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

Abstract

Research on investigative interviewing has highlighted the role of rapport in nonconfrontational, evidence-based interviewing procedures, but questions remain about the nature and function of rapport in such interviews. Across three samples drawn from multiple previous studies involving similar methodologies, we addressed four issues: a potential role of working alliance as a rapport component, differences among different sources of rapport data, interrelationships among rapport components, and cultural/ethnic moderation. Rapport was coded from videos of introductory segments of interviews concerning a mock theft involving interviewees of different cultures/ethnicities. The rapport components were intercorrelated, converged on a single factor, and were associated with interviewer but not interviewee self-assessments of rapport. Rapport differentially predicted the informational elements interviewees produced: working alliance predicted relevant details and plausibility, but coordination predicted irrelevant details, with some culture/ethnicity moderation. We discussed these findings in relation to future theory and research on rapport in investigative interviews. K E Y W O R D Sculture, ethnicity, investigative interviews, rapport, veracity Decades of research on rapport have documented its importance in many contexts such as genuine vs. fake mother-infant interactions

Social Judgments of Rapport in Investigative Interviews Across Cultures

“…A simpler understanding of rapport would align with previous findings demonstrating that there is not a one-to-one match between various behaviors and rapport components (Bernieri & Gillis, 1995). A simpler structure of observers’ rapport perceptions may contribute to understanding why different sources of rapport ratings often do not associate with each other (e.g., between interviewers and interviewees; Matsumoto & Hwang, 2021). Interactants’ rapport perceptions may be different from third-party coders or observers because of the interactants’ personal involvement in the interactions.…”

“…Considering the ultimate meaning and goal of establishing rapport emphasizing a mutual relationship, variations in rapport perceptions by different interactants would be vital to identify optimal ways of predicting constructive and mutual rapport, resulting in effective interactional outcomes. Therefore, across three experimental investigative interview contexts, Matsumoto and Hwang (2021) assessed rapport by multiple entities – interviewers, interviewees, and third party coders – and demonstrated that third party codes of rapport were associated with interviewers’ ratings, but both were not associated with interviewees’ ratings. Better rapport, as coded by third party observers and rated by interviewers, was associated with greater information gains during the interview.…”

Cultural Similarities and Differences in Judgments of Rapport

“…Our findings extend those previous conceptualizations in that they suggest that negativity is also a separate and somewhat independent aspect of the concept of rapport judgments across cultures (i.e., rapport can be perceived simultaneously as high or low in both positivity and negativity). A simpler structure of lay rapport judgments contributes to understanding why different sources of rapport ratings (interviewers, interviewees, and third parties) are not necessarily associated with each other or predict the verbal content of interactions (Matsumoto & Hwang, 2021).…”

“…Although dormant for a number of years, research on rapport has increased in the past two decades in the area of investigative interviewing, demonstrating the importance of rapport in nonconfrontative, evidence-based investigative interviewing (Abbe & Brandon, 2013, 2014; Alison et al, 2013, 2014; Brimbal, Dianiska, et al, 2019; Brimbal, Kleinman, et al, 2019; Collins & Carthy, 2019; Driskell et al, 2013; Duke et al, 2018; Matsumoto & Hwang, 2021; Walsh & Bull, 2012). For example, Matsumoto and Hwang (2021) assessed rapport ratings provided by interviewers, interviewees, and third-party coders of investigative interviews involving U.S. Americans and Chinese- and Hispanic-immigrant interviewees. Third-party codes of rapport and interviewer ratings were associated with each other and with greater information gains in the interview.…”

“…One has been to examine cultural differences in the structure of rapport ratings, testing whether cultures differ in the latent factors underlying such ratings. Matsumoto and Hwang’s (2021) study mentioned previously examined this question by obtaining third-party codes of rapport in the interviews involving the three culture/ethnic groups of interviewees. Coding was done on four items representing previous conceptualizations of the components of rapport proposed by Tickle-Degnen and Rosenthal (1987b), Abbe and Brandon (2013), and Kleinman (2006).…”