ArticlePDF Available


The last two decades of research on interrogation were spurred, in large part, by the specter of false confessions and the resulting miscarriages of justice. More recently, interest in the topic has been fueled by the need for developing evidence-based methods that improve the collection of diagnostic confession evidence and accurate intelligence from human sources. In this review, we update the research on false confessions and describe recent assessments of scientifically validated approaches for obtaining cooperation, eliciting confessions, and detecting deceit. Studies are summarized through the prism of accusatorial versus information-gathering approaches to interrogation – the former rely upon psychological manipulation and control-based methods, whereas the latter focus on developing rapport and cooperation to elicit an account that can be strategically addressed via evidence presentation. The review concludes with recommendations for additional research to further improve the effectiveness of interrogations across a variety of contexts.
Improving the Effectiveness of Suspect Interrogations
Christian A. Meissner
Iowa State University
Christopher E. Kelly
Saint Joseph’s University
Skye A. Woestehoff
University of Texas at El Paso
In press at the Annual Review of Law & Social Sciences.
Authors Note
Christian A. Meissner (corresponding author), Department of Psychology, Iowa State
University, Christopher E. Kelly, Department of Sociology and Criminal
Justice, Saint Joseph’s University, Skye A. Woestehoff, Department of
Psychology, University of Texas at El Paso,
This review was supported by the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (J-FBI-10-
009). Statements of fact, opinion, and analysis in the paper are those of the authors and do not
reflect the official policy or position of the FBI or the US Government.
The last two decades of research on interrogation were spurred, in large part, by the specter of
false confessions and the resulting miscarriages of justice. More recently, interest in the topic has
been fueled by the need for developing evidence-based methods that improve the collection of
diagnostic confession evidence and accurate intelligence from human sources. In this review, we
update the research on false confessions and describe recent assessments of scientifically
validated approaches for obtaining cooperation, eliciting confessions, and detecting deceit.
Studies are summarized through the prism of accusatorial versus information-gathering
approaches to interrogation – the former rely upon psychological manipulation and control-based
methods, whereas the latter focus on developing rapport and cooperation to elicit an account that
can be strategically addressed via evidence presentation. The review concludes with
recommendations for additional research to further improve the effectiveness of interrogations
across a variety of contexts.
Keywords: interrogation, interviewing, confession, deception, credibility assessment
Improving the Effectiveness of Suspect Interrogations
For more than a century, legal scholars and social scientists have sought to understand the
incidence of false confessions in our criminal justice system leading to wrongful conviction of
the innocent (Bedau & Radelet, 1987; Borchard, 1932; Drizin & Leo, 2004; Münsterberg, 1908;
Wigmore, 1899). Empirical study on this issue has identified a variety of factors that produce
unreliable confession evidence, including certain characteristics that render individuals more
vulnerable to interrogation and the role of situational factors, including accusatorial tactics that
can lead an innocent person to confess. Research-based recommendations for reducing the
incidence of false confessions have emanated from this body of research (Kassin et al., 2010;
Lassiter & Meissner, 2010).
While law enforcement practices within the United States have been slow to change in
the wake of this research (Kelly & Meissner, 2015), recent public debate over the use of so-
called “enhanced interrogation techniques” has led the U.S. Government to begin evaluating its
interrogation practices. A study by the Intelligence Science Board (Fein, 2006) concluded that
current military, intelligence, and law enforcement interrogation practices lack any scientific
assessments of validity. In 2009, the Obama administration initiated the first federally-funded
research program on interrogation since the 1950s; now in its fifth year, the effort is beginning to
identify productive, evidence-based methods of interviewing suspects and is engaging federal
training facilities in both evaluations of current practice and the introduction of novel approaches
(Brandon, 2014).
Other countries have responded in a more progressive manner – for example, several
high-profile cases involving false confessions led England and Wales to enact the Police and
Criminal Evidence (PACE) Act of 1984 (Home Office, 2003), which prohibited the use of
psychologically manipulative techniques and mandated the recording of custodial interrogations.
A subsequent national review initiated by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the
relevant government ministry led to development of the PEACE model of investigative
interviewing (Planning and Preparation; Engage and Explain; Obtain an Account; Closure; and
Evaluation; see Bull & Soukara, 2010; Clarke & Milne, 2001; Milne & Bull, 1999). Recent field
and laboratory evaluations of this information-gathering approach suggest that it can facilitate
true confessions and protect against the incidence of false confessions (Meissner et al., 2014).
In the current review, we provide an update on research assessing various factors that
lead to false confessions in the interrogation room (see Kassin, 2008). We then turn our attention
to more recent studies that have investigated the effectiveness of existing and novel approaches
to interrogation, including distinctions between accusatorial and information-gathering
approaches to interrogation and the various techniques the underlie them. We conclude the
review by identifying issues that require further research and offering recommendations for
advancing research in this area.
In 1982, George Allen Jr. was mistaken as the perpetrator of a sexual assault and
homicide. Despite realizing that Allen was not the suspect they had originally identified,
investigators engaged in an aggressive accusatorial interrogation that ultimately produced a false
confession. During the interrogation, the detective falsely claimed to have evidence against Allen
and convinced him that his only option was to confess to the crime. Allen had been previously
diagnosed with schizophrenia and claimed to have been intoxicated during the interrogation.
Despite being innocent of the crime and having no knowledge of the event, the detective scripted
Allen’s confession through the use of leading questions, prompting him to alter his statements
when they were inconsistent with case facts. Allen was ultimately (wrongfully) convicted based
upon his confession and was exonerated 30 years later (
False confessions, which comprise nearly 30% of the first 325 wrongful convictions
identified by The Innocence Project, have been the subject of significant scientific scrutiny
(Kassin et al., 2010; Lassiter & Meissner, 2010), including archival analyses (Drizin & Leo,
2004; Leo & Ofshe, 1998; Garrett, 2015) and experimental investigations (Kassin & Kiechel,
1996; Russano, Meissner, Narchet, & Kassin, 2005). Taken together, the literature suggests that
both situational and dispositional risk factors can play an important role in producing false
Situational Risk Factors
In their review of 125 cases of proven false confession in the United States, Drizin and
Leo (2004) found that lengthy interrogations were common within the sample (see also Garrett,
2015; Malloy, Shulman, & Cauffman, 2014). Lengthy interrogations can lead to sleep
deprivation, impaired decision-making, and the desire to escape the situation (cf. Kassin et al.,
2010). People may focus on the immediate benefits of confessing (e.g., ending the interrogation),
perhaps without considering the long-term consequences (Madon, Guyll, Scherr, Greathouse, &
Wells, 2012; Madon, Yang, Smalarz, Guyll, & Scherr, 2013), with lengthy interrogations
exacerbating this tendency (Madon et al., 2013). Similarly, juveniles’ false confessions are
related to police refusals (e.g., to take a break; Malloy et al., 2014), suggesting that false
confessions may be motivated at least in part by certain immediate benefits such as ending the
interrogation (Gudjonsson, 2003).
An interrogator’s expectation that the suspect is guilty can also place innocent suspects at
risk. Before conducting an interrogation, investigators often attempt to evaluate a suspect’s
nonverbal behavior to determine whether they are being deceptive (Inbau, Reid, Buckley, &
Jayne, 2013). As discussed later, nonverbal behaviors are a poor indicator of deception (DePaulo
et al., 2003) and police officers, while confident in their decisions, are inaccurate at
differentiating deceptive and truthful suspects (Kassin, Meissner, & Norwick, 2005; Meissner &
Kassin, 2002). Thus, innocent suspects may be identified as deceptive and questioned by an
interrogator who holds a strong expectation regarding the suspect’s guilt (Kassin, 2005). This
expectation of guilt leads interrogators to use more guilt-presumptive interrogation techniques,
which increases suspects’ perceived pressure to confess (Hill, Memon, & McGeorge, 2008;
Kassin, Goldstein, & Savitsky, 2003) and ultimately produces a cycle of behavioral confirmation
that can lead to confession by the innocent (Narchet, Meissner, & Russano, 2011).
Certain accusatorial interrogation techniques, such as minimization and maximization,
have also been shown to increase the risk of false confession. Interrogators will often sympathize
with a suspect and attempt to minimize their perceptions of responsibility or blame by offering
face-saving excuses and justifications for the crime; at other times interrogators will exaggerate
the seriousness of the crime and present evidence that does not exist. Such techniques have been
shown to convey implicit promises of leniency and implicit threats of harsher punishment,
respectively (Kassin & McNall, 1991). While minimization and maximization techniques used in
conjunction have been shown to increase the likelihood of false confessions (Horgan, Russano,
Meissner, & Evans, 2012; Narchet et al., 2011), minimization may be particularly problematic
(Klaver, Lee, & Rose, 2008; Narchet et al., 2011; Russano et al., 2005).
The presentation of false evidence, a form of maximization, is another interrogation
technique that can produce false confessions. False evidence can induce innocent suspects to
confess when it is presented as a direct claim (Kassin & Kiechel, 1996; Nash & Wade, 2009;
Perillo & Kassin, 2011), when an insinuation (or “bluff”) is presented suggesting that the
evidence may exist (Perillo & Kassin, 2011), or when evidence is fabricated and presented to the
subject (Nash & Wade, 2009). Innocent suspects appear to confess in response to false evidence
because they believe that the evidence will ultimately prove their innocence (Perillo & Kassin,
2011) or because they come to believe they actually committed the crime (Kassin & Kiechel,
1996). Such internalized false confessions are more likely to occur when the evidence is
fabricated and presented to the subject (Nash & Wade, 2009), when the evidence is presented
with a delay after the incident, and when the evidence is presented more than once (Wright,
Wade, & Watson, 2013).
Dispositional Risk Factors
Certain characteristics of the suspect can also increase their risk to providing a false
confession. For example, certain individuals are more suggestible – they are more likely to
acquiesce to leading questions or change their answers in response to feedback from an authority
figure (Drake, 2010; Gudjonsson, 2013). Certain populations may also be particularly vulnerable
in an interrogation; for example, juveniles are more compliant with authority figures (Grisso et
al., 2003), and individuals with intellectual disabilities (Gudjonsson & Henry, 2003) or mental
illnesses (Gudjonsson, 2003) have been shown to be more suggestible. Innocence itself has also
been identified as a false confession risk factor (Kassin, 2005).
Archival analyses of false confessions (Drizin & Leo, 2004; Garrett, 2015), surveys
(Goldstein, Condie, Kalbeitzer, Osman, & Geier, 2003; Grisso et al., 2003; Gudjonsson,
Sigurdsson, Asgeirsdottir, & Sigfusdottir, 2006), and laboratory experiments (Candel,
Merckelbach, Loyen, & Reyskens, 2005; Redlich & Goodman, 2003) have shown that juveniles,
particularly those who are younger, are at increased risk to falsely confess. Juveniles are more
likely to falsely confess following the presentation of false evidence (Redlich & Goodman, 2003)
and frequently report that they falsely confessed to protect someone else (Malloy et al., 2014;
Viljoen, Klaver, & Roesch, 2005). One reason that age may be a risk factor is that juveniles are
more likely to comply with authorities and are less cognizant of the consequences of their
decisions (Grisso et al., 2003), favoring short-term benefits over long-term costs. Juveniles’
decisions tend to be motivated more by rewards, rather than risks (cf. Steinberg, & Scott, 2003),
leading many juvenile false confessors to believe they would be allowed to go home if they
confessed (Drizin & Leo, 2004).
Factors such as intellectual disability and mental illness can also lead to false confessions
(Clare & Gudjonsson, 1995; Redlich, Kulish, & Steadman, 2011). Individuals with intellectual
disabilities are more suggestible (Gudjonsson & Henry, 2003) and are likely to acquiesce to
leading questions or change their responses when an authority figure suggests they answered
incorrectly (Everington & Fulero, 1999; O’Connell, Garmoe, & Goldstein, 2005). False
confessions due to mental illness are often associated with anxiety and depression (Gudjonsson
et al., 2006), as well as the tendency to fantasize (Horselenberg et al., 2006) and difficulty in
differentiating fact from fiction (Gudjonsson, 2003; Leo, 2009).
Finally, individuals may be at increased risk for a false confession because of their
innocence. Innocent suspects believe that their innocence will be readily apparent to
interrogators (Kassin, 2005), which leads them to waive their Miranda rights and talk to the
police (Kassin & Norwick, 2004). Innocent suspects may also experience less stress during an
interrogation, suggesting that they do not feel as threatened by the situation (Guyll, Madon,
Yang, Lannin, & Scherr, 2013). However, interrogators have difficulty identifying innocence
(Kassin et al., 2005) and innocent suspects may actually experience harsher interrogations than
do guilty suspects – interrogators who believe that a suspect is guilty will employ more
interrogation techniques and conduct longer interrogations, placing greater pressure on the
innocent suspect to confess (Kassin et al., 2003; Narchet et al., 2011). In relenting to the demand
for a confession, innocent suspects may continue to believe that their innocence will be
recognized and assume that the evidence will later exonerate them (Perillo & Kassin, 2011).
