Gabbert et al., Rapport Systematic Review, ACP, pre-print

Abstract

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.

Interviewing in virtual environments: Towards understanding the impact of rapport-building behaviours and retrieval context on eyewitness memory

“…In line with predictions on the benefits of rapport for leveraging cooperation and eliciting information (e.g., Abbe & Brandon, 2014 ; K. Collins & Carthy, 2019 ; Gabbert et al, 2020 ; Nahouli et al, 2021 ), our cluster of rapport behaviours were well received and resulted in quantifiable benefits (more information & fewer errors), providing support for H 2 . Where rapport was present in the free recall, fewer errors were made, and more correct information items were reported.…”

Eyewitness confidence in the interviewing context: Understanding the impact of question type and order

“…Conversely, when the Cued‐Recall questions were compatible, focusing on event‐details mentioned in the Free Recall, global confidence was more likely to remain stable. Overall, our results suggest that where interviews (i) follow the recommended UK guidance (Gabbert, Hope, La Rooy, et al, 2015; Gabbert, Hope, McGregor, et al, 2015; Home Office, 2022; Milne & Bull, 1999) whereby the Free Recall invitation precedes the Cued‐Recall phase, and (ii) a witness‐compatible questioning style is adopted, confidence is more likely to remain stable. On the contrary, when an interview features incompatible questions, global confidence decreases.…”

“…During a forensic interview, the goal of investigative interviewers is to gather comprehensive and accurate accounts of experienced events using various retrieval‐enhancing techniques, including different types of question. Although interviewing techniques should be tailored to eyewitnesses' individual needs, best‐practice recommendations suggest initiating an interview with a free recall invitation (Gabbert, Hope, La Rooy, et al, 2015; Gabbert, Hope, McGregor, et al, 2015; Milne & Bull, 1999). This initial prompt provides optimal conditions for accurate retrieval, allowing eyewitnesses to recall the incident in their own words and at their preferred pace.…”

Cross cultural verbal cues to deception: truth and lies in first and second language forensic interview contexts

“…Whilst our findings suggest that verifiability, and plausibility may be useful cues to deception, and that generally speaking they appear robust across cultures, how they manifest in absolute terms will vary. It will be interesting to determine if this remains true for cues that are not about information but about other elements of the interaction, such as relational humor (Hamlin et al, 2020) and rapport (Gabbert et al, 2021;. We might hypothesize, for example, that if a second language person of interest might focus entirely on providing information, the wider facets of interaction suffer, and this may also expose their deception.…”