Developing Diagnostic, Evidence-Based Approaches to Interrogation

Abstract

While research on interrogation has traditionally focused on problematic practices that lead to false confessions, more recent research has addressed the need to develop scientifically validated techniques that lead to accurate information from both suspects and sources. In the present review, we summarize this recent research on building and maintaining rapport, eliciting information, presenting evidence, and assessing credibility. Research is described in the context of accusatorial (guilt-presumptive and psychologically manipulative) versus information-gathering (cooperative and evidence based) approaches to interviewing and interrogation. We also suggest future directions for research to continue to improve the efficacy of interviews and interrogations.

Full text

Running head: DEVELOPING DIAGNOSTIC, EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES TO INTERROGATION 1
Developing Evidence-Based Approaches to Interrogation
Swanner, J. K., Meissner, C. A., Atkinson, D. J., & Dianiska, R. E.
Iowa State University
Abstract
While research on interrogation has traditionally focused on problematic practices that lead to false
confessions, more recent research has addressed the need to develop scientifically validated
techniques that lead to accurate information from both suspects and sources. In the present review,
we summarize this recent research on building and maintaining rapport, eliciting information,
presenting evidence, and assessing credibility. Research is described in the context of accusatorial
(guilt-presumptive and psychologically manipulative) versus information-gathering (cooperative and
evidence based) approaches to interviewing and interrogation. We also suggest future directions for
research to continue to improve the efficacy of interviews and interrogations.
Keywords: interrogation, interview, confession, rapport, evidence, information-gathering
Word Count: 2,994
To appear in the
Journal of Applied Research in Memory & Cognition

DEVELOPING DIAGNOSTIC, EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES TO INTERROGATION 2
Developing Evidence-Based Approaches to Interrogation
Each month in the United States, dozens of interrogation training courses are offered to
local, state, and federal law enforcement by companies such as John E. Reid and Associates,
Wicklander-Zulawski, and Kinesic. Federal law enforcement, military, and intelligence training
agencies also regularly provide basic and advanced interrogation training to their personnel.
Important issues to consider relate to whether the methods trained in such contexts are evidence-
based and yield accurate and reliable evidence or intelligence that effectively furthers an
investigation. Unfortunately, companies that offer such training have not generated or provided a
scientific basis upon which to assess the efficacy of their approaches . Instead, these methods have
been primarily based upon customary knowledge – practices that have developed over time through
experience, that are handed-down through observation and story-telling, and that are ultimately
codified in manuals, policies, and regulations. Over the past several decades, scholars have begun to
assess the validity of the methods trained and used by interrogation professionals, with the goal of
applying scientific knowledge – a perspective drawn from independent observation, that is theory driven
and empirically derived, and is founded upon the principles of replication and peer review. In this
review, we distinguish between two prominent models - accusatorial and information-gathering
approaches to interrogation - and offer a scientific perspective on techniques that can influence the
likelihood of eliciting true and false information.
Why do People Confess?
A number of theories have been proposed to explain when and why people confess (see
Gudjonsson, 2003). While these theories highlight the role of internal (e.g., Reik, 1959) and external
mechanisms (e.g., Gudjonsson, 2003; Hilgendorf & Irving, 1981) that may lead one to confess, they
generally fail to distinguish factors that may lead to true versus false confessions. For example, the
internal accountability model of confessions posits that internal feelings such as guilt or remorse that

DEVELOPING DIAGNOSTIC, EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES TO INTERROGATION 3
result from transgressions or violations of social mores, will lead a person to confess in order to
alleviate these negative feelings (Reik, 1959). Other accounts highlight the role of anxiety and social
pressure in an interrogation. According to such theories, a suspect experiences anxiety whenever
they are being deceptive (Jayne, 1986), and social pressure can be placed upon an individual to
facilitate a confession and alleviate anxiety. Decision-making models of confession have also been
proposed, suggesting that suspects will weigh the potential costs (e.g., prison sentence, fees,
dishonor, etc.) against the potential benefits (e.g., end the interrogation, relief from social pressure,
etc.) of confessing. Such decision-making models often incorporate a suspects’ perception of the
evidence or proof against them, which has been shown to be a powerful predictor of confession
likelihood (see Houston, Meissner, & Evans, 2014).
Recent empirical research involving both field surveys (Redlich, Kulish, & Steadman, 2011;
Sigurdsson & Gudjonsson, 1996) and experimental studies (Houston et al., 2014) have validated the
influence of such factors in predicting. A recent meta-analysis of the experimental literature has also
assessed the influence of psychological processes across true versus false confession (Houston et al.,
2014). Consistent with previous research, false confessions appear to be primarily based upon
perceived external social pressures to confess that stem from the interrogation approaches
employed, the persistent accusations, disbelief, and requests for compliance from the interrogator, or
the interrogation context itself. In contrast, true confessions appear to derive from internal feelings
of guilt, remorse, and accountability for the misdeed, as well as the perceived strength of the
evidence against them. These findings provide a framework for understanding the influence of
accusatorial and information-gathering approaches, as described below.
Accusatorial Approach
An accusatorial approach (typically used in North America and many Asian nations;
Costanzo & Redlich, 2010; Leo, 2008; Ma, 2007; Smith, Stinson, & Patry, 2009) is generally

