Police Strategies and Suspect Responses in Real-Life Serious Crime Interviews

Leahy-Harland, Samantha; Bull, Ray

doi:10.1007/s11896-016-9207-8

Cited by 42 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Legal psychological examinations of interviews have generally focused on interviewer behavior, and characterized suspect responses insofar as they reflect a response to the interviewers questioning style (e.g. Leahy-Harland & Bull, 2017). This work has been incredibly valuable in improving the practice of investigative interviews and understanding how interviewer behavior impacts upon the cooperation of the suspect.…”

Section: Suspect Behaviors During Investigative Interviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence Strategies of Interviewees Suspected of Controlling or Coercive Behavior

Watson¹,

Luther²,

Taylor³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research examines how suspects attempt to influence interviewers during investigative interviews. Twenty-nine interview transcripts with suspects accused of controlling or coercive behavior within intimate relationships were submitted to a thematic analysis to build a taxonomy of influence behavior. The analysis classified 18 unique suspect behaviors: the most common behaviors were using logical arguments (17% of all observed behaviors), denial or denigration of the victim (12%), denial or minimization of injury (8%), complete denials (7%), and supplication (6%). Suspects’ influence behaviors were mapped along two dimensions: power, ranging from low (behaviors used to alleviate investigative pressure) to high (behaviors used to assert authority), and interpersonal alignment, ranging from instrumental (behaviors that relate directly to evidence) to relational (behaviors used to bias interviewer perceptions of people and evidence). Proximity analysis was used to examine co-occurrence of influence behaviors. This analysis highlighted combinations of influence behaviors that illustrate how different behaviors map onto different motives, for example shifting attributions from internal to external to the suspect, or to use admissions strategically alongside denials to mitigate more serious aspects of an allegation. Our findings draw together current theory to provide a framework for understanding suspect influence behaviors in interviews.

show abstract

Section: Suspect Behaviors During Investigative Interviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence Strategies of Interviewees Suspected of Controlling or Coercive Behavior

Watson¹,

Luther²,

Taylor³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Humanitarian interviewing was also predictive of suspects' self-reported cooperation during the interview. By contrast, Goodman-Delahunty et al (2014) also assessed cooperation (though not confession) and reported that confronting suspects with evidence actually promoted resistance rather than cooperation (but see Bull, 2014, andLeahy-Harland &Bull, 2017, who found gradual disclosure of evidence/information to be associated with keeping suspects of serious crimes 'on topic'). Goodman-Delahunty et al…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Jail inmates’ perspectives on police interrogation

Cleary

Bull

2018

Psychology, Crime & Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Few studies have examined police interrogation strategies from suspects' perspectives, yet assessing suspects' views about interviewer approaches could provide important insights regarding confession decision making. The current study is the first American survey to assess a diverse sample of adult jail inmates' views on police interrogation tactics and approaches. The study explored US jail inmates' (N = 418) perspectives about how police should conduct interrogations. Potential dimensionality among 26 survey items pertaining to police tactics was examined using exploratory factor analysis. Group differences according to demographic and criminological variables were also explored. Four factors emerged, conceptualized as Dominance/Control, Humanity/Integrity, Sympathy/Perspective-Taking, and Rapport. Respondents most strongly endorsed Humanity/Integrity and Rapport strategies and were unsupportive of approaches involving Dominance/Control. Gender differences emerged for Dominance/ Control and Humanity/Integrity, and Black respondents were more likely to value strategies related to Sympathy/Perspective-Taking. Suspects endorsed interrogation strategies characterized by respect, dignity, voice, and a commitment to the truth; they reported aversions to the false evidence ploy and approaches involving aggression. Overall, results from this incarcerated sample suggest that interviewees may be more responsive to rapport-building, non-adversarial strategies.

show abstract

“…ethics, but also its effectiveness(Walsh, Oxburgh, Redlich & Myklebust, 2016). For suspect interviewing in connection with high risk crimes, such as murder, sexual offences, and terrorism, research has shown that humane styles of interviewing are positively associated with the gaining of information partly by enabling an environment where suspects feel comfortable and willing to cooperate(Alison, Alison, Noone, Elntib, & Christiansen, 2013;Holmberg & Christianson, 2002; Kebbell, Hurren, & Mazerolle, 2006;Leahy-Harland & Bull, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What to Reveal and what to Conceal? An Empirical Examination of Guilty Suspects’ Strategies

Srivatsav¹,

Tj²,

Pa³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With Study 1 (N=140), we aimed to examine how different ways of disclosing evidence during an interview would influence guilty suspects’ perception of interviewer’s prior knowledge and elicit statement-evidence inconsistencies. We predicted that interviews with evidence disclosed would elicit low statement-evidence inconsistencies whereas interviews where evidence was not disclosed would result in high statement-evidence inconsistencies. The outcome did not support our predictions. Guilty suspects revealed crime-related information about non-critical themes and withheld information regarding critical themes irrespective of evidence disclosure. We explored this unexpected finding in Study 2 (N=216), which was designed to understand if guilty suspects would reveal information regarding themes of the crime that are not incriminating (not critical) in comparison to themes that were incriminating (critical) as observed in Study 1. We used the evidence disclosure tactics of Study 1 in Study 2 and also measured how these influence their perception of interviewer’s knowledge. The outcome replicated findings from Study 1 that guilty suspects reveal or withhold information based on the cost of disclosing the information. This is a novel finding in the Strategic Use of Evidence literature.

show abstract

Police Strategies and Suspect Responses in Real-Life Serious Crime Interviews

Cited by 42 publications

References 36 publications

The Influence Strategies of Interviewees Suspected of Controlling or Coercive Behavior

The Influence Strategies of Interviewees Suspected of Controlling or Coercive Behavior

Jail inmates’ perspectives on police interrogation

What to Reveal and what to Conceal? An Empirical Examination of Guilty Suspects’ Strategies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About