Several theories have been proposed to account for why an individual may confess (see
Gudjonsson, 2003; Houston, Meissner, & Evans, 2014). Some are based upon internal processes
(e.g., Reik, 1959), while others also take into consideration situational factors (e.g., Gudjonsson,
2003; Hilgendorf & Irving, 1981). For example, Reik (1959) suggests that feelings of guilt result
from transgressions of societal or moral norms, and that this internal state is likely to produce
anxiety and discomfort. Confession of the transgression is therein believed to alleviate such
negative internal states. Decision-making models have also been developed, such as that first
proposed by Hilgendorf and Irving (1981). These accounts suggest that suspects subjectively
evaluate the cost-benefit ratio associated with confession based upon the variety of possible
actions currently available to them, the proximate and distal benefits and costs associated with
such actions, and the probabilities associated with such benefits and costs (cf. Gudjonsson, 2003;
Madon et al., 2012). Finally, other theories of confession focus upon the social pressure and
anxiety of the interrogation itself, particularly when suspects actively deceive the interrogator
with regard to their culpability. For example, Jayne (1986) argues that interrogators should
increase the anxiety experienced by a suspect during an interrogation to increase their discomfort
associated with being deceptive. A suspect’s decision to confess is then proposed to be
associated with a reduction in negative emotions. A cognitive behavioral model proposed by
Gudjonsson (2003) incorporates many of these theoretical perspectives. The model purports that
the likelihood of confession is influenced by the antecedents (e.g., isolation, emotional distress)
and consequences (both proximal and distal) associated with the action. In general, the model
addresses a variety of psychological, criminological, and situational factors that may lead to
confession, and offers predictions regarding factors that are likely to increase the likelihood of a
false confession.
Although the theories of confession described above do not readily identify the
psychological processes leading to true vs. false confessions, recent research has begun to fill
this gap. For example, three surveys of incarcerated individuals have assessed the various
motivations leading to true and false confessions. In the first study, Sigurdsson and Gudjonsson
(1996) surveyed prisoners in Iceland and found that perceived pressure to confess, intimidation
by the interrogator, and fear associated with the consequences of not confessing were
significantly higher for false confessions. In contrast, true confessions were more likely to result
from a desire to relieve distress and feelings of guilt. Redlich and colleagues (2011) conducted a
similar survey with incarcerated adults in the U.S. who had been diagnosed with serious mental
illness. Consistent with prior work, Redlich et al. found that false confessions were related to
social pressure by the interrogator, as well as perceived short-term gains in confession (such as
terminating the interrogation), and perceived leniency in sentencing if they confessed. True
confessions, in contrast, were more likely to reference feelings of guilt, perceptions of the
strength of evidence, and beliefs that their responsibility for the crime would inevitably be
revealed. Finally, a recent survey by Malloy and colleagues (2014) assessed motivations to
provide true and false admissions in a sample of incarcerated youths in the U.S. (ages 14 to 17).
Their findings largely replicate that of previous adult samples, with false confessions emanating
from feelings of pressure and duress, perceptions of reduced consequences associated with
confession, and the desire to protect another individual. Lengthy interrogations also increased the
likelihood of a false confession. True confessions, on the other hand, were principally motivated
by feelings of guilt and a desire to behave honestly, though perceptions of police pressure were
also noted.
As discussed below, laboratory studies have been conducted to assess the diagnostic
value of certain interrogative approaches in producing true vs. false confessions (cf. Russano et
al., 2005). These studies also frequently assess the psychological factors that lead a subject to
confess, including the anxiety experienced, beliefs regarding the consequences associated with
confessing (or not), perceptions of the evidence, feelings of guilt or remorse, and perceptions of
the pressure being placed upon them by the interrogator. In a meta-analysis of available
experimental studies, Houston, Meissner, and Evans (2014) largely replicated the pattern of
effects observed in prior survey studies: true confessions were significantly associated with
individuals’ feelings of guilt or remorse, perceptions of the strength of evidence, and beliefs
about the consequences of confession; false confessions were associated with the social pressure
being placed upon them by the interrogator and beliefs regarding the consequences associated
with not confessing.
Taken together, the available research provides support for the important role of
perceived consequences in yielding confessions – though such a factor appears to influence both
the guilty and innocent alike. Beyond this, it appears that true and false confessions may be
distinguished by the influence of internal (e.g., feelings of guilt or remorse) vs. external (e.g.,
social pressure emanating from the interrogator) psychological motivations, respectively. As
described below, these psychological factors may also be key to understanding the diagnostic
utility of interrogative approaches (cf. Horgan et al., 2012; Narchet et al., 2011).
Interrogations conducted by professionals today are likely to include a mix of effective
approaches that yield valid information from a suspect, and those that are less effective and/or
more likely to produce evidence of false information. To ultimately understand the efficacy of
modern interrogative approaches, researchers must study the use of interrogative techniques in
vivo (i.e., in their naturalistic context) and further evaluate their findings in vitro (i.e., in a
controlled, experimental setting; see Dunbar & Blanchette, 2001). In the current section, we note
how social scientists have successfully undertaken both in vivo and in vitro research on
interrogation practices to evaluate the modern interrogation landscape. First, we describe a series
of in vivo approaches that include observational studies of real interrogations, as well as
structured interviews and representative surveys of interrogation professionals. These studies
seek both to understand the use of interrogative approaches and to assess the extent to which
certain techniques are effective in yielding confessions or admissions. Second, we describe in
vitro, experimental research that has assessed the causal influence of modern interrogative
approaches on true and false confessions.
We pause here to note that several frameworks have been offered to characterize modern
interrogative approaches. One primary distinction has been proposed between the use of
accusatorial approaches in North America and the development of information-gathering
approaches in the United Kingdom, Australia, and elsewhere (Bull & Soukara, 2010; Meissner
et al., 2014). Key differences in the two methods lay in their approach to developing and
maintaining rapport, the use of psychological manipulation and theme development, and the
presentation of evidence. Other researchers have proposed a singular taxonomy to assess the use
of interrogative approaches across contexts – for example, Kelly, Miller, Redlich, and Kleinman
(2013) identified more than 70 unique interrogation techniques and sorted them into one of six
conceptual domains: rapport and relationship building, emotion provocation, context
manipulation, confrontation/competition, collaboration, and presentation of evidence. These
“meso-level” domains have been used by researchers to both describe the phenomenon of
interrogation and to assess the effectiveness of certain approaches. Based upon the Kelly et al.
domain, accusatorial approaches can be described as involving minimal rapport development and
collaboration, with a greater focus on emotion provocation and confrontation, and the use of
context manipulations that promote isolation and anxiety while presenting evidence in a manner
that overwhelms and “maximizes” a suspect’s perception of the interrogator’s belief in guilt.
Information-gathering approaches, in contrast, can be described as involving extensive rapport
development and collaboration approaches, a minimal degree of emotional provocation and
confrontation/competition, and the development of contexts that facilitate openness and
cooperation while presenting evidence in a more strategic, systematic manner to confront a
suspect’s claims. The efficacy of these are explored below via in vivo and in vitro
in vivo Studies of Modern Interrogation Practices
Accusatorial, confession-focused, approaches. As described above, accusatorial
interrogation strategies typically emphasize the domains of emotion provocation and
confrontation/competition in order to manipulate the suspect into offering a confession. The
earliest, and most frequently cited, in vivo studies focused their observations on those techniques
that were associated with false confessions. For example, Leo (1996) reported that techniques
related to the emotion provocation domain, including appeals to the suspect’s self-interest,
appeals to the suspect’s conscience, and use of moral justifications, were used frequently and
were associated with providing incriminating information. Feld (2013), in his study of 16- and
17-year old suspects, reported comparatively lower rates of emotion provocation techniques;
instead, Feld’s sample involved an increased use of confrontation/competition techniques such as
accusing the suspect of lying and urging the suspect to tell the truth. King and Snook (2009),
meanwhile, found that tactics related to both emotion provocation and confrontation/competition
were likely to result in full or partial confessions in a Canadian sample of adult suspects.
These observations of psychologically manipulative techniques are largely bolstered by
the seminal self-report survey of North American law enforcement interrogators conducted by
Kassin et al. (2007). Investigators in the sample reported that the techniques related to emotion
provocation and confrontation/competition – i.e., minimization and maximization – were among
those most frequently employed (e.g., appealing to self-interest, offering moral justifications).
More recently, expressly applying the domain framework to a survey of U.S. law enforcement
and military interrogators, Redlich, Kelly, and Miller (2014) found that emotion provocation was
the second most frequently used domain, while confrontation/competition was the least favored.
Interrogators’ perceptions of effectiveness largely followed this pattern across four interrogation
outcomes – intelligence gathering, confession and prosecution, tactical interrogation, and
strategic interrogation – and across three distinct interrogation vignettes where participants
selected techniques they might employ.
Presentation of evidence in accusatorial interrogations is typically conducted in a
confrontational manner – the evidence is generally presented by the interrogator in a monologue
designed to demonstrate the strength of the case against the suspect. Feld (2013) classified
confronting the suspect with evidence as a maximization technique, and the Kassin et al. (2007)
survey asked specifically about the use of bluffs and presentations of false evidence (such as
telling the suspect he/she failed a polygraph test). While observational research on the timing and
format of evidence presentation is lacking, nearly all observational and survey studies report
high levels of confronting suspects with evidence of guilt.
Assessments of rapport and relationship building in the context of accusatorial
interrogations have received relatively less attention. Several recent studies, however, have
reported promising findings on the use and importance of rapport even in an otherwise
accusatorial setting. For example, respondents to the Kassin et al. (2007) survey rated
establishing rapport as among the most frequently employed techniques, while investigators
responding to the Redlich et al. (2014) survey rated rapport and relationship building as the
most favored interrogation domain. A recent survey by Vallano, Evans, Schreiber Compo, and
Kieckhaefer (in press) focused exclusively on rapport-building techniques in a sample of U.S.
investigators and found broad support for the use of such techniques, including both verbal (e.g.,
establishing common ground) and nonverbal (e.g., displaying empathy) approaches.
With respect to the use of rapport and relationship-building tactics in practice, Kelly,
Redlich, and Miller (in press) conducted a content analysis on a U.S. sample of interrogation
recordings and found that most interrogators utilized such approaches. However, when
interrogations were disaggregated by whether or not the suspect confessed, those that ended with
the suspect denying involvement had the greatest emphasis on presentation of evidence, emotion
provocation, and confrontation/competition tactics. Not surprisingly, Kelly et al. reported
significant, positive correlations between these three domains, suggesting that evidence was
likely disclosed to suspects in an aggressive or manipulative manner.
In the U.S., Russano, Narchet, Kleinman, and Meissner (2014) conducted in-depth
interviews with a sample of U.S. military and intelligence interrogators, many of whom had
experience with high-value targets. Russano and colleagues applied the Kelly et al. (2013)
domain framework and reported that rapport and relationship-building and emotion provocation
were most frequently employed and perceived to be most effective when compared with
confrontation/competition. Although interrogators appeared to recognize and highlight the
importance of rapport, Russano and colleagues found less consensus among the interrogators
with respect to how it might be defined or specific tactics that might facilitate its development
with a subject.
Information-gathering approaches. Concurrent with research focusing on emotion
provocation and confrontation/competition methods in North America, a competing model of
interrogation has been developed in the United Kingdom that is more aligned with the domains
of rapport and relationship building, collaboration, and a more strategic form of presentation of
evidence. The PEACE model of investigative interviewing briefly described above (Baldwin,
1993; Milne & Bull, 1999; Williamson, 1993) came about as a result of several high-profile
miscarriages of justice in the United Kingdom (e.g., the “Guildford Four” and “Birmingham
Six”), and represents a repudiation of the accusatorial model of interrogation that focuses on
obtaining confessions.
The first major evaluation of PEACE found that initial implementation of the model was
promising, if uneven, with improvements in giving suspects proper caution regarding their rights
and the increased use of open-ended questions (Clarke & Milne, 2001). Further, the PEACE
method is predicated on a robust supervision and training regime (Clarke, Milne, & Bull, 2011)
and “advanced interviewing” training (see Griffiths & Milne, 2006) that was based upon a
survey of British investigators that confirmed the need for specialized training and wide-spread
adoption of the tenants of the model (Soukara, Bull, & Vrij, 2002). While subsequent
observational studies found some slippage in it implementation, the non-coercive tactics
contained in the PEACE model are largely employed today (Soukara, Bull, Vrij, Turner, &
Cherryman, 2009; Walsh & Milne, 2008).