DEVELOPING DIAGNOSTIC, EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES TO INTERROGATION 4
characterized by the goal of eliciting a confession. Such techniques typically involve an assumption
of the suspect’s guilt whereby interrogators seek to control the interaction and use confirmatory and
closed-ended questions to elicit an admission (Meissner et al., 2014). In addition, an accusatorial
approach typically introduces psychologically manipulative tactics that involve the development of
themes designed to maximize a suspect’s perception of guilt through the use of (often exaggerated
or even fabricated) evidence presentation, and then to minimize a suspect’s evaluation of personal
responsibility and the consequences of self-incrimination. Minimization and maximization
techniques in conjunction with a small, isolating interrogation room, can yield a powerful influence
on a suspect that leads to increased confession rates in field studies (Meissner et al., 2014). But is it
possible that these techniques might yield increased social pressure and therein produce non-
diagnostic outcomes?
Advocates of the accusatorial approach frequently claim that the methods are only applied
on suspects determined to be guilty (Inbau, Reid, & Buckley, 2011) – a claim that remains
unfounded (Meissner & Kassin, 2002; Narchet, Meissner, & Russano, 2011). Researchers have
examined the various techniques encompassed in the accusatorial model of interrogation, and most
importantly their influence on true and false confession rates under controlled, experimental
conditions. For example, the use of minimization tactics that either diminish responsibility for the
act or lessen the potential consequences associated with the act have been shown to increase both
true confessions by the guilty and false confessions by the innocent (Horgan, Russano, Meissner, &
Evans, 2012; Klaver, Lee, & Rose, 2008; Narchet et al., 2011; Russano, Meissner, Narchet, & Kassin,
2005) – consistent with the psychological process model described above. Similarly, the presentation
of false or exaggerated evidence (Horselenberg et al., 2006; Horselenberg, Merckelbach, & Josephs,
2003; Kassin & Kiechel, 1996; Klaver et al., 2008; Nash & Wade, 2009; Redlich & Goodman, 2003;
Wright, Wade, & Watson, 2013) and the use of “bluff” techniques that allude to the strength of

DEVELOPING DIAGNOSTIC, EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES TO INTERROGATION 5
evidence that is yet to be processed (Perillo & Kassin, 2011) have been shown to reduce the
diagnostic value of confession evidence by increasing the likelihood of a false confession. Overall,
while accusatorial approaches may lead to information (confessions) obtained from the person being
questioned, they significantly increase the likelihood of obtaining false information and therein
reduce the diagnostic value of the confession evidence obtained (Kassin et al., 2010; Meissner et al.,
2014). This information appears to be due to increased social pressure and the manipulation of
perceived consequences, which have been demonstrated to predict false confessions (Houston et al.,
2014).
Information-Gathering Approach
By contrast, an information-gathering approach (developed as the PEACE model in the
United Kingdom and later adopted by Norway, New Zealand, and Australia because of the
problematic nature of accusatorial approaches and wrongful convictions; Bull & Soukara, 2010;
Clarke & Milne, 2001) is characterized by the goal of eliciting information (rather than a confession,
per se) whereby interrogators establish rapport, use exploratory and open-ended questions, and
address contradictions via the strategic presentation of evidence (Meissner et al., 2014). Over the
past decade, researchers have begun to focus on developing an empirical understanding of the
effectiveness of the information-gathering approach, with the goal of offering an evidence-based
alternative to law enforcement, military, and intelligence personnel (Meissner, Hartwig, & Russano,
2010). The extant literature (from both laboratory and field studies) indicates that an information-
gathering approach can provide an effective method for eliciting more diagnostic information from
both cooperative and reluctant subjects. Specifically, information-gathering has been shown to
increase the likelihood of truthful confessions and decrease the likelihood of false confessions when
compared to an accusatorial approach utilizing minimization and maximization under controlled
laboratory conditions (Meissner, Russano, & Narchet, 2010; Narchet et al., 2011) . Additionally, an

