with building rapport were coded in relation to whether they were verbal, non‐verbal, or para‐verbal. Methods to measure rapport were also coded and recorded, as were different types of disclosure. A Searchable Systematic Map was produced to catalogue key study characteristics. Discussion focuses on the underlying intention of the rapport behaviors that featured most frequently across studies.