One of the more thorough examinations of the PEACE model involved interrogations of
benefits fraud suspects in the United Kingdom. Like previous studies, Walsh and Bull (2010a)
found that interrogators were apt to employ open-ended questions but were less skilled in other
areas of the model such as rapport building. In later analyses, they found that where the elements
of PEACE were properly demonstrated, such as the use of appropriate questioning, challenging
suspects accounts with evidence presentation, and adaptive questioning during the interview,
suspects were more likely to provide full accounts of their crimes (Walsh & Bull, 2010b) and
interviewers were able to overcome suspect denials (Walsh & Bull, 2012). Moreover, Walsh and
Bull (2012a) found that both confrontation/competition and emotion provocation techniques,
favored in accusatorial interrogations, were associated with suspects’ continued denials (see Bull
& Soukara, 2010, for more on “shifting” from denial to admission). Recently, Walsh and Bull (in
press) observed that a gradual method of evidence presentation across the interview resulted in
more complete accounts from suspects than either early or late full disclosure of the evidence.
The information-gathering approach is not the sole provenance of the United Kingdom,
however, and research emanating from other nations is finding support for rapport and
relationship building and collaboration in suspect interviews. Surveys of interrogation
professionals and evaluations of suspect interviews in Finland (Hakkanen, Ask, Kebbell, Alison,
& Granhag, 2009), Sweden (Holmberg & Christensen, 2002), and Australia (Kebbell, Alison,
Hurren, & Mazerolle, 2010; Powell, Day, Benson, Vess, & Graffam, 2014) have found a
preference for and effectiveness with a rapport-based approach. For instance, Holmberg and
Christensen’s study of individuals convicted of sex offenses found that a dominant attitude, or
approaches related to confrontation/competition such as demonstrating impatience or aggression,
was related to suspect denials. Alternatively, a humane approach, characterized by rapport and
relationship building techniques such as expressing empathy and a positive attitude toward the
suspect, produced higher levels of admissions. Very similar results were found among an
Australian sample of individuals convicted of sex crimes, including the relative ineffectiveness
of emotion provocation techniques (Kebbell et al., 2010).
Elsewhere, drawing upon interviews with police and military interrogators in Australia,
Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea, and Sri Lanka, Goodman-Delahunty and colleagues
examined high-value interrogations in three novel yet interconnected ways. First, Goodman-
Delahunty, O’Brien, & Gumbert-Jourjon (2014) framed interrogation in procedural justice terms
where perceptions of the authorities’ legitimacy are based on the fair treatment of those subjected
to the authority. The researchers found that interrogators viewed rapport and relationship
building as an essential element to procedural justice objectives, which, in turn, led to favorable
outcomes such as eliciting reliable information. Second, Goodman-Delahunty and Howes (in
press) found that principles of persuasion (Cialdini, 2006) such as liking and reciprocity were
most closely associated with rapport and relationship building. Finally, Goodman-Delahunty,
Martschuk, and Dhami (2014) conducted interviews with interrogators and high-value detainees
for a unique perspective from both sides of the proverbial interrogation table. Similar to Kelly et
al.’s (2013) domains, Goodman-Delahunty et al. reduced interrogation methods to coercive and
non-coercive types of legalistic, physical, cognitive, and social strategies. They reported that
non-coercive social strategies that included rapport, procedural justice, and reciprocity
(constructs from the previous work) significantly increased information disclosure, and further
that rapport specifically had a large effect on early disclosure. Interestingly, and in line with the
findings reported by Kelly et al. (in press) regarding presentation of evidence, Goodman-
Delahunty et al. (2014) reported that evidence disclosure decreased suspect cooperation.
Unfortunately, the authors were unable to assess qualitative aspects related to the format of
evidence presentation in the sample of interrogations.
Perhaps the most complete evaluation of rapport and relationship building (and other
behaviors) was conducted by Alison et al. using the ORBIT model (Observing Rapport-Based
Interpersonal Techniques; Alison, Alison, Noone, Elntib, & Christiansen, 2013). Combining
fundamental elements of Motivational Interviewing (MI; Miller & Rollnick, 2009) from the
therapeutic counseling literature together with Leary’s (1955) interpersonal theories, Alison et al.
examined adaptive (positive) and maladaptive (negative) interactions between investigators and
suspects in a sample of UK counter-terrorism interrogations. The authors found that adaptive
interrogator behaviors – those based on rapport and principles of MI – were related to adaptive
suspect behaviors in the form of increased motivation and information yield. In a subsequent
analysis, Alison, Alison, Noone, Elntib, Waring, and Christiansen (2014) found that these same
adaptive interrogator behaviors significantly reduced suspects’ use of counter-interrogation
As demonstrated in our review of accusatorial and information-gathering approaches,
researchers have examined a broad spectrum of methods that are used to various degrees in the
field. Kelly et al.’s (2013) domain framework, however, provides a language with which the in
vivo studies can be more appropriately compared, and the research presented above suggests that
an approach based on rapport and relationship building, collaboration, and a non-coercive style
of presentation of evidence is more effective at eliciting confessions, suspects accounts, and
in vitro Studies of Modern Interrogation Practices
While in vivo studies of interrogation can offer a perspective on the likelihood that a
certain method will produce an admission or confession, field studies are ultimately unable to
establish the ground truth of a suspect’s statement. Such studies also suffer from issues of
internal validity in that they lack appropriate experimental controls (and in some cases
appropriate sampling methods) to establish causal conclusions. In contrast, in vitro studies
conducted under controlled, experimental conditions can offer causal determinations of both the
effectiveness of an interrogation method and the diagnostic value of the confession obtained. In
doing so, however, laboratory studies sacrifice a degree of external validity (Meissner, Hartwig,
& Russano, 2010). In response to this, researchers have developed creative paradigms that
preserve a high degree of experimental realism and invoke realistic consequences perceived by
participants to be of sufficient severity (e.g., Evans, Meissner et al., 2013; Kassin & Kiechel,
1996; Nash & Wade, 2009; Russano et al., 2005). Below we briefly review the available
experimental research assessing modern accusatorial and information-gathering interrogation
Accusatorial, confession-focused, approaches. Accusatorial approaches often involve
the development of interrogation themes that seek to minimize a suspect’s perceptions of their
own culpability and, therein, the consequences associated with confession. Such approaches also
involve the presentation of evidence, sometimes including false evidence or an insinuation
(“bluff”) of possible evidence, in a manner that seeks to maximize a suspect’s perceptions of
their guilt and engender a feeling that there is “no way out” of the situation – except to provide a
confession. When combined with context manipulations that lead a suspect to feel isolated and
“boxed-in”, accusatorial methods can prove quite successful in producing a confession (see
Meissner et al., 2014).
Experimental research on accusatorial approaches has demonstrated that certain
techniques, such as minimization tactics (Horgan et al., 2012; Klaver et al., 2008; Narchet et al.,
2011; Russano et al., 2005) and false evidence ploys (Horselenberg, Merckelbach, & Josephs,
2003; Horselenberg et al., 2006; Kassin & Kiechel, 1996; Klaver et al., 2008; Nash & Wade,
2009; Perillo & Kassin, 2011; Redlich & Goodman, 2003; Wright et al., 2013), can increase the
likelihood of a false confession from an innocent suspect. Across a sample of 14 experimental
studies, Meissner et al. (2014) observed that accusatorial approaches significantly increased the
likelihood of both true and false confessions when compared with a “direct questioning” control
condition. These studies also offer an opportunity to assess the psychological mechanisms
leading to confession – with findings suggesting that minimization tactics influence a suspect’s
perception of the consequences associated with confession, while maximization tactics increase
perceived social pressure from the interrogator (Horgan et al., 2012; Narchet et al., 2011).
Information-gathering approaches. Few studies have experimentally assessed the
potential for information-gathering approaches; the available literature, however, suggests that
such approaches can significantly improve the effectiveness and diagnostic value of confession
evidence. For example, Narchet et al. (2011) found that non-coercive, information-gathering
methods of interrogation preserved a high rate of true confessions while significantly reducing
the likelihood of false confessions when compared with approaches involving minimization and
maximization. Meissner and colleagues (see Meissner et al., 2010, 2014) directly assessed the
utility of information-gathering approaches (compared with accusatorial approaches); across two
studies, they found that information-gathering methods reduced the odds of a false confession by
74% and increased the odds of a true confession by 85%. A meta-analysis of these effect sizes
by Meissner et al. (2014) suggested that information-gathering approaches are significantly more
diagnostic – increasing the likelihood of true confessions and reducing the likelihood of false
confession – when compared with accusatorial approaches. A recent study by Evans, Meissner et
al. (2013) demonstrated that information-gathering approaches also significantly increase
admissions from the guilty, and increase the amount of critical details elicited. Taken together,
the available literature suggests that approaches that promote a rapport-based, collaborative
exchange and facilitate the reporting of details by the suspect can produce more effective and
diagnostic confession evidence.
In recent years, scholars have begun to shift their focus from assessing interrogation
methods that elicit false confessions to the development and validation of methods that yield
more diagnostic evidence and encourage information exchange. This positive, empirical
perspective has been grounded in psychological theory and has frequently involved collaboration
with interrogation professionals (Meissner et al., 2010). The tactics have largely been designed to
advance an information-gathering approach to interrogation, including methods that improve the
development of rapport and cooperation, interviewing approaches that facilitate accurate recall
from memory, and evidence disclosure techniques that are more strategic and diagnostic. These
approaches have also been shown to yield a corollary benefit – they improve assessments of
credibility in an interrogative context. In this section, we briefly review the latest science-based
approaches to interrogation and credibility assessment.
Developing Rapport
The development of rapport is an often cited and much celebrated aspect of modern
interrogation practice (Abbe & Brandon, 2013, 2014; Oxburgh & Ost, 2011; St-Yves, 2006;
Vallano & Schreiber Compo, 2015; Vanderhallen & Vervaeke, 2014). As noted previously,
surveys and interviews of law enforcement demonstrate wide support for the use of rapport and
relationship building approaches (Goodman-Delahunty et al., 2014; Kassin et al., 2007; Redlich
et al, 2014; Russano, Narchet, Kleinman, & Meissner, 2014; Vallano et al., in press), and these
methods are associated with confessions (Alison et al., 2013), more complete accounts (Walsh &
Bull, 2012), and reduced counter-interrogation strategies (Alison et al., 2014). Despite this
consensus, Russano and colleagues (2014) found that interrogators variously defined rapport as a
working relationship, the suspect simply being willing to talk, the development of trust, and
mutual respect; and their respondents offered a variety of perspectives on strategies that may
facilitate rapport, from treating the person kindly and humanely, to finding commonalities or just
getting the person to talk.
While various components of rapport have been assessed in the literature (see Vallano &
Schreiber Compo, 2015), the most notable theoretical model is that offered by Tickle-Degnen
and Ronsenthal (1990). The authors distinguish three (primarily behavioral) facets of rapport:
mutual attention (degree of engagement between the interactants), positivity (positive evaluations
of one another, including warmth, friendliness, respect, and liking), and coordination
(synchronicity of behavior between the interactants). Measurement scales such as the Working
Alliance Inventory (Horvath & Greenberg, 1989) and the Interaction Questionnaire (Vallano &
Schreiber Compo, 2011) have been used to evaluate the development of rapport in investigative
interviewing studies (see also, Duke, 2013). Assessments of verbal behavior, such as Language
Style Matching (Niederhoffer & Pennebaker, 2002), have also been used to measure
coordination aspects of rapport in interrogative contexts (Driskell, Blickensderfer, & Salas, 2013;
Richardson, Taylor, Snook, Conchie, & Bennell, 2014).
Specific tactics that facilitate rapport have also been described in the literature. Abbe and
Brandon (2014) offer the most complete taxonomy, focusing on seven tactics that have been
empirically validated, including:
use of immediacy behaviors, such as leaning forward, engaging eye contact, and reducing
physical distance, that demonstrate interest and engagement;
active listening skills, such as backchannel responses and paraphrasing (consistent with
Motivational Interviewing, see Alison et al., 2013; Miller & Rollnick, 2009), that convey
attention to the subject;
verbal and nonverbal mimicry, which have been shown to facilitate trust;
self-disclosure of personal information to promote liking and positivity;
establishing common ground with respect to interests, identity, or attitudes, which can
promote liking and collaboration;
engaging in continued contact and exposure to facilitate positivity; and finally
identifying opportunities to contrast the behavior of the interactant, as subjects may also
feel greater comfort complementing the behavior of the interrogator.
Abbe and Brandon (2013) note that rapport tactics may invoke various principles of social
influence (Cialdini, 2006), operating via interest, identity, or relational motivations (Kelman,
2006). As noted previously, Goodman-Delahunty and Howes (in press) found that liking and
reciprocity were most closely associated with rapport and relationship building, while Goodman-
Delahunty et al. (2014) found that such social influence tactics significantly increased
information disclosure in a sample of high-value interrogations.
