The efficacy of rapport-based techniques for minimizing counter-interrogation tactics amongst a field sample of terrorists.

Alison, Laurence; Noone, Geraldine; Elntib, Stamatis; Waring, Sara; Christiansen, Paul

doi:10.1037/law0000021

Cited by 81 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As described previously, a strong foundation of research has been established with respect to interviewing cooperative subjects (see Powell et al, 2005); however, much of this research has focused on skills related to interviewing witnesses or victims. While interrogation training programs primarily focus on gaining cooperation (and ultimately a state of compliance that produces a confession; see , researchers have begun to assess the importance of basic elicitation skills in promoting conversational rapport in less cooperative contexts -including the use of effective questioning skills drawn from a Motivational Interviewing framework (discussed previously;Alison et al, 2013Alison et al, , 2014. We focus here on research that has extended the Cognitive Interview to subject interviews for eliciting criminal and intelligence information.…”

Section: Eliciting Information Via Conversational Rapport and Facilitmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing an evidence-based perspective on interrogation: A review of the U.S. government’s high-value detainee interrogation group research program.

Meissner¹,

Surmon-Böhr²,

Oleszkiewicz³

et al. 2017

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interrogation practices in the United States have been roundly criticized both for their accusatorial ethos, at times leading to false confessions by the innocent, and for a history of applying physical and psychological coercion in law enforcement, military, and intelligence contexts. Despite decades of psychological research demonstrating the failures of such approaches and despite recent positive advances in countries such as the United Kingdom moving to an information-gathering framework, little change has occurred in the training or practice of U.S. interrogation professionals over the past 50 years. This paper describes recent historical events that have led to the development of the first unclassified, government-funded research program on the science of interviewing and interrogation. Since 2010, the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) Research Program has identified effective approaches for developing cooperation and rapport, eliciting information, challenging inconsistencies by presenting evidence or information strategically, and assessing credibility using cognitive cues and strategic questioning tactics. The program has also examined the influence of culture and language, and has facilitated the translation of research from the laboratory to the field. In this context, we review the significant contributions of psychologists to understanding and developing ethical, legal, and effective interrogation practices, and we describe important future directions for research on investigative interviewing and interrogation. DEVELOPING AN EVIDENCE-BASED PERSPECTIVE 3 Developing an Evidence-Based Perspective on Interrogation: A Review of the U.S. Government's High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group Research Program The interrogation practices adopted by law enforcement, military, and intelligence professionals in the United States have been criticized both for their accusatorial ethos leading to false confessions and wrongful conviction of the innocent (Kassin et al., 2010; Lassiter & Meissner, 2010), as well as a dark history of applying torture in the interrogation booth (Costanzo & Redlich, 2010; Vrij et al., in press). Despite decades of research demonstrating the problems with such approaches and despite recent advances in countries such as the United Kingdom moving toward an information-gathering framework (Bull & Milne, 2004), little change has occurred in the training or practice of U.S. interrogation professionals over the past 50 years. This paper describes recent historical events that have led to the development of the first unclassified, government-funded research program on the science of interviewing and interrogation, and details its significant contributions to understanding and developing best practices. Notably, the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) research program has been shaped, almost exclusively, by an international cadre of research psychologists conducting studies in the laboratory, in training academies, and in the field. As detailed below, the HIG research progr...

show abstract

Section: Eliciting Information Via Conversational Rapport and Facilitmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing an evidence-based perspective on interrogation: A review of the U.S. government’s high-value detainee interrogation group research program.

Meissner¹,

Surmon-Böhr²,

Oleszkiewicz³

et al. 2017

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regarding criminal suspects, a questionnaire completed by 631 police investigators in the USA revealed that establishing rapport was reported as the fourth most commonly used tactic, with 32% of investigators revealing that they always build rapport during an interrogation (Kassin et al, ). Subsequent studies have also established the frequent use and benefits of rapport‐building with criminal suspects (Alison et al, ; Alison et al, in press; Bull & Soukara, ; Kelly et al, ; Walsh & Bull, , ), suggesting that building and maintaining rapport throughout the criminal interview can increase successful interview outcomes. Despite the perceived importance and actual usage of rapport‐building, relatively little is known regarding specific rapport‐building techniques used by law enforcement interviewers during witness interviews and suspect interrogations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Rapport‐Building During Witness and Suspect Interviews: A Survey of Law Enforcement