DEVELOPING DIAGNOSTIC, EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES TO INTERROGATION 6
information-gathering approach can lead to more admissions from guilty subjects and critical
information in an non-cooperative intelligence collection context (Evans, Meissner, et al., 2013).
Over the past decade, key aspects of an information-gathering approach have been
developed and assessed empirically. Specifically, this research has focused on methods to establish
and maintain rapport, approaches for eliciting information from memory, understanding how to
most effectively present evidence, and establishing the corollary benefits of such approaches for
assessing the credibility of information elicited.
Developing Rapport
A critical component of an information-gathering approach involves establishing and
maintaining rapport. Rapport is a widely supported component of modern interrogations, despite
disparate definitions from both practitioners and researchers regarding what might constitute
rapport (Goodman-Delahunty, Martschuk, & Dhami, 2014; Kelly, Redlich, & Miller, 2015; Vallano
& Schreiber Compo, 2011). For example, interrogation professionals have referred to rapport as
involving a working relationship, a willingness to disclose, trust building, and mutual respect
(Russano, Narchet, Kleinman, & Meissner, 2014). According to a prominent theoretical model by
Tickle-Degnen and Rosenthal (1990), rapport is characterized by mutual attention (the degree of
involvement of the interviewer and interviewee in the interview), positivity (mutual liking and respect),
and coordination of behaviors (reciprocal responses of the interviewer and interviewee that may
match, compliment, or accommodate one another). Empirical, laboratory-based research has
demonstrated that rapport tactics can increase positive attributions made about an interviewer, as
well as facilitate the reporting of accurate information from witnesses (e.g., Collins, Lincoln, &
Frank, 2002; Holmberg & Madsen, 2014; Vallano & Compo, 2011) . In one of the few studies
investigating the effects of rapport in an interrogation context, Evans et al. (2014) found that

DEVELOPING DIAGNOSTIC, EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES TO INTERROGATION 7
positive affirmations, interest, and calmness from the interviewer increased perceptions of rapport as
well as the amount of information gained.
Building on the theoretical model offered by Tickle-Degnen and Rosenthal (1990), Abbe and
Brandon (2014) proposed a taxonomy for rapport building tactics that have been validated by
research. These tactics include a mix of verbal and nonverbal behaviors that convey engagement,
respect, trust, reciprocal disclosure, positivity, and commonality. These tactics include a mix of
verbal and nonverbal behaviors that convey engagement, respect, trust, reciprocal disclosure ,
positivity, and commonality (e.g., highlighting overlapping interests or identities, mirroring
nonverbal behavior, etc.; see Abbe & Brandon, 2014). Recently, Alison and colleagues (Alison et al.,
2014; Alison, Alison, Noone, Elntib, & Christiansen, 2013) assessed the influence of conversational
rapport tactics drawn from principles of motivational interviewing (Miller & Rollnick, 2009) theories
of interpersonal behavior (Leary & Coffey, 1954). Across a robust sample of counterterrorism
interrogations conducted in the United Kingdom, the authors found that interrogators’ use of
adaptive, rapport-based behaviors increased cooperation and information yield from suspects, and
further reduced suspects’ use of counter-interrogation tactics.
Eliciting Information
Another contrast between accusatorial and information-gathering approaches involves their
objectives for information elicitation. Accusatorial approaches are largely confirmatory exercises in
which an investigator seeks to elicit a confession narrative from a suspect that is presumed guilty.
Interrogators are encouraged to “shut down denials” or any attempt by the suspect to distance
themselves from the alleged act or to offer an alternative narrative of events. Interrogators may also
offer crime-relevant information and a purported scenario to the suspect, largely in the context of
theme that minimizes the subject’s responsibility – therein contaminating any confession statement