Recent experimental research has demonstrated that rapport tactics increase perceived
liking and positivity toward an interviewer (Kieckhaefer, Vallano, & Schreiber Compo, 2014;
Vallano & Schreiber Compo, 2011). Experimental studies on the value of rapport in adult
witness interviews suggest that rapport tactics can increase cooperation and reporting of accurate
information (Collins, Lincoln, & Frank, 2002; Holmberg & Madsen, 2014; Kieckhaefer et al.,
2014; Vallano & Schreiber Compo, 2011). Although few experimental studies have been
conducted to assess the role of rapport in an interrogative context, a recent study by Evans,
Houston, Meissner et al. (2014) explored the influence of emotional approaches on perceived
rapport and information disclosure – the authors found that positive emotional approaches, such
as positive affirmations, expressing interest, and instilling calm, significantly reduced anxiety
and increased feelings of rapport. Further, a positive emotional approach also significantly
strengthened the relationship between perceived rapport and the elicitation of information. While
the available evidence from in vivo studies of interrogation suggest the important role of rapport
in promoting cooperation and eliciting admissions from criminal suspects, further in vitro studies
are needed to understand the causal mechanisms that mediate the influence of rapport tactics.
Eliciting Information from Memory – The Cognitive Interview for Suspects
Interrogation training in the U.S., as well as other countries that rely upon accusatorial
approaches, rarely considers the importance of human memory and recall processes in the
elicitation of information from suspects; instead, any such training on memory elicitation is
relegated to interviewing cooperative witnesses, while the interrogation of suspects emphasizes
assessments of credibility and tactics that are likely to produce an admission of guilt (Fisher &
Perez, 2007; Leins, Fisher, Pludwinski, Rivard, & Robertson, 2014). Given the confirmatory and
confession-focused nature of accusatorial interrogations, the potential for memory contamination
and confabulation leading to false information or false admissions is rather significant (Garrett,
2015; Loftus, 2011; Shaw & Porter, 2015). In contrast, information-gathering approaches
encourage the use of open-ended, non-suggestive questioning tactics (Clark & Milne, 2001;
Walsh & Bull, 2010b). Interrogators are further trained to use good elicitation methods that
(when combined with rapport-based approaches) seek to elicit a complete narrative from the
suspect (Milne & Bull, 1999).
Over the past several decades, researchers have investigated a variety of mnemonic
approaches to improve the recollection of subjects in an investigative interview (Fisher, 2010;
Fisher & Perez, 2007). Likely the most studied interview protocol is the Cognitive Interview (CI;
Fisher & Geiselman, 1992). The CI was developed based upon theories of cognition and
memory, an appreciation for the social dynamics underlying an investigative interview, and an
understanding of communication patterns in forensic contexts (Fisher & Geiselman, 2010).
While the structure of the CI has developed over time based upon its empirical assessment, it
generally includes the following key elements:
instruct subjects that they should play an active role in the interview by generating
information absent necessary prompting by the interviewer;
encourage subjects to provide as much detail as possible based upon their memory, while
also discouraging them from guessing about details that are unclear or feeling as though
they must “fill in the gaps”; subjects should only report information that they can
accurately recall;
develop rapport with the subject and place them at ease with respect to the interview;
encourage them to engage in a cooperative exchange with the investigator;
ask the subject to engage in mental context reinstatement by closing their eyes (to reduce
distraction) and recollecting the various sensory details associated with the event or
require that the investigator primarily use open-ended questions and that she or he refrain
from interrupting the subject during the recall process;
utilize witness-compatible questioning by engaging in active listening and structuring the
flow and type of questions to align with the subject’s recollections; this may include
allowing the subject to respond using non-verbal channels (such as drawing a sketch or
replicating the gait or behavioral interactions associated with the recollection); and
following an initial free recall episode, offer the subject a variety of mnemonic
approaches or cues to facilitate recollection; for example, interviewers may ask the
subject to recall the details in reverse chronological order or to adopt a different
The CI has been shown to produce robust and replicable increases in recollection when
compared with standard interview approaches used by many law enforcement agencies – for
example, Rivard, Fisher, Robertson, and Mueller (2014) compared the CI to the U.S. Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center’s “five-step interview protocol” (which is trained to hundreds
of federal investigators each year), finding that the CI elicited approximately 80% more relevant
information than the five-step method while producing no significant differences in overall
accuracy of the information reported. Such results are consistent with the large, significant
increase in correct recall observed in the most recent meta-analysis of the CI literature conducted
by Memon, Meissner, and Fraser (2010).
While too few studies have investigated the specific components of the CI (Memon et al.,
2010), several facets of the interview protocol likely contribute to the robust increases in recall.
First, as described in the prior section, development of rapport has been shown to improve recall
from cooperative subjects (Collins et al., 2002; Holmberg & Madsen, 2014; Kieckhaefer et al.,
2014; Vallano & Schreiber Compo, 2011). Second, communication aspects of the CI are critical
to encouraging subjects to report details, even when they believe they are unimportant – for
example, Leal, Vrij, and colleagues (2015) demonstrated that providing a detailed, unrelated
narrative (“model statement”) to the subject prior to their providing an account significantly
increased the recall of details by truthful subjects. Finally, the mnemonics incorporated into the
CI are very effective in eliciting additional information; Leins, Fisher, and colleagues (2014)
found that such mnemonic prompts doubled the amount of information recalled when compared
with unaided free recall.
The CI aligns quite well within an information-gathering framework, and in fact the CI is
trained as an advanced interviewing skill within the UK’s “tiered” system (Fisher, Milne, & Bull,
2011). Geiselman (2012) has offered a version of the CI “for Suspects” – as described below,
Geiselman and others (see Sooniste, Granhag, Strömwall, & Vrij, in press) have demonstrated
that the protocol promotes an important corollary benefit in facilitating the discrimination of
truth and deception. Further, recent experimental research suggests that inclusion of CI
components can facilitate the collection of guilty knowledge and key admissions in an
interrogative context (Evans, Meissner 2013), and aid the recollection of sources in a human
intelligence context (Leins et al., 2014).
Presenting Evidence to Motivate an Admission
Research has consistently demonstrated that a suspect’s perception of the evidence
against them is an important motivational factor that predicts true confessions (Horgan et al.,
2012; Houston et al., 2014; Moston, Stephenson, & Williamson; 1992; Redlich et al., 2011);
however, the presentation of false evidence has also been shown to produce false confessions
(Nash & Wade, 2009; Perillo & Kassin, 2011). Studies have also suggested that the method of
evidence presentation may be critical. For example, evidence presentation formats differentiate
accusatorial and information-gathering approaches – whereas investigators from an accusatorial
framework often utilize evidence to overwhelm the subject and seek an admission or confession
(including the exaggeration or presentation of false evidence), investigators from an information-
gathering framework present evidence to identify contradictions in the subject’s account. A
further distinction regards the manner in which evidence is temporally presented, with
confession-seeking approaches generally preferring a concurrent “monologue” and information-
gathering approaches preferring the presentation of evidence gradually over time (Walsh & Bull,
in press). Experimental research has also demonstrated that late disclosure of strong evidence is
most likely to produce a confession (Sellers & Kebbell, 2009), and that an awareness of possible
evidence that could be disclosed by the interrogator increases the extent to which guilty
participants offer more critical disclosures (Luke, Dawson, Hartwig, & Granhag, 2014).
Hartwig and colleagues (Hartwig, Granhag, Stromwall, & Doering, 2010; Hartwig,
Granhag, Stromwall, & Vrij, 2005; for a review, see Hartwig, Granhag, & Luke, 2014) have
proposed that appropriate disclosure of evidence can be effective due to its influence on a
suspect’s information management strategy – if a suspect initiates a cooperative exchange, they
will seek to maintain an appearance of credibility; and if critical information must be protected,
they are likely to engage in either avoidance strategies or denials until such time as it might be
impossible to do so. The authors’ “Strategic Use of Evidence” (SUE; Hartwig et al., 2005, 2014;
see also, Dando & Bull, 2011) approach seeks to initially gain the cooperation of the subject and
to elicit an open-ended narrative. After the subject has committed to an account, evidence
disclosure strategies can be used to strategically confront the subject. Taken together, this
research suggests that:
late disclosure of evidence is superior to early disclosure;
disclosure of stronger evidence is more effective than weaker evidence; and
gradual disclosure of evidence appears to be more effective than a single disclosure
monologue, particularly if the interrogator moves systematically from weaker to stronger
evidence types.
Assessing Credibility – Cognitive-Based Interviewing Approaches
The current science-based perspective on interrogations suggests that information-
gathering approaches, including those that facilitate rapport, seek to enhance memory, and
strategically disclose evidence, are more likely to yield critical information from suspects. These
methods of elicitation also produce a corollary benefit – they can facilitate assessments of
credibility in the interrogation booth (for reviews see Granhag, Vrij, & Verschuere, 2015; Vrij,
Accusatorial and information-gathering approaches differ rather significantly in their
perspective on deception: while accusatorial methods focus on non-verbal and paraverbal cues
associated with anxiety, information-gathering methods prioritize verbal or cognitive cues to
deception associated with the manner in which subjects tell their story. In the most
comprehensive meta-analysis to date, DePaulo et al. (2003) observed that behavioral and
paraverbal cues to deception are quite faint; however, a majority of the most reliable indicators
involved cognitive cues to deception that relate to the way in which individuals recall an event.
Not surprisingly, a recent meta-analysis of the training to detect deception literature observed
that training individuals to recognize cognitive cues to deception led to significantly better
performance on a subsequent detection task when compared with training on non-verbal or
paraverbal cues (Hauch, Sporer, Michael, & Meissner, 2014).
Given the potential for cognitive cues to improve the discrimination of liars and truth tellers,
researchers have explored the manner in which interviewing approaches might magnify these
differences and therein facilitate detection (Vrij & Granhag, 2012, 2014). Studies suggest that
information-gathering approaches can prove more cognitively demanding (Vrij, Mann, & Fisher,
2006) and produce more verbal or cognitive cues to deception (Vrij, Mann, Kristen, & Fisher,
2007) when compared with accusatorial methods. Notable examples of interviewing approaches
that facilitate the detection of deception include:
using the Cognitive Interview to elicit accounts (Geiselman, 2012; Sooniste et al., in
press), including mnemonics such as reverse order recall (Evans, Michael, Meissner, &
Brandon, 2013; Vrij et al., 2008) and encouraging detailed recall via a model statement
(Leal et al., 2015); such tactics reveal differences in the details reported and the cognitive
operations of liars and truth tellers;
asking unanticipated questions, such as spatial/temporal information or a request to draw
a sketch (Leins, Fisher, Vrij, Leal, & Mann, 2011; Vrij et al., 2009), to induce greater
verbal inconsistency and variation in details reported; and
disclosing evidence in a strategic manner, including late (rather than early) disclosure of
evidence following a narrative recall by the subject (Hartwig et al., 2005) and the gradual
disclosure of evidence over time (Dando & Bull, 2011) to reveal greater statement-
evidence inconsistencies in liars.
A recent training validation of this cognitive-based approach to deception detection suggested
that interrogators could be trained to employ the methods, and that use of the methods both
enhanced the elicitation of information and facilitated the discrimination of liars and truth tellers
(Vrij, Leal, Mann, Vernham, & Brankaert, in press). Hartwig and colleagues have also
demonstrated that strategic evidence disclosure techniques can be effectively trained, and that
use of the approach can significantly improve deception detection performance (Hartwig,
Granhag, Stromwall, & Kronkvist, 2006).
Shortly after his inauguration in 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 13491
that created a Special Task Force on Interrogations and Transfer Policies to “establish a
specialized interrogation group to bring together officials from law enforcement, the U.S.
Intelligence Community and the Department of Defense to conduct interrogations in a manner
that will strengthen national security consistent with the rule of law”. In August of that same
year, the Task Force recommended that a new interagency collaboration be formed, called the
High Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG). In addition to its operational duties, the HIG
was tasked with creating a program of research to evaluate best practices in lawful interrogation.
Since that time, researchers from the United States, Europe, Australia and elsewhere have been
working to fulfill the Task Force’s mandate and a “science of interrogation” has begun to emerge
(Brandon, 2014). While the HIG’s operational mandate is primarily aimed at the collection of
human intelligence (HUMINT) in a national security context, many of the techniques developed
and assessed by researchers have been shown to be applicable to law enforcement contexts as
well (Evans, Meissner, Brandon, Russano, & Kleinman, 2010; Hartwig, Meissner, & Semel,
2014; Redlich, 2007). For example, a recent survey demonstrated that across a variety of
interrogation methods, outcomes, and scenarios, few differences emerged between law
enforcement and HUMINT interrogators on the techniques perceived as most effective (Redlich
et al., 2014; see also Neuman & Salinas-Serrano, 2006; Russano, Narchet, Kleinman, &
Meissner, 2014). Nevertheless, future research is needed to consider how the various settings,
goals, and outcomes of an interrogation may lead to important differences in the effectiveness of
interrogative approaches across law enforcement, military, and intelligence operations.
