Effects of cooperation on information disclosure in mock‐witness interviews

Abstract

Purpose. Forensic interviewers often face witnesses who are unwilling to cooperate with the investigation. In this experimental study, we examined the extent to which cooperativeness instructions affect information disclosure in a witness investigative interview.Methods. One hundred and thirty-six participants watched a recorded mock-crime and were interviewed twice as mock-witnesses. They were randomly assigned to one of four conditions instructing different levels of cooperativeness: Control (no instructions), Cooperation, No Cooperation, and No Cooperation plus Cooperation. The cooperativeness instructions aimed to influence how participants' perceived the costs and benefits of cooperation. We predicted that Cooperation and No Cooperation instructions would increase and decrease information disclosure and accuracy, respectively.Results. We found decreased information disclosure and, to a lesser extent, accuracy in the No Cooperation and No Cooperation plus Cooperation conditions. In a second interview, the shift of instructions from No Cooperation to Cooperation led to a limited increase of information disclosure at no cost of accuracy. Cooperativeness instructions partially influenced the communication strategies participants used to disclose or withhold information. Conclusions.Our results demonstrate the detrimental effects of uncooperativeness on information disclosure and, to a lesser extent, the accuracy of witness statements. We discuss the implications of a lack of witness cooperation and the importance of gaining witness cooperation to facilitate information disclosure in investigative interviews.Witnesses can provide crucial information in a criminal investigation, which later can serve as evidence in court (Fisher, Milne, & Bull, 2011). In an investigative interview,This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Examining witness interviewing environments

“…Completeness was measured via an inventory consisting of 12 key aspects of the crime (e.g., alleyway location, presence of another potential witness at other end of alley, victim had a watch). To examine accuracy, we mimicked the procedure of De La Fuente Vilar et al (2020). That is, we checked participants' statements against a comprehensive checklist of all details presented in the VR scenario.…”

Rapport‐building: Chat versus in‐person witness interviews

“…Through rapport‐building, investigators are able to develop a working relationship with the interviewee (Abbe & Brandon, 2013; Gabbert et al., 2021; Kelly et al., 2013). Importantly, police investigators also regard rapport as a key aspect of their interviewing practice, acknowledging its effectiveness for obtaining a greater quantity and quality of information from witnesses (De La Fuente Vilar et al., 2020; Vallano et al., 2015).…”

Considering the native land of witnesses

“…Trust facilitates motivation and co-operation (Zanini & Migueles, 2018), therefore, a low level of trust in the police may have implications for unwillingness to cooperate as witnesses in investigative contexts (Papp, Smith, Wareham, & Wu, 2019;Tankebe, Reisig, & Wang, 2016). When cooperation is lacking in investigative interviews, information disclosure may be minimal (De La Fuente Vilar et al, 2020). Thus, differences in experience and levels of trust in the police across cultures may account for the observed differences in optimising reports provided to the police.…”