DEVELOPING DIAGNOSTIC, EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES TO INTERROGATION 8
offered by the subject (Garrett, 2015). The information-gathering approach, however, utilizes open-
ended and non-suggestive interviewing tactics designed to elicit a complete and detailed narrativ e
from the suspect. Rather than controlling the interrogation, a critical aspect of the approach involves
allowing the suspect a degree of autonomy and utilizing active listening skills and open-ended
prompts to encourage elicitation (see Alison et al., 2014; Alison et al., 2013).
Another important development in this area relates to the use of the Cognitive Interview (CI)
for suspect interrogations. The CI was initially developed by Fisher and Geiselman (1992) to
facilitate the recollection of cooperative witnesses and victims by utilizing effective communication
strategies and interview tactics that consider the cognitive processes that underlie memory. More
than three decades of empirical research (including both laboratory and field studies) support the
effectiveness of the CI in significantly increasing the amount of correct informati on without
influencing the accuracy of responding (see Memon, Meissner, & Fraser, 2010).
In recent years, scholars have investigated individual components in the CI, demonstrating the
utility of encouraging subjects to provide more accurate details – even seemingly unimportant ones
(Leal, Vrij, Warmelink, Vernham, & Fisher, 2015) – and the effectiveness of various mnemonics
(Leins, Fisher, Pludwinski, Rivard, & Robertson, 2014). Additionally, recent research has
demonstrated that the CI can facilitate information gained in both interrogation (Evans, Meissner, et
al., 2013) and human intelligence contexts (Leins et al., 2014). Further, the CI has been shown to
outperform alternative “best practice” interview approaches taught by current training academies
(Rivard, Fisher, Robertson, & Hirn Mueller, 2014). Specifically, Rivard and colleagues collected data
at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) comparing the CI with FLETC’s five-
step interview protocol using experienced interviewers and adult subjects. The CI produces 80%
more relevant information than the FLETC interview protocol.
Evidence Presentation

DEVELOPING DIAGNOSTIC, EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES TO INTERROGATION 9
Accusatorial and information-gathering approaches differ in the manner by which
investigators present evidence. In the accusatorial approach, evidence (including exaggerated or false
evidence) is typically presented in a narrative format with the intention of maximizing a suspect’s
perception of the evidence against them (Inbau et al., 2011). Unfortunately, such tactics can produce
false confessions and lessen the diagnostic value of a confession, arguably through social pressure
and a focus on consequences of confessing (or not; Horgan et al., 2012; Madon, Yang, Smalarz,
Guyll, & Scherr, 2013; Russano et al., 2005). Further, such false evidence tactics have also been
shown to produce distortions in memory (Nash & Wade, 2009; Perillo & Kassin, 2011)
The information-gathering approach, in contrast, involves presenting evidence as a method
of challenging a suspect’s account – typically doing so either late in an interview or systematically
presenting evidence over time in a more strategic or tactical manner. This evidence presentation is
restricted to evidence that is in-hand and available to the investigator, prohibiting the use of
deception or the misrepresentation of evidence. Research indicates that evidence is most effectively
used when it is presented late in an interrogation (Sellers & Kebbell, 2009; Walsh & Bull, 2015).
Further, studies on the strategic use of evidence (SUE) method demonstrate the effectiveness of
delivering the evidence piece-by-piece, from weakest to strongest. This method not only increase s
information yield (Luke, Dawson, Hartwig, & Granhag, 2014), but also produces a corollary benefit
in assessing the credibility of suspect (as described below, see Hartwig, Granhag, & Luke, 2014). The
benefits of presenting evidence both late and systematically have been demonstrated in both the
laboratory and the field (cf. Luke et al., 2016).
Assessing Credibility
Finally, the information-gathering approach also differs from the accusatorial approach in its
perspective on assessing the credibility of statements. While we direct readers to Vrij (this issue) for
a complete description of both laboratory and field research in this area, we note here that