A comprehensive understanding of modern interrogation also requires that we consider
cultural and linguistic issues. For example, a subject’s cross-cultural perspective could influence
the effectiveness of certain interrogative approaches (e.g., Beune, Giebels, & Sanders, 2009;
Beune, Giebels, & Taylor, 2010). Interpreters may also play an important and understudied role
in the effectiveness of interrogations (Russano, Narchet, & Kleinman, 2013), from the elicitation
of information, to the development of rapport and assessments of credibility (e.g., Ewens, Vrij,
Leal, Mann, Jo, & Fisher, 2014). Further, differences in language fluency may also influence the
efficacy of certain approaches to credibility assessment (e.g., Evans, Michael, Meissner, &
Brandon, 2013; Da Silva & Leach, 2013).
Of the six domains from Kelly et al.’s (2013) taxonomy discussed in the present review,
one in particular – context manipulation – clearly requires additional consideration by
researchers. The physical space where an interrogation is conducted is often described in major
training manuals (e.g., Inbau et al., 2013), including the size of the room, and the type of
furnishings it should and should not contain. Indeed, Kassin et al. (2007) reported that two of the
most common techniques from their survey involved isolating the suspect from friends and
family and conducting the interrogation in a small room. These conditions are often intended to
exert control over the suspect and to instill a sense of hopelessness. Yet, contextual priming
could also act to facilitate openness, develop rapport, promote honest and accountable responses,
or enhance feelings of guilt or remorse (cf. Klauer & Musch, 2003) – factors that could increase
the effectiveness of information-gathering approaches and further lead to diagnostic outcomes.
Finally, we close by noting that the study of interrogation methods, approaches, tactics,
techniques, and procedures will benefit from greater interaction between foundational theory in
the psychological and social sciences, and its assessment and application in both in vivo (real
world) and in vitro (laboratory) contexts (cf. Lane & Meissner, 2008). In addition, training
studies must be developed to ensure the efficacy and integrity of methods as they are “given
away,” and experimental field studies must be coordinated to ultimately demonstrate the
effectiveness of science-based methods when compared with current practices. Facilitating a
successful transition from research to practice will ultimately require open dialogue, the
development of trust, and productive collaborations between scientists and practitioners.
Abbe, A., & Brandon, S. E. (2013). The role of rapport in investigative interviewing: A review.
Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 10, 237-249. doi:
Abbe, A., & Brandon, S. E. (2014). Building and maintaining rapport in investigative interviews.
Police Practice and Research, 15, 207-220. doi: 10.1080/15614263.2013.827835
Alison, L., Alison, E., Noone, G., Elntib, S., Waring, S., & Christiansen, P. (2014). Whatever
you say, say nothing: Individual differences in counter interrogation tactics amongst a
field sample of right wing, AQ inspired and paramilitary terrorists. Personality and
Individual Differences, 68, 170–175. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.04.031
Alison, L. J., Alison, E., Noone, G., Elntib, S., & Christiansen, P. (2013). Why tough tactics fail
and rapport gets results: Observing Rapport-Based Interpersonal Techniques (ORBIT) to
generate useful information from terrorists. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19,
411–431. doi:10.1037/a0034564
Baldwin, J. (1993). Police interview techniques: Establishing truth or proof? British Journal of
Criminology, 33, 325–352.
Bedau, H. A., & Radelet, M. L. (1987). Miscarriages of justice in potentially capital cases.
Stanford Law Review, 40, 21–179.
Beune, K., Giebels, E., & Sanders, K. (2009). Are you talking to me? Influencing behavior and
culture in police interviews. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 597-617. doi:
Beune, K., Giebels, E., & Taylor, P. J. (2010). Patterns of interaction in police interviews: The
role of cultural dependency. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 904–925.
Borchard, E. M. (1932). Convicting the innocent: Errors of criminal justice. New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press.
Brandon, S. E. (2014). Towards a science of interrogation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28,
945-946. doi: 10.1002/acp.3090
Bull, R. (Ed.). (2014). Investigative interviewing. New York, NY: Springer.
Bull, R., & Soukara, S. (2010). Four studies of what really happens in police interviews. In G. D.
Lassiter & C. A. Meissner (Eds.), Police interrogations and false confessions: Current
research, practice, and policy recommendations. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Candel, I., Merckelbach, H., Loyen, S., & Reyskens, H. (2005). “I hit the Shift-key and then the
computer crashed”: Children and false admissions. Personality and Individual
Differences, 38, 1381-1387. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.005
Cialdini, R. B. (2006). Influence: The psychology of persuasion (Revised). New York, NY:
Harper Collins.
Clare, I. C. H., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1995). The vulnerability of suspects with intellectual
disabilities during police interviews: A review and experimental study of decision-
making. Mental Handicap Research, 8, 110-128. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-
Clarke, C., & Milne, R. (2001). National evaluation of the PEACE investigative interviewing
course. Police Research Award Scheme. London, England: Home Office.
Clarke, C., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2011). Interviewing suspects of crime: The impact of PEACE
training, supervision and the presence of a legal advisor. Journal of Investigative
Psychology and Offender Profiling, 8, 149–162. doi:10.1002/jip.144
Collins, R., Lincoln, R., & Frank, M. G. (2002). The effect of rapport in forensic interviewing.
Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 9, 69-78. doi: 10.1375/132187102760196916
Da Silva, C. S., & Leach, A. (2013). Detecting deception in second-language speakers. Legal &
Criminological Psychology, 18, 115-127. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02030.x
Dando, C. J., & Bull, R. (2011). Maximising opportunities to detect verbal deception: Training
police officers to interview tactically. Journal of Investigative Psychology & Offender
Profiling, 8, 189-202. doi:
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H.
(2003). Dues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74-118. doi: 10.1037/0033-
Drake, K. E. (2010). The psychology of interrogative suggestibility: A vulnerability during
interview. Personality & Individual Differences, 49, 683-688. doi:
Driskell, T., Blickensderfer, E. L., & Salas, E. (2013). Is three a crowd? Examining rapport in
investigative interviews. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 17, 1-13.
doi: 10.1037/a0029686
Drizin, S. A., & Leo, R. A. (2004). The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world.
North Carolina Law Review, 82, 891-1007
Duke, M. C. (2013). The development of the rapport scales for investigative interviews and
interrogations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at El Paso: El
Paso, TX.
Evans, J. R., Houston, K. A., Meissner, C. A., Ross, A. B., LaBianca, J. R., Woestehoff, S. A., &
Kleinman, S. M. (2014). An empirical evaluation of intelligence-gathering interrogation
techniques from the United States Army Field Manual. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28,
867-875. doi: 10.1002/acp.3065
Evans, J. R., Meissner, C. A., Brandon, S. E., Russano, M. B., & Kleinman, S. M. (2010).
Criminal versus HUMINT interrogations: The importance of psychological science to
improving interrogative practice. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 38, 215-249.
Evans, J.R., Meissner, C.A., Ross, A.B., Houston, K.A., Russano, M.B., & Horgan, A.J. (2013).
Obtaining guilty knowledge in human intelligence interrogations: Comparing accusatorial
and information-gathering approaches with a novel experimental paradigm. Journal of
Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2, 83-88. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.03.002
Evans, J. R., Michael, S. W., Meissner, C. A., & Brandon, S. E. (2013). Validating a new
assessment method for deception detection: Introducing a Psychologically Based
Credibility Assessment Tool. Journal of Applied Research in Memory & Cognition, 2, 33-
41. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.02.002
Everington, C., & Fulero, S. M. (1999). Competence to confess: Measuring understanding and
suggestibility of defendants with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 37, 212-220.
doi: 10.1352/0047-6765(1999)037<0212:CTCMUA>2.0.CO;2
Ewens, S., Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S., Jo, E., & Fisher, R. P. (2014). The effect of interpreters
on eliciting information, cues to deceit and rapport. Legal and Criminological
Psychology. doi: 10.1111/lcrp.12067
Dunbar, K., & Blanchette, I. (2001). The in vivo/in vitro approach to cognition: The case of
analogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 334-339.
Fein, R. (2006). Educing information: Science and art in interrogation - Foundations for the
future (Intelligence Science Board Study on Educing Information Phase 1 report).
Washington, DC: National Military Intelligence College Press.
Feld, B. C. (2013). Kids, cops, and interrogation: Inside the interrogation room. New York, NY:
New York University Press.
Fisher, R. P. (2010). Interviewing cooperative witnesses. Legal & Criminological Psychology,
15, 25-38. doi: 10.1348/135532509X441891
Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative
interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers.
Fisher, R. P., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2011). Interviewing cooperative witnesses. Currrent
Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 16-19. doi: 10.1177/0963721410396826
Fisher, R. P., & Perez, V. (2007). Memory-enhancing techniques for interviewing crime
suspects. In S. Christianson (Ed.), Offenders’ memories of violent crimes (pp. 329350).
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Garrett, B. L. (2015). Contaminated confessions revisited. Virginia Law Review, 101, 395-458.
Geiselman, R. E. (2012). The Cognitive Interview for Suspects (CIS). American Journal of
Forensic Psychology, 30, 5-20.
Goldstein, N. E. S., Condie, L. O., Kalbeitzer, R., Osman, D., & Geier, J. L. (2003). Juvenile
offenders’ Miranda rights comprehension and self-reported likelihood of offering false
confessions. Assessment, 10, 359-369. doi: 10.1177/1073191103259535
Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Howes, L. M. (in press). Social persuasion to develop rapport in
high-stakes interviews: qualitative analyses of Asian-Pacific practices. Policing and
Society, (ahead-of-print), 1-21.
Goodman-Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N., & Dhami, M. K. (2014). Interviewing high values
detainees: Securing cooperation and reliable disclosures. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
28, 883–897. doi:doi: 10.1002/acp.3087
Goodman-Delahunty, J., O'Brien, K., & Gumbert-Jourjon, T. (2013). Police professionalism in
interviews with high value detainees: Cross-cultural endorsement of procedural
justice. JIJIS, 13, 65.
Granhag, P. A., Vrij, A., & Verschuere, B. (2015). Detecting deception: Current challenges and
cognitive approaches. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Griffiths, A., & Milne, R. (2006). Will it all end in tiers? In T. Williamson (Ed.), Investigative
interviewing; Research rights and regulation (pp. 167–189). Cullompton: Willan.
Grisso, T., Steinberg, L., Woolard, J., Cauffman, E., Scott, E., Graham, S., Lexcen, F., Reppucci,
N. D., & Schwartz, R. (2003). Juveniles’ competence to stand trial: A comparison of
adolescents’ and adults’ capacities as trial defendants. Law and Human Behavior, 27,
333-363. doi: 10.1023/A:1024065015717
Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook.
Chichester, England: Wiley.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (2013) Interrogative suggestibility and compliance. In A. Ridley et al.’s
(Eds.), Suggestibility in legal contexts: Psychological research and forensic implications.
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Oxford. doi: 10.1002/9781118432907
Gudjonsson, G. H., & Henry, L. (2003). Child and adult witnesses with intellectual disability:
The importance of suggestibility. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 8, 241-252.
Gudjonsson, G. H., Sigurdsson, J. F., Asgeirsdottir, B. B., & Sigfusdottir, I. D. (2006). Custodial
interrogation, false confession and individual differences: A national study among
Icelandic youth. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 49-59. doi:
Guyll, M., Madon, S., Yang, Y., Lannin, D. G., & Scherr, K. (2013). Innocence and resisting
confession during interrogation: Effects on physiologic activity. Law and Human
Behavior, 37, 366-375. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000044
Häkkänen, H., Ask, K., Kebbell, M., Alison, L., & Granhag, P. A. (2009). Police officers’ views
of effective interview tactics with suspects: The effects of weight of case evidence and
discomfort with ambiguity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 468–481.
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., & Luke, T. (2014). Strategic use of evidence during investigative
interviews: The state of the science. In D. C. Raskin, C. R. Honts, & J. C. Kircher (Eds.),
Strategic use of evidence during investigative interviews: The state of the science.
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P.A., Strömwall, L.A., & Doering, N. (2010). Impression and information
management: on the strategic self-regulation of innocent and guilty suspects. Open
Criminology Journal, 3, 10-26.
