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

Abstract

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.

A meta-analytic review of experimental tests of the interrogation technique of Hanns Joachim Scharff

“…Inconsistent with Scharff's technique, however, the Army Field Manual's "we know all" approach is compatible with approaches that involve accusatory pressure (see, e.g., Duke et al, 2018), and unlike Scharff's use of claims and avoidance of direct inquiry, the approach can entail "interjecting pertinent questions" when the source begins to provide new information. In contrast, the hypothesized underpinnings of the Scharffian illusion of knowing it all are similar to and consistent with the theoretical conceptualization behind the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique of interviewing and its extensions, which aim to influence interviewees' behavior in part by controlling their perception of how much the interviewer knows (see, e.g., Luke & Granhag, 2020). These theoretical similarities exist despite superficial differences between Scharff's technique, which emphasizes demonstration of knowledge, and the SUE technique, some of the tactics of which emphasize not demonstrating knowledge (Granhag & Hartwig, 2015).…”

A meta‐analytic review of experimental tests of the interrogation technique of Hanns Joachim Scharff

“…Inconsistent with Scharff's technique, however, the Army Field Manual's “we know all” approach is compatible with approaches that involve accusatory pressure (see e.g., Duke, Wood, Magee, & Escobar, 2018), and unlike Scharff's use of claims and avoidance of direct inquiry, the approach can entail “interjecting pertinent questions” when the source begins to provide new information. In contrast, the hypothesized underpinnings of the Scharffian illusion of knowing it all are similar to and consistent with the theoretical conceptualization behind the strategic use of evidence (SUE) technique of interviewing and its extensions, which aim to influence interviewees' behavior in part by controlling their perception of how much the interviewer knows (see e.g., Luke & Granhag, 2020). These theoretical similarities exist despite superficial differences between Scharff's technique, which emphasizes demonstration of knowledge, and the SUE technique, some of the tactics of which emphasize not demonstrating knowledge (Granhag & Hartwig, 2015).…”

Managing Disclosure Outcomes in Intelligence Interviews

“…Following the same principles, substantial intra-individual correlations of information disclosure decisions may lead to bimodal or multimodal distributions of the proportion of disclosed information. Indeed, previous research on interviewing, including the present preliminary study, has repeatedly observed bimodal distributions of information disclosure (e.g., Brimbal & Luke, 2019;Luke & Granhag, 2020;Luke et al, 2014;Srivatsav et al, 2019).…”

“…Previous research has rarely explicitly addressed individual differences in the propensity to disclose information or in the sensitivity to costs and benefits of disclosure. The past research that provides data on this issue, as well as the present preliminary study, suggests that there are substantial individual differences, such that people's decisions to disclose one piece of information are correlated with their decision to disclose other pieces (see e.g., Luke & Granhag, 2020). Considering this correlated structure of hypothetical data leads to useful insights concerning the distributions of disclosed information.…”