Vallano

Evans

Compo

et al. 2015

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Building rapport with adult witnesses and suspects is recommended by major investigative interviewing protocols (e.g., Cognitive Interview and the Army Field Manual in the USA and PEACE in the UK). Although recent research suggests that building rapport can sometimes benefit police investigations by increasing the accuracy of adult eyewitness reports and potentially enhance the diagnosticity of evidence obtained from suspects, little data exist regarding how law enforcement interviewers actually define and build rapport in real-world investigations. To fill this void, the present study distributed a questionnaire containing open and closed-ended questions to 123 law enforcement interviewers in police training courses to determine how they conceptualize and build rapport with adult interviewees. Results indicate that a majority of law enforcement interviewers define rapport as a positive relationship involving trust and communication, with a strong minority defining rapport as a 'positive or negative' relationship. Further, law enforcement interviewers reported building rapport with adult witnesses and suspects in a similar manner, often by using verbal techniques (e.g., discussing common interests via small talk) and non-verbal techniques (e.g., displaying understanding via empathy and sympathy). Theoretical and applied implications of these results are discussed.

show abstract

“…The interviewer's goal here is to reduce the likely intensity of the emotion‐laden discourse; he can do this by active listening, not shouting back, and echoing the key words. (b) The interviewer might challenge the subject on some aspect of his identity: for example, he might say, “You've said you are a good father and that you love your daughter, but not telling us what might have happened last night may make it only harder for us to find her now.” The goal of this challenge is not to be confrontational or draw the subject into an argument, but to engage him—at least now both interviewer and subject are on the same topic; this may also create some cognitive dissonance (Festinger, ). Talks about apparently irrelevant topics, retracts previous statements: To redirect the conversation away from the topic at hand is a strategy not only just of criminal subjects (Alison et al, ) but also of politicians (Norton & Goethals, ). Interviewer counter‐strategies might be (a) assuming a position of “seeking guidance”: “I told you why we are here today; can you help me understand why you choose not to talk to me?” (Alison et al, ) or by (b) pointing to inconsistencies, using evocation—that is, drawing out the subject's beliefs and feelings (Miller & Rollnick, ). Tries to manipulate the relationship with the interviewer, faults the interviewer, denies all knowledge and responsibility: The interviewer might reframe the exchange by suggesting that the subject is believed to have the most knowledge about the event in question and, in this instance, is the “expert,” or point out that he (the interviewer) is being asked to conduct the interview on behalf of the officer‐in‐charge (Sprecher, ).…”

Section: The Interviewmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…• Talks about apparently irrelevant topics, retracts previous statements: To redirect the conversation away from the topic at hand is a strategy not only just of criminal subjects (Alison et al, 2014) but also of politicians (Norton & Goethals, 2004). Interviewer counter-strategies might be (a) assuming a position of "seeking guidance": "I told you why we are here today; can you help me understand why you choose not to talk to me?"…”

Section: Start the Conversation And Then Listenmentioning

confidence: 98%

Science‐based interviewing: Information elicitation

Brandon

Wells

Seale

2018

Journal Invest Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article describes an ethical and effective science‐based model of interviewing. An initial planning phase assists the investigative team in separating facts from inferences, decreases the likelihood of errors based on cognitive biases, and prompts careful preparation of the environment. The interview begins with an explanation of why the subject is being questioned. The interviewer then metaphorically hands the interview over to the subject, making him the talker and the interviewer the listener. The interviewer engages in active listening, soliciting as much information from the subject as possible by deploying tactics that enhance memory based on science, including elements of the cognitive interview. Cues to deception are found in the details of the story, rather than in signs of anxiety or nonverbal behaviours, and by deploying Strategic Use of Evidence. This model has been shown to increase cooperation, decrease resistance, and provoke useful information in real‐world criminal interviews.

show abstract

The efficacy of rapport-based techniques for minimizing counter-interrogation tactics amongst a field sample of terrorists.

Cited by 81 publications

References 29 publications

Developing an evidence-based perspective on interrogation: A review of the U.S. government’s high-value detainee interrogation group research program.

Developing an evidence-based perspective on interrogation: A review of the U.S. government’s high-value detainee interrogation group research program.

Rapport‐Building During Witness and Suspect Interviews: A Survey of Law Enforcement

Science‐based interviewing: Information elicitation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About