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Stromwall, L. A., & Kronkvist, O. (2006). Strategic use of
evidence during police interviews: When training to detect deception works. Law and
Human Behavior, 30, 603-619. doi: 10.1007/s10979-006-9053-9
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Vrij, A. (2005). Detecting deception via
strategic disclosure of evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 469 – 484.
Hartwig, M., Meissner, C. A., & Semel, M. D. (2014). Human intelligence interviewing and
interrogation: Assessing the challenges of developing an ethical, evidence-based
approach. In R. Bull (Ed.), Investigative interviewing. New York, NY: Springer.
Hauch, V., Sporer, S. L., Michael, S. W., & Meissner, C. A. (in press). Does training improve the
detection of deception: A meta-analysis. Communication Research. doi:
Hilgendorf, E. L., & Irving, M. (1981). A decision-making model of confessions. In M. Lloyd-
Bostock (Ed.), Psychology in legal contexts: Applications and limitations (pp. 67-84).
London: MacMillan.
Hill, C., Memon, A., & McGeorge, P. (2008). The role of confirmation bias in suspect
interviews: A systematic evaluation. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 357-371.
doi: 10.1348/135532507X238682
Holmberg, U., & Christianson, S.-A. (2002). Murderers’ and sexual offenders’ experiences of
police interviews and their inclination to admit or deny crimes. Behavioral Sciences &
the Law, 20, 31–45. doi:10.1002/bsl.470
Holmberg, U., & Madsen, K. (2014). Rapport operationalized as a humanitarian interview in
investigative interview settings. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 21, 591-610. doi:
Home Office. (2003). Police and criminal evidence act 1984. Codes of practice A-E revised
edition. London: HMSO.
Horgan, A. J., Russano, M. B., Meissner, C. A., & Evans, J. R. (2012). Minimization and
maximization techniques: Assessing the perceived consequences of confessing and
confession diagnosticity. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 18, 65-78. doi:
Horselenberg, R., Merckelbach, H., & Josephs, S. (2003). Individual differences and false
confessions: A conceptual replication of Kassin and Kiechel (1996). Psychology, Crime
& Law, 9, 1-8. doi: 10.1080/1068316021000057631
Horselenberg, R., Merckelbach, H., Smeets, T., Franssens, D., Ygram Peters, G.-J., & Zeles, G.
(2006). False confessions in the lab: Do plausibility and consequences matter?
Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 61-75. doi: 10.1080/1068310042000303076
Horvath, A. O., & Greenberg, L. S. (1989). Development and validation of the working alliance
inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 223-233. doi: 10.1037/0022-
Houston, K. A., Meissner, C. A., & Evans, J. R. (2014). Psychological processes underlying true
and false confessions. In R. H. Bull (Ed.), Investigative Interviewing (pp. 19-34). UK:
Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. C. (2013). Criminal interrogations and
confession (5th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Jayne, B. C. (1986). The psychological principles of criminal interrogation. In Inbau, F. E., Reid,
J. E., & Buckley, J. P. (Eds). Criminal interrogation and confessions (3rd ed., pp. 327-
347). Baltimore, MD, USA: Williams & Wilkins.
Kassin, S. M. (2005). On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence put innocents at risk?
American Psychologist, 60, 215-228. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.3.215
Kassin, S. M. (2008). False confessions: Causes, consequences, and implications for reform.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 249-253. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010).
Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human
Behavior, 34, 3-38. doi: 10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6
Kassin, S. M., Goldstein, C. C., & Savitsky, K. (2003). Behavioral confirmation in the
interrogation room: On the dangers of presuming guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 27,
187-203. doi: 10.1023/A:1022599230598
Kassin, S. M., & Kiechel, K. L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: Compliance,
internalization, and confabulation. Psychological Science, 7, 125-128. doi:
Kassin, S. M., Leo, R. A., Meissner, C. A., Richman, K. D., Colwell, L. H., Leach, A.-M., &
Fon, D. La. (2007). Police interviewing and interrogation: A self-report survey of police
practices and beliefs. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 381–400. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-
Kassin, S. M., & McNall, K. (1991). Police interrogations and confessions: Communicating
promises and threats by pragmatic implication. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 233-251.
doi: 10.1007/BF01061711
Kassin, S. M., Meissner, C. A., & Norwick, R. J. (2005). “I’d know a false confession if I saw
one”: A comparative study of college students and police investigators. Law and Human
Behavior, 29, 211-227. doi: 10.1007/s10979-005-2416-9
Kassin, S. M., & Norwick, R. J. (2004). Why people waive their Miranda rights: The power of
innocence. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 211-221. doi:
Kebbell, M., Alison, L., Hurren, E., & Mazerolle, P. (2010). How do sex offenders think the
police should interview to elicit confessions from sex offenders? Psychology, Crime &
Law, 16, 567-584.
Kelly, C. E. & Meissner, C. A. (in press). Interrogation and investigative interviewing in the
United States: Research and practice. In D. Walsh et al. (Eds.), Contemporary
developments and practices in investigative interviewing and interrogation: Volume II
(suspects). Routledge.
Kelly, C. E., Miller, J. C., Redlich, A. D., & Kleinman, S. M. (2013). A taxonomy of
interrogation methods. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19, 165–178.
Kelly, C. E., Redlich, A. D., & Miller, J. C. (in press). Examining the meso-Level domains of the
interrogation taxonomy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. doi:10.1037/law0000034
Kelman, H. C. (2006). Interests, relationships, identities: Three central issues for individuals and
groups in negotiating their social environment. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 1-26.
doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190156
Kieckhaefer, J. M., Vallano, J. P., & Compo, N. S. (2014). Examining the positive effects of
rapport building: When and why does rapport building benefit adult eyewitness memory?
Memory, 22, 1010-1023. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2013.864313
King, L., & Snook, B. (2009). Peering inside a Canadian interrogation room: An examination of
the Reid Model of interrogation, influence tactics, and coercive strategies. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 36, 674–694. doi:10.1177/0093854809335142
Klauer, K. & Musch, C. (2003). Affective priming: Findings and theories. In J. Musch & K. C.
Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and
emotion (pp. 9-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Klaver, J. R., Lee, Z., & Rose, V. G. (2008). Effects of personality, interrogation techniques and
plausibility in an experimental false confession paradigm. Legal and Criminological
Psychology, 13, 71-88. doi: 10.1348/135532507X193051
Lane, S. M., & Meissner, C. A. (2008). A “middle road” approach to bridging the basic-applied
divide in eyewitness identification research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 779-787.
doi: 10.1002/acp.1482
Lassiter, G. D., & Meissner, C. A. (Eds.). (2010). Police interrogations and false confessions:
Current research, practice, and policy recommendations. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Leal, S., Vrij, A., Warmelink, L., Vernham, Z., & Fisher, R. (2015). You cannot hide your
telephone lies: Providing a model statement as an aid to detect deception in insurance
telephone calls. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 20, 129-146. doi:
Leary, T. F. (1955). The theory and measurement methodology of inter-personal communication.
Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 18, 147–161.
Leins, D. A., Fisher, R. P., Pludwinski, L., Rivard, J., & Robertson, B. (2014). Interview
protocols to facilitate human intelligence sources’ recollections of meetings. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 28, 926-935. doi: 10.1002/acp.3041
Leins, D., Fisher, R. P., Vrij, A., Leal, S., & Mann, S. (2011). Using sketch drawing to induce
inconsistency in liars. Legal & Criminological Psychology, 16, 253-265. doi:
Leo, R. A. (1996). Inside the interrogation room. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86,
266-303. doi: 10.2307/1144028
Leo, R. A. (2009). False confessions: Causes, consequences, and implications. Journal of the
American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 37, 332-343.
Leo, R. A., & Ofshe, R. J. (1998). The consequences of false confessions: Deprivations of
liberty and miscarriages of justice in the age of psychological interrogation. Criminal
Law and Criminology, 88, 429-496.
Loftus, E. F. (2011). Intelligence gathering post-9/11. American Psychologist, 66, 532-541. doi:
Luke, T. J., Dawson, E., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2014). How awareness of possible
evidence induces forthcoming counter-interrogation strategies. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 6, 876-882. doi: 10.1002/acp.3019
Madon, S., Guyll, M., Scherr, K. C., Greathouse, S., & Wells, G. L. (2012). Temporal
discounting: The differential effect of proximal and distal consequences on confession
decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 13-20. doi: 10.1037/h0093962
Madon, S., Yang, Y., Smalarz, L, Guyll, M., & Scherr, K. C. (2013). How factors present during
the immediate interrogation situation produce short-sighted confession decisions. Law
and Human Behavior, 37, 60-74. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000011
Malloy, L. C., Shulman, E. P., & Cauffman, E. (2014). Interrogations, confessions, and guilty
pleas among serious adolescent offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 181-193. doi:
Meissner, C. A., Hartwig, M., & Russano, M. B. (2010). The need for a positive psychological
approach and collaborative effort for improving practice in the interrogation room. Law
& Human Behavior, 34, 43-45. doi: 10.1007/s10979-009-9205-9
Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2002). ‘‘He’s guilty!’’: Investigator bias in judgments of truth
and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 469-480. doi: 10.1023/A:1020278620751
Meissner, C. A., Redlich, A. D., Michael, S. W., Evans, J. R., Camilletti, C. R., Bhatt, S., &
Brandon, S. (2014). Accusatorial and information-gathering interrogation methods and
their effects on true and false confessions: a meta-analytic review. Journal of
Experimental Criminology, 10, 459–486. doi:10.1007/s11292-014-9207-6
Memon, A., Meissner, C. A., & Fraser, J. (2010). The Cognitive Interview: A meta-analytic
review and study space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychology, Public Policy, and
Law, 16, 340-372. doi: 10.1037/a0020518
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2009). Ten things that motivational interviewing is not.
Behavioural & Cognitive Psychotherapy, 37, 129-140. doi:
Milne, R., & Bull, R. (1999). Investigative interviewing: Psychology and practice. Chichester,
England: Wiley.
Moston, S., Stephenson, G. M., & Williamson, T. (1992). The effects of case characteristics on
suspect behaviour during police questioning. British Journal of Criminology, 32, 23-39.
Munsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Narchet, F. M., Meissner, C. A., & Russano, M. B. (2011). Modeling the influence of
investigator bias on the elicitation of true and false confessions. Law and Human
Behavior, 35, 452-465. doi: 10.1007/s10979-010-9257-x
Nash, R. A., & Wade, K. A. (2009). Innocent but proven guilty: Eliciting internalized false
confessions using doctored-video evidence. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 624-637.
doi: 10.1002/acp.1500
Neuman, A. & Salinas-Serrano, D. (2006). Custodial interrogations: What we know, what we do,
and what we can learn from law enforcement experiences. In Educing Intelligence,
Interrogation: Science and Art, Phase 1 Report (pp. 141-233). Washington, DC: National
Defense Intelligence College
Niederhoffer, K. G., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2002). Linguistic style matching in social interaction.
Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21, 337-360. doi:
O’Connell, M. J., Garmoe, W., & Goldstein, N. E. S. (2005). Miranda comprehension in adults
with mental retardation and the effects of feedback style on suggestibility. Law and
Human Behavior, 29, 359-369. doi: 10.1007/s10979-005-2965-y
Oxburgh, G., & Ost, J. (2011). The use and efficacy of empathy in police interviews with
suspects of sexual offences. Journal of Investigative Psychology & Offender Profiling, 8,
178-188. doi: 10.1002/jip.143
Perillo, J. T., & Kassin, S. M. (2011). Inside interrogation: The lie, the bluff, and false
confessions. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 327-337. doi: 10.1007/s10979-010-9244-2
Powell, M., Day, A., Benson, M., Vess, J., & Graffam, J. (2014). Australian police officers'
perceptions of sex offender registries. Policing and Society, 24, 120-133.
Redlich, A. D. (2007). Double jeopardy in the interrogation room for youths with mental illness.
American Psychologist, 62, 609-611. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X62.6.609
Redlich, A. D., & Goodman, G. S. (2003). Taking responsibility for an act not committed: The
influence of age and suggestibility. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 141-156. doi:
Redlich, A. D., Kelly, C. E., & Miller, J. C. (2014). The who, what, and why of human
intelligence gathering: Self-reported measures of interrogation methods. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 28, 817–828. doi:10.1002/acp.3040
Redlich, A. D., Kulish, R., & Steadman, H. J. (2011). Comparing true and false confessions
among persons with serious mental illnesses. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17,
394-418. doi: 10.1037/a0022918
Reik, T. (1959). The compulsion to confess: On the psychoanalysis of crime and punishment.
New York, USA: Farrar, Straus and Cudahy.
