How to Interview to Elicit Concealed Information

Granhag, Pär Anders; Luke, Timothy J.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-812729-2.00012-4

Cited by 11 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Initial experimental testing of this approach by Tekin andher colleagues (2015, 2016) produced promising results, suggesting that the technique was effective at eliciting concealed information from suspects. More recently, Granhag and Luke (2018) reviewed the literature on counter-interrogation strategies and on the variations of SUE technique and (re)conceptualized these techniques into what they called the Shift-of-Strategy (SoS) approach. The name of the approach reflects its focus on influencing a suspect's counter-interrogation strategy through the course of an interrogationfrom generally withholding toward more forthcoming with guarded informationand the name places emphasis on the purpose of the technique (i.e., influencing strategies), rather than on some of the tactics used (i.e., confrontation).…”

Section: Influencing Suspects' Counter-interrogation Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The third principle has received little or no attention in the existing literature. In their introduction to the SoS approach, Granhag and Luke (2018) emphasized the importance of further research that develops more specific recommendations for interviewers to handle a suspect's inconsistencies in order to encourage suspects to shift strategies to become more forthcoming. The development of such tactics was one of the goals of the present study.…”

Section: Influencing Suspects' Counter-interrogation Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The present study concerns a technique designed to improve interrogators' ability to obtain new information from such criminal suspects or intelligence sources: the Shift-of-Strategy (SoS) approach. The SoS approach is an extension of the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) interviewing technique (Hartwig et al, 2005) and is based on empirical research, psychological theory, and practitioner experience (for an introduction, see Granhag & Luke, 2018). Here, we present a laboratory test of variations of the SoS approach and provide initial support for its effectiveness.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Shift-of-Strategy (SoS) approach: Using evidence strategically to influence suspects’ counter-interrogation strategies

Tj¹,

Pa²

2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The Shift-of-Strategy (SoS) approach is an extension of the Strategic Use of Evidence technique. In the SoS approach, interviewers influence suspects’ strategies to encourage suspects to become more forthcoming with information by challenging discrepancies between their statements and the available evidence, in a non-accusatory manner. Our aim was to test the effectiveness of two variations of the SoS approach, one in which the interviewer responded immediately to any discrepancies with the evidence (Reactive) and one in which the interviewer only responded to severe discrepancies (Selective).Hypotheses: We generally predicted that the SoS approach conditions would be more effective at eliciting new information from mock suspects, compared to direct questioning.Method: In a laboratory experiment, N = 300 mock suspects committed a simulated crime and were interviewed using one of the two versions of the SoS approach or with an interviewing approach that did not involve the presentation of evidence. We coded the transcribed interviews to assess how much information about the mock crime participants disclosed.Results: The Reactive version of the SoS approach was more effective than direct questioning at eliciting new information from mock suspects. The Reactive technique also appeared to prompt participants to change their strategies during the interview.Conclusions: The present experiment provides initial support for the core principles of the SoS approach.

show abstract

Section: Influencing Suspects' Counter-interrogation Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Influencing Suspects' Counter-interrogation Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Shift-of-Strategy (SoS) approach: Using evidence strategically to influence suspects’ counter-interrogation strategies

Tj¹,

Pa²

2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, using an evidence framing matrix, and breaking down a single piece of evidence in a systematic manner, an interviewer can provoke within statement inconsistencies (contradictions in a suspect's statement) in a guilty suspect's account, another cue to deception (Luke et al, 2013). Research on the use of evidence has evolved to consider the benefits of gradually disclosing evidence (e.g., Dando, Bull, Omerod, & Sandham, 2013;Sorochinski et al, 2014) for deception detection, or how evidence disclosure could be used to elicit previously unknown information of relevance to an investigation (Granhag & Luke, 2018). Further, research has also suggested that evidence disclosure along with confrontation about statement evidence inconsistencies can increase subsequent forthcomingness (Tekin, Granhag, Stömwall, & Vrij, 2016).…”

Section: Research On Evidence Use In Interviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deconstructing the evidence: The effects of strength and reliability of evidence on suspect behavior and counter-interrogation tactics

Brimbal¹,

Tj²

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesStrategic questioning and disclosure of evidence are increasingly recommended as empirically-supported techniques in interviews. To date, no research has evaluated how different types of evidence (e.g., eyewitness, fingerprints) might affect interview outcome. HypothesesWe hypothesized that suspects would be more willing to make statements that contradict pieces of evidence that are perceived to be weaker and less reliable.MethodsIn Study 1, we conducted systematic and meta-analytic reviews of the literature to retrospectively assess these factors. In six experiments, we began to fill this gap by manipulating strength and reliability of evidence (Study 2, 3c, and 4a), assessing the validity of our operationalizations (Study 3a-b) and testing generalizability across operationalizations (Study 3c), and examining participants’ rationale for their responses to a qualitative analysis (Study 4b). ResultsStudy 1 found that evidence type and, hence, reliability had not been taken into account in previous research. Further, we were unable to establish if observed effects of interview tactics were moderated by the properties of the evidence used. In Study 2, we found that participants were more consistent with evidence when it was more reliable, especially when it was highly incriminating. After validating our operationalizations in studies 3a and 3b, we replicated the pattern found in Study 2 (3c and 4a), whereby those in the highly reliable condition were most consistent with the evidence, followed by those with less reliable evidence and no evidence.ConclusionsWe demonstrated that evidence properties should be considered when studying how to disclose information in an investigative interview.

show abstract

“…Based on what they think the interviewer already knows about their role in crime, guilty suspects choose strategies to convince the interviewer of their innocence and decide what information they want to reveal or conceal during the interview (e.g. Hartwig, Granhag & Luke, 2014;Granhag et al, 2015;Granhag & Luke, 2018). However, most of the existing literature has studied perceived interviewer knowledge as an outcome of the interviewer disclosing evidence and stating the information they hold using different techniques during the interview (Hartwig et al, 2014;Granhag et al, 2015;Granhag, Strömwall, Willén & Hartwig, 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How does Question Content Influence Guilty Suspects’ Inferences about what the Interviewer knows?

Srivatsav¹,

Tj²,

Pa³

et al. 2019

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to understand how introducing a higher suspicion tone and specific crime-related details in the content of investigative questions influences inferences guilty suspects draw regarding prior information held by the interviewer. We tested three factors related to the specific content in questions namely level of suspicion (high and low suspicion), level of specificity (the amount of crime-related detail-general and specific) and topic discussion (whether a certain crime-related activity was discussed or not). We recruited N= 232 participants who read a crime narrative and interview transcripts related to the crime. They assumed the role of the suspect in the narrative and responded to scales measuring their perceived interviewer knowledge (PIK) based on the interviews. We found that a specific crime-related topic, when discussed increased PIK. We also found that a topic discussed with specific crime-related details in the questions increased PIK. This study provides support for our findings from a previous study that was the first to test guilty suspects’ inferences from a psycholinguistic perspective, and gives us a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms during police interviews.

show abstract

How to Interview to Elicit Concealed Information

Cited by 11 publications

References 31 publications

The Shift-of-Strategy (SoS) approach: Using evidence strategically to influence suspects’ counter-interrogation strategies

The Shift-of-Strategy (SoS) approach: Using evidence strategically to influence suspects’ counter-interrogation strategies

Deconstructing the evidence: The effects of strength and reliability of evidence on suspect behavior and counter-interrogation tactics

How does Question Content Influence Guilty Suspects’ Inferences about what the Interviewer knows?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About