The pursuit of justice increasingly relies on productive interactions between witnesses and investigators from diverse cultural backgrounds during investigative interviews. To date, the role of cultural context has largely been ignored by researchers in the field of investigative interviewing, despite repeated requests from practitioners and policymakers for evidence‐based guidance for the conduct of interviews with people from different cultures. Through examining cultural differences in human memory and communication and considering specific contextual challenges for investigative interviewing through the lens of culture, this review and associated commentaries highlight the scope for considering culture and human diversity in research on, and the practice of, investigative interviewing with victims, witnesses, and other sources. Across 11 commentaries, contributors highlight the importance of considering the role of culture in different investigative interviewing practices (e.g., rapport building, questioning techniques) and contexts (e.g., gender‐based violence, asylum seeking, child abuse), address common areas of cultural mismatch between interviewer–interviewee expectations, and identify critical future routes for research. We call for an increased focus in the investigative interviewing literature on the nature and needs of our global community and encourage constructive and collaborative discussion between researchers and practitioners from around the world to better identify specific challenges and work together towards evidence‐based solutions.

Interviews with asylum seekers are an important part of investigating the applicant's need of international protection. Few studies have examined if the questions used in interviews allow detailed and accurate narratives. In the current study, we analysed question style, question type, and question order from interviews of 80 official asylum cases realised by Finnish state authorities in 2017-2018. In accordance with best practise, questions were predominantly asked in an information-gathering style. However, four-fifths of the questions were closed questions, and onetenth were open questions. The recommended question order was followed to a small degree. Possibilities on how to improve the quantity and the accuracy of the information elicited from the interviews are discussed. Future research should assess which type of questions that are most efficient in eliciting relevant information within the asylum context as well as investigating the accuracy of the interpretation.

Current best-practice guidelines for credibility assessments in asylum procedures have been criticized for their susceptibility to subjectivity and bias. The current study investigated assumptions underlying credibility assessments in Finnish first-instance asylum procedures and how these assumptions fit with widely accepted psychological science. Following previous research, we categorized assumptions in 56 real-life asylum cases from the Finnish Immigration Service. We found that asylum officials held assumptions about how truthful applicants present their claims, the plausibility of individuals’ behavior in their home countries, and applicants’ knowledge about asylum procedures. The assumptions were only partially in line with psychological science on memory, trauma, intercultural communication, and decision-making. To improve decision-making, training programs for asylum officials should include relevant findings from psychological science. To increase the transparency and combat bias, the written determination letters should also include explicit information about the decision-makers reasoning processes.

Previous research has indicated that asylum interviewers—contrary to recommendations—use more closed than open questions to elicit information. In the current study, we investigated how information is elicited in asylum interviews by analyzing question‐answer pairs in 105 official Finnish asylum interview transcripts. We developed a new coding framework for analyzing the content and characteristics of the answers and used previously collected data on the questions. As predicted, we found that open questions elicited more new information and new key aspects of the asylum claims than other question types. We further extend on previous research by showing that the free recall phases only elicited half of all key aspects of the claims and that mis‐matched answers and difficult or unanswerable questions were alarmingly common. Interviewers would benefit from more training in asking open questions, creating and maintaining rapport, resolving misunderstandings, and increasing the efficacy of the free recall phase.

Previous research has indicated that asylum interviewers—contrary to recommendations—use more closed than open questions to elicit information. In the current study, we investigated how information is elicited in asylum interviews by analysing question-answer pairs in 105 official Finnish asylum interview transcripts. We developed a new coding framework for analysing the content and characteristics of the answers and used previously collected data on the questions. As predicted, we found that open questions elicited more new information and new key aspects of the asylum claims than other question types. We further extend on previous research by showing that the free recall phases only elicited half of all key aspects of the claims and that mis-matched answers and difficult or unanswerable questions were alarmingly common. Interviewers would benefit from more training in asking open questions and resolving misunderstandings. Revising the instructions for the free recall phase would likely increase its efficacy.