Richardson, B. H., Taylor, P. J., Snook, B., Conchie, S. M., & Bennell, C. (2014). Language
style matching and police interrogation outcomes. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 357-
366. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000077
Rivard, J. R., Fisher, R. P., Robertson, B., & Dana, H. M. (2014). Testing the Cognitive
Interview with professional interviewers: Enhancing recall of specific details of recurring
events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 917-925. doi: 10.1002/acp.3026
Russano, M. B., Meissner, C. A., Narchet, F. M., & Kassin, S. M. (2005). Investigating true and
false confessions within a novel experimental paradigm. Psychological Science, 16, 481-
486. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01560.x
Russano, M. B., Narchet, F. M., & Kleinman, S. M. (2014). Analysts, interpreters, and
intelligence interrogations: Perceptions and insights. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28,
829-846. doi: 10.1002/acp.3070
Russano, M. B., Narchet, F. M., Kleinman, S. M., & Meissner, C. A. (2014). Structured
interviews of experienced HUMINT interrogators. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28,
847–859. doi:10.1002/acp.3069
Sellers, S., & Kebbell, M. R. (2009). When should evidence be disclosed in an interview with a
suspect? An experiment with mock-suspects. Journal of Investigative Psychology and
Offender Profiling, 6, 151-160. doi: 10.1002/jip.95
Shaw, J., & Porter, S. (2015). Constructing rich false memories of committing crime.
Psychological Science, 26, 291-301. doi: 10.1177/0956797614562862
Sigurdsson, J. F., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1996). The relationship between types of claimed false
confession made and the reasons why suspects confess to the police according to the
Gudjonsson Confession Questionnaire (GCQ). Legal and Criminological Psychology, 1,
259-269. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8333.1996.tb00324.x
Sooniste, T., Granhag, P.A., Strömwall, L.A., & Vrij, A. (in press). True and false intentions:
Using the Cognitive Interview to magnify the differences. Scandinavian Journal of
Soukara, S., Bull, R., & Vrij, A. (2002). Police detectives’ aims regarding their interviews with
suspects: Any change at the turn of the millenium? International Journal of Police
Science & Management, 4, 101–104.
Soukara, S., Bull, R., Vrij, A., Turner, M., & Cherryman, J. (2009). What really happens in
police interviews of suspects? Tactics and confessions. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15,
493–506. doi:10.1080/10683160802201827
St-Yves, M. (2006). Psychology of rapport: Five basic rules. In T. Williamson (Ed.),
Investigative interviewing: Rights, research, regulation (pp.87-106). Portland, Or: Willan
Steinberg, L., & Scott, E. S. (2003). Less guilty by reason of adolescence: Developmental
immaturity, diminished responsibility, and the juvenile death penalty. American
Psychologist, 58, 1009-1018. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.12.1009
Tickle-Degnen, L., & Rosenthal, R. (1990). The nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates.
Psychological Inquiry, 1, 285-293.
Vallano, J. P., & Schreiber Compo, N. S. (2011). A comfortable witness is a good witness:
Rapport-building and susceptibility to misinformation in an investigative mock-crime
interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 960-970. doi: 10.1002/acp.1789
Vallano, J. P., & Schreiber Compo, N. S. (2015). Rapport-building with cooperative witnesses
and criminal suspects: A theoretical and empirical review. Psychology, Public Policy,
and Law, 21, 85-99. doi: 10.1037/law0000035
Vallano, J. P., Evans, J. R., Schreiber Compo, N., & Kieckhaefer, J. M. (in press). Rapport-
building during witness and suspect interviews: A survey of law enforcement. Applied
Cognitive Psychology. doi: 10.1002/acp.3115
Vanderhallen, M., & Vervaeke, G. (2014). Between investigator and suspect: The role of
working alliance in investigative interviewing. In R. Bull (Ed.), Investigative
Interviewing (pp. 63-90). New York, NY: Springer
Viljoen, J. L., Klaver, J., & Roesch, R. (2005). Legal decisions of preadolescent and adolescent
defendants: Predictors of confessions, pleas, communication with attorneys, and appeals.
Law and Human Behavior, 29, 253-277. doi: 10.1007/s10979-005-3613-2
Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2
Ed.). Wiley, New York.
Vrij, A. & Granhag, P. A. (2012). Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the
questions asked. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1, 110-117. doi:
Vrij, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2014). Eliciting information and detecting lies in intelligence
interviewing: An overview of recent research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 936-
944. doi: 10.1002/acp.3071
Vrij, A., Leal, S., Granhag, P. A., Mann, S., Fisher, R., Hillman, J., & Sperry, K. (2009).
Outsmarting the liars: The benefit of asking unanticipated questions. Law and Human
Behavior, 33, 159-166. doi: 10.1007/s10979-008-9143-y
Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S., Vernham, Z., & Brankaert, F. (in press). Translating theory into
practice: Evaluating a cognitive lie detection training workshop. Journal of Applied
Research in Memory and Cognition. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.02.002
Vrij, A., Mann, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2006). Information-gathering vs accusatory interview style:
Individual differences in respondents' experiences. Personality and Individual
Differences, 41, 589-599. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.02.014
Vrij, A., Mann, S. A., Fisher, R. P., Leal, S., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2008). Increasing cognitive
load to facilitate lie detection: The benefit of recalling an event in reverse order. Law and
Human Behavior, 32, 253-265. doi: 10.1007/s10979-007-9103-y
Vrij, A., Mann, S., Kristen, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2007). Cues to deception and ability to detect lies
as a function of police interview styles. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 499-518. doi:
Walsh, D. & Bull, R. (2010a). Interviewing suspects of fraud: An in-depth analysis of
interviewing skills. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 38, 99-135.
Walsh, D. W., & Bull, R. (2010b). What really is effective in interviews with suspects? A study
comparing interviewing skills against interviewing outcomes. Legal and Criminological
Psychology, 15, 305-321. doi:10.1348/135532509X463356
Walsh, W. D., & Bull, R. (2012). How do interviewers attempt to overcome suspects’ denials?
Psychiatry, Psychology & Law, 19, 151-168. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2010.543756
Walsh, D. W., & Bull, R. (in press). The association between interview skills, questioning and
evidence disclosure strategies, and interview outcomes. Psychology, Crime & Law. doi:
Walsh, D. W., & Milne, R. (2008). Keeping the PEACE? A study of investigative interviewing
practices in the public sector. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 39–57.
Wigmore, J. (1899). Confessions: A brief history and criticism. American Law Review, 33, 376.
Williamson, T. M. (1993). From interrogation to investigative interviewing: Strategic trends in
police questioning. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 3, 89-99.
Wright, D. S., Wade, K. A., & Watson, D. G. (2013). Delay and déjà vu: Timing and repetition
increase the power of false evidence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 812-818. doi:
... Suspects are individuals whom interviewers question because of reasonable grounds to believe, at least temporarily, that the person has committed a crime or some aspect of a crime. Typically, interviewers question suspects in a local/national law enforcement jurisdiction (e.g., Meissner et al., 2015). Some suspects can, however, be interviewed in an international law enforcement context (Glasius, 2006). ...
... Torture, physical coercion, and deceptive methods do not comport with the principles proposed here. Analysts condemn such practices (Meissner et al., 2015); they compromise interviewees' agency to freely determine what to disclose and essentially prevent one from providing accurate information. For example, deceptive interviewing techniques are prone to elicit false confessions (Kassin, 2017;Kassin and Kiechel, 1996). ...
Full-text available
This article examines ethical considerations relevant to the formulation of psychological investigative interviewing techniques or methods. Psychology researchers are now devoting much attention to improving the efficacy of eliciting information in investigative interviews. Stakeholders agree that interviewing methods must be ethical. However, there is a less concerted effort at systematically delineating ethical considerations to guide the creation of interviewing methods derived from scientific psychological principles. The disclosures interviewees make may put them at considerable risk, and it is not always possible to determine beforehand whether placing interviewees under such risks is warranted. Thus, I argue that research psychologists aiming to contribute ethical methods in this context should ensure that those methods abide by a standard that actively protects interviewees against unjustified risks. Interviewing techniques should provide interviewees, particularly vulnerable ones, with enough agency to freely determine what to disclose. Researchers should explicitly indicate the boundary conditions of a method if it cannot achieve this standard. Journal editors and reviewers should request such discussions. The suggested standard tasks research psychologists to be circumspect about recommending psychological techniques without fully addressing the ethical boundaries of those methods in their publications. I explain the proposed ethical standard’s necessity and discuss how it can be applied.
... The literature on interviewing suspects distinguishes two broad approachesaccusatorial and information-gathering (Bull, 2019;Kelly et al., 2013;Meissner et al., 2015;Russano et al., 2019). One key difference between these two approaches is their main aim during interviews. ...
... The accusatorial approach places a premium on eliciting confessions and is guiltpresumptive, often takes place in a high-pressure environment and comprises techniques such as establishing control, confrontation and psychological manipulation (e.g. maximisation and minimization techniques) (Meissner et al., 2015;Russano et al., 2019;Vrij et al., 2017). Investigators adopting the accusatorial approach tended to be biased towards the guilt of suspects and are often focused on eliciting confessions during their interviews, sometimes through the use of psychologically manipulative techniques (Kassin et al., 2003;Meissner & Kassin, 2004;Meissner et al., 2014;Narchet et al., 2011). ...
Full-text available
Pre-interview planning is vital in interviews with suspects. Via a questionnaire administered to 596 police investigators in Singapore, the current study examined potential associations between pre-interview planning, interviewing behaviours and interview outcomes. Interviewing behaviours were hypothesised to mediate the relationship between pre-interview planning and interview outcomes. It is posited that pre-interview planning fosters an investigative mindset, which in turn, influences the nature of interviewing behaviours employed by investigators. The study also sought to provide insights into police interviews with suspects in Singapore, given the limited research from Singapore on the topic. Rapport-based interviewing behaviours were found to mediate the relationship between pre-interview planning and positive interview outcomes, contributing empirical support to the importance of pre-interview planning. In addition, accusatorial interviewing behaviours were associated with negative interview outcomes. This study also found that police investigators in Singapore reported frequent planning prior to their interviews and used rapport-based interviewing behaviours with suspects. These behaviours are in line with the interviewing model adopted in Singapore. Regression analyses showed that participants’ endorsement of rapport-based approaches was predicted by investigator experience, confidence, and interview length. Endorsement of pre-planning of interviews was also predicted by investigator confidence and interview length. Implications of these findings are discussed.
... Police officers must be particularly aware of the developmental effects of memory in childhood and the older population (e.g., Sporer and Martschuk, 2013), mental disorders (e.g., Lau et al., 2008;Volbert and Lau, 2013), and psychic trauma (e.g., Volbert, 2006), such as amnesia (e.g., Pyszora et al., 2003;Merckelbach et al., 2007). Moreover, regarding the credibility of witnesses' testimony and suspects' confessions, interrogators need to be sensitive to both suggestibility (e.g., Stern, 1904;Köhnken, 1997;Volbert, 1997;Gudjonsson, 2003Gudjonsson, , 2018Kraus et al., 2016) and false confessions (e.g., Gudjonsson, 2003Gudjonsson, , 2018Houston et al., 2014;Meissner et al., 2015;Volbert et al., 2019;Eidam et al., 2020;Gudjonsson et al., 2021). ...
... Initially, the interrogator may use techniques of the (extended) cognitive interview (e.g., Fisher and Geiselman, 1992;Fisher et al., 2011). Scholars consider the application of the free report (in-depth reporting) as a gold standard (e.g., Berresheim and Weber, 2003;Hermanutz and Litzcke, 2012;Meissner et al., 2015). Subsequently, interrogators may continue using a funnel-shaped question strategy, whereby open-ended questions are asked at the beginning, and closed-ended questions are asked at the end of the interview. ...
Full-text available
Interrogation is a core task of practical police work. The outcomes of interrogation often provide crucial evidence for solving criminal cases. The success of interrogation depends on interactions between police officers and citizens. Based on a comprehensive literature overview, we propose a three-factor typology for interrogations by police officers. First, the competencies of police officers refer to the application of personal, professional, social, and methodological capabilities. The underlying concept of interrogation refers to the application of both explicit and implicit experience-based interrogation models. Communication refers to the goal-directed application of communication tactics and techniques. According to this typology, we discuss the major objectives of police interrogation in police service and training from police officers’ perspectives. The present study provides guidance for practical police services and training by offering an evidence-based interrogation standard.
... One example of an evidence-based informationgathering approach is the UK's PEACE model (see Milne & Bull, 1999), which consists of five steps: (1) Planning and Preparation, (2) Explain and Engage, (3) Account, (4) Closure, and (5) Evaluation. In contrast, in the accusatorial approach (such as the Reid technique; Inbau, Reid, Buckley & Jayne, 2013), the interrogator uses manipulation and control to elicit information and confessions (e.g., Meissner, Kelly & Woestehoff, 2015;Mindthoff & Meissner, 2023). More recently evidence-based information-gathering approaches have been recommended, in part based on concerns about accusatory methods leading to unreliable confessions. ...
Full-text available
This archival study was the first in Sweden, and the first outside of the US and the UK, to apply the (Kelly et al., Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 9, 165-178, 2013) taxonomy of interrogation methods framework to repeated police interrogations of adult suspects in high-stakes crimes. Audio/video recordings (N = 19) were collected from the Swedish Police Authority of repeated interrogations of three suspects in three criminal cases. The interaction between interrogators and suspects were scored according to the taxonomy framework (Kelly et al., Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 9, 165-178, 2013; Kelly et al., Law and Human Behavior, 40, 295-309, 2016). First, there was an association between the use of different domains. Rapport and relationship building was moderately and negatively associated with confrontation/competition and presentation of evidence. Moreover, confrontation/competition was moderately and positively related to emotion provocation and presentation of evidence. Second, changes were observed during the interrogations. Presentation of evidence was lower in the beginning than in the middle block. Suspect cooperation was higher in the beginning than both the middle and end blocks. Third, an ordered logistic regression showed that rapport and relationship building were associated with increased suspect cooperation, and confrontation/competition and presentation of evidence were associated with decreased cooperation. The study's results are mostly in line with other taxonomy studies on high-stakes crimes from the US and the UK. The findings are discussed in light of theoretical frameworks, empirical findings, and current police practice. We also highlight the need for further research.
... For strategic interviewing methods to be effective and without risk in field settings implies that interviewers applying such methods must be sufficiently open-minded while preparing, conducting and evaluating a suspect interview to withstand their potential biases (Boyle and Vullierme 2018;Bull 2018;College of Policing 2021;Kleinman, in Snook et al. 2020a;Leahy-Harland and Bull 2016;Meissner et al. 2015). This means that it is expected of interviewers that during the interview, they will be able to keep in mind that information they disclose to suspects may be incorrect. ...
Full-text available
In criminal investigations, it may happen that the police will collect and use information that is actually incorrect. Making sure that such error is detected and corrected is part of the legal and operational burden placed on any investigating officer, but especially on the Senior Investigative Officer (SIO). This present study explored to what degree different interview styles will affect SIO decision-making, since interviewing witnesses and suspects is an important source of information for the police. A sample of 115 Dutch and Norwegian SIOs therefore performed an online vignette task. They read about a fictitious, but realistic case and received a report of an interview with the suspect. In this interview, the suspect had provided an alibi for one of the pieces of information that were disclosed to her and that actually was an incorrect piece of information. In the report the SIOs received, the interviewer either picked up the alibi (adaptive style), reacted indifferently to it (neutral) or discredited it right away (maladaptive). A significant effect was found for interview style being associated with SIOs’ responsiveness: the SIOs who read the adaptive or neutral interview report were significantly more responsive to the alibi than those who read the maladaptive report. The implications of this finding are discussed.
... For example, verbal rapport-building (unaccompanied by appropriate behaviours) has been found to increase information yield (e.g., Novotny et al., 2021), whereas some have reported that verbal behaviour alone is less effective (e.g., Nahouli et al., 2021). In a similar vein, extensive rapport-building (comprising both verbal and behavioural techniques), has been reported to improve recall performance (e.g., Collins et al., 2002;Kieckhaefer et al., 2014;Nahouli et al., 2021), while others have reported no positive impact (e.g., Meissner et al., 2015;Sauerland et al., 2018). A recent review of the use of rapport by professionals during interviews with witnesses and suspected offenders/ persons of interest has indicated that some form of rapport does improve outcomes in the majority of cases reviewed (Gabbert et al., 2021). ...
Full-text available
Given the complexities of episodic memory and necessarily social nature of in-person face-to-face interviews, theoretical and evidence-based techniques for collecting episodic information from witnesses, victims, and survivors champion rapport-building. Rapport is believed to reduce some of the social demands of recalling an experienced event in an interview context, potentially increasing cognitive capacity for remembering. Cognitive and social benefits have also emerged in remote interview contexts with reduced anxiety and social pressure contributing to improved performance. Here, we investigated episodic memory in mock-eyewitness interviews conducted in virtual environments (VE) and in-person face-to-face (FtF), where rapport-building behaviours were either present or absent. Main effects revealed when rapport was present and where interviews were conducted in a VE participants recalled more correct event information, made fewer errors and were more accurate. Moreover, participants in the VE plus rapport-building present condition outperformed participants in all other conditions. Feedback indicated both rapport and environment were important for reducing the social demands of a recall interview, towards supporting effortful remembering. Our results add to the emerging literature on the utility of virtual environments as interview spaces and lend further support to the importance of prosocial behaviours in applied contexts.
Full-text available
Repeated interviews are common during an investigation, and perceived consistency between multiple statements is associated with an interviewee's credibility. Furthermore, research has shown that the act of lying can affect a person's memory for what truthfully occurred. The current study assessed the influence of lying on memory during initial and repeated interviews, as well as how an interviewer's approach might affect between-statement consistency for true and false statements. Participants performed a scavenger hunt at two sets of buildings on a university campus and then were either dismissed or interviewed (with a Reverse Order instruction or a Structured Interview) about their activities. Participants chose one set to tell the truth about and then created a lie about activities in another area of campus that had not been visited. One week later, all participants provided a second free recall statement about their activities during the scavenger hunt, and then a final truthful description of both areas that were visited during the scavenger hunt. Truthfully rehearsed experiences were associated with more accurate recall of information learned during the scavenger hunt as well as more consistent and more detailed statements. The Structured Interview led to initially more detailed statements, but more inconsistencies in the form of omissions.
Full-text available
Issues regarding Fourth Amendment protections and police access to digital evidence have been an ongoing battle in the courts over the past few years. Despite growing literature on the importance of collecting digital evidence during criminal investigations, there is little research on how detectives obtain consent to get to digital evidence, particularly cell phones. The present study addresses this research gap by drawing upon participant-observation, in-situ interviews, and in-depth interviews of detectives in an American suburban police department. The data indicate that during suspect interviews, detectives attempt to obtain consent to search phones to avoid delays related to obtaining a warrant or going through a third-party (e.g., a cell phone carrier). Additionally, detectives engage suspects with minimization techniques, such as stressing the importance of cooperation, to get to the digital evidence, similar to interrogation techniques outlined in interrogation scholarship. Implications and future research are discussed.
Full-text available
Detecting Deception offers a state-of-the-art guide to the detection of deception with a focus on the ways in which new cognitive psychology-based approaches can improve practice and results in the field. Includes comprehensive coverage of the latest scientific developments in the detection of deception and their implications for real-world practice. Examines current challenges in the field - such as counter-interrogation strategies, lying networks, cross-cultural deception, and discriminating between true and false intentions. Reveals a host of new approaches based on cognitive psychology with the potential to improve practice and results, including the strategic use of evidence, imposing cognitive load, response times, and covert lie detection. Features contributions from internationally renowned experts.
The psychological literature suggests that establishing rapport between interviewer and subject – whether in clinical, experimental or forensic settings – is likely to enhance the quality of the interaction. Yet there are surprisingly few studies that test this assumption. This article reports a study of the effect of rapport on eyewitness recall of a dramatic videotaped event by creating three interviewer-attitude conditions – “rapport”, “neutral” and “abrupt”. Participants were randomly assigned to the three conditions, and recall was elicited by two methods – free narrative and a semi-structured questionnaire. The results indicate participants in the rapport interview recalled more correct information, and the same amount of incorrect information as participants in the other two conditions. However, prompting via the semi-structured questionnaire yielded additional correct as well as incorrect information for the neutral and abrupt conditions. The results are discussed for their relevance to interviews conducted in forensic settings, and to highlight the need for more specific and improved interview training for police and other justice personnel.
People are generally poor at detecting deceit when observing someone’s behaviour or listening to their speech. In this chapter I will discuss the major factors (pitfalls) that lead to failures in catching liars: the sixteen reasons I will present are clustered into three categories: (i) a lack of motivation to detect lies; (ii) difficulties associated with lie detection; and (iii) common errors made by lie detectors. Discussing pitfalls provides insight into how lie detectors can improve their performance (for example, by recognising common biases and avoiding common judgment errors). The second section of this chapter discusses 11 ways (opportunities) to improve lie detection skills. Within this section, I first provide five recommendations for avoiding common errors in detecting lies. Next, I discuss recent lie detection research that introduces novel interview styles aimed at eliciting and enhancing verbal and nonverbal differences between liars and truth tellers. The recommendations are relevant in various settings, from the individual level (e.g., “Is my partner really working late?”) to the societal level (e.g., “Can we trust this suspect when he claims that he is not the serial rapist the police are searching for?”).
Between news stories of coerced confessions and the over-the-top interrogations shown in crime dramas, there seems to be no end of wrong ways to question suspects. And as wrong as these methods are, they are equally counterproductive when the resulting statements are based on questioners’ assumptions rather than the truth. The expert pages of Investigative Interviewing model an approach that reflects an ethical base –emphasizing persuasion rather than coercion –as well as the evidence base. International in scope, this innovative volume reflects sophisticated new interview methods and often surprising findings on the psychology of suspects, victims, witnesses, and law enforcement personnel. Topics cross criminal justice settings and contexts, such as when information should be disclosed to suspects, how interviews are conducted in international tribunals, and the emerging concept of human intelligence interviewing. Taken together, these chapters are a leading-edge guide to obtaining statements that stand up as reliable evidence. Included in the coverage: Investigative interviewing of sex offenders. Psychological processes underlying true and false confessions. Between investigator and suspect: the role of the working alliance in investigative interviewing. A training program for investigative interviewing of children. A systematic review of different types of consistency in truth tellers and liars. Prosecutors’ perceptions on improving child witness interviews about abuse. Suited to the researcher and the educator as well as the frontline professional, Investigative Interviewing heralds a major advance in forensics: education and training programs rooted in best practices for more effective interviewing--and consigning excessive interrogations to the fiction writers.
The study investigates differences in the factor scores on the revised version of the Gudjonsson Confession Questionnaire (GCQ) according to the type of claimed false confession made to the police during interviewing. The GCQ was factor analysed on 404 prison inmates and six factors emerged from a varimax rotation, which were used to study the perceptions and reactions of 61 inmates who claimed to have made a false confession to the police sometime in their lives. Their false confession was classified in two ways. Firstly, those who claimed to have made a false confession in order to protect somebody else were compared on the GCQ factor scores with those who claimed that they had confessed falsely for other reasons. Secondly, those inmates who claimed that they had made a coerced-compliant type of false confession were compared on the GCQ with those who had made a coercedinternalized false confession. As predicted, significant differences emerged with regard to the GCQ scores. The findings indicate that there is a significant relationship between the type of claimed false confession made and the participants' perceptions of their police interview.
The importance of building rapport when interviewing witnesses and suspects is emphasized in many interview models developed in Europe as well as in the United States. The construct of rapport shows a number of similarities with the construct of the working alliance, which is already extensively examined in therapeutic settings. Despite the important predictive role found in therapy, the role of the working alliance in investigative interviewing was not addressed in police research. The present study aims at looking into possible benefits of using the theoretical framework and the operationalisation of the working alliance in order to gain insights into the dynamics of investigative interviewing. It is examined to what extent the working alliance contributes to satisfaction with the interview from both investigators and interviewees in actual interviews. It also considers which factors are important to the working alliance. Besides therapeutic factors the study also explores significant factors from investigative interviewing literature on building rapport. Self-report questionnaires completed by investigators and interviewees show the mediating role of the working alliance between empathy, interview style, clarity of the interview and interview satisfaction. The research findings will also be discussed in the light of interview training and follow-up. More in particular, experiences with building rapport from interview training will be presented as well as experiences from a supervision project on suspect interviewing. Finally, in light of the recent Salduz case law and the subsequent introduction of legal advice in Europe, police officers’ views on building rapport with suspects and lawyers are touched upon.
Juveniles possess less maturity, intelligence, and competence than adults, heightening their vulnerability in the justice system. For this reason, states try juveniles in separate courts and use different sentencing standards than for adults. Yet, when police bring kids in for questioning, they use the same interrogation tactics they use for adults, including trickery, deception, and lying to elicit confessions or to produce incriminating evidence against the defendants. In Kids, Cops, and Confessions, Barry Feld offers the first report of what actually happens when police question juveniles. Drawing on remarkable data, Feld analyzes interrogation tapes and transcripts, police reports, juvenile court filings and sentences, and probation and sentencing reports, describing in rich detail what actually happens in the interrogation room. Contrasting routine interrogation and false confessions enables police, lawyers, and judges to identify interrogations that require enhanced scrutiny, to adopt policies to protect citizens, and to assure reliability and integrity of the justice system. Feld has produced an invaluable look at how the justice system really works.