DEVELOPING DIAGNOSTIC, EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES TO INTERROGATION 10
accusatorial methods are situated within an anxiety model of deception that focuses practitioners on
non-verbal cues (e.g., fidgeting, nervousness, eye contact, etc.) – cues that have been shown to be
poor indicators of deception (DePaulo et al., 2003). In contrast, the information-gathering approach
is situated in a cognitive model of deception that focuses practitioners on verbal and linguistic cues
to deception (e.g., coherence, details, plausibility, etc.) – cues that can serve as stronger predictors of
deception (DePaulo et al., 2003; Hauch, Blandón-Gitlin, Masip, & Sporer, 2015). When trained on
verbal and linguistic cues to deception, detection performance improves significantly when
compared with non-verbal or paravocal cues (Hauch, Sporer, Michael, & Meissner, 2016).
Importantly, research suggests that information-gathering approaches offer a corollary benefit to
assessing credibility by encouraging suspects to say more and thereby increasing the frequency of
cognitive and linguistic cues to deception (Evans, Michael, Meissner, & Brandon, 2013), leading to
more accurate judgments of credibility (Vrij, Fisher, & Blank, 2015; Vrij, this issue).
Future Directions
While early research on interviewing and interrogations largely focused on the problematic
nature of accusatorial interrogation approaches, in recent years scholars (in collaboration with
interrogation professionals) have begun to identify methods that are both ethical and effective in
producing more diagnostic information. This research has produced techniques that facilitate the
development of rapport, improve information elicitation, render more effective the presentation of
evidence, and increase accuracy in assessments of credibility. At the same time, additional research is
necessary to further our understanding of the use of such techniques in different contexts. In fact,
researchers are just beginning to understand the variety of contextual factors that can influence an
interrogation. Recent research has demonstrated that priming mental states such as self-affirmation
(positive appraisals of the self-concept) and attachment security (secure and supportive
relationships) can facilitate disclosure (Davis, Soref, Guillermo, & Mikulincer, 2016; Dawson,

DEVELOPING DIAGNOSTIC, EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES TO INTERROGATION 11
Hartwig, & Brimbal, 2015). Further, research is also needed to appreciate the challenges of
interviewing via an interpreter (Ewens et al., 2014; Russano, Narchet, & Kleinman, 2014) and the
role of cultural differences in the interrogation room. For example, behaviors that may increase
rapport between US citizens may be offensive in other cultures and therein detrimental to
information gain (e.g., Beune, Giebels, & Sanders, 2009; Beune, Giebels, & Taylor, 2010) . Language
fluency may also impair the efficacy of certain approaches to assessing credibility in this context
(e.g., Da Silva & Leach, 2013; Evans, Michael, et al., 2013).
Conclusion
As we move towards a “science of interrogation,” we must ensure the efficacy and integrity
of the methods taken from the laboratory to the field. In 1980, Cialdini proposed a model for
research practice, which he dubbed the “Full Cycle Social Psychology.” He proposed the simple
notion that experimental research should be informed by real-world practice, then shared with
practice, investigated in practice, and ultimately returned to the laboratory for further investigation –
completing and starting the cycle anew. Over the past decade, researchers have partnered with
practitioners to initiate a full cycle research effort focused on the efficacy of interrogation (Meissner,
Hartwig, et al., 2010) whereby investigators have informed laboratory-based research and researchers
have taken and replicated their findings in the field. Further, this partnership has been critical to the
development of best practices that are now being implemented at federal training facilities
(Meissner, Kelly, & Woestehoff, 2015). We believe it is critical that these partnerships continue, and
we encourage other scholars and interrogation professionals to join the conversation in order to
improve both the science and practice of interrogation.

DEVELOPING DIAGNOSTIC, EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES TO INTERROGATION 12
References
Abbe, A., & Brandon, S. E. (2014). Building and maintaining rapport in investigative interviews.
Police Practice and Research, 15(3), 207–220. http://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2013.827835
Alison, L., Alison, E., Noone, G., Elntib, S., Waring, S., & Christiansen, P. (2014). The efficacy of
rapport-based techniques for minimizing counter-interrogation tactics amongst a field
sample of terrorists. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(4), 421–430.
http://doi.org/10.1037/law0000021
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(4), 411–431.
http://doi.org/10.1037/a0034564
Beune, K., Giebels, E., & Sanders, K. (2009). Are you talking to me ? Influencing behaviour and
culture in police interviews. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15(7), 597–617.
http://doi.org/10.1080/10683160802442835
Beune, K., Giebels, E., & Taylor, P. J. (2010). Patterns of Interaction in Police Interviews The Role
of Cultural Dependency. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(8), 904–925.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810369623
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. (pp. 81–95). Washington: American Psychological Association.
Retrieved from http://content.apa.org/books/12085-005
Clarke, C., & Milne, R. (2001). National evaluation of the PEACE investigative interviewing course. [S.l.]:
[s.n.]. Retrieved from

DEVELOPING DIAGNOSTIC, EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES TO INTERROGATION 13
http://tna.europarchive.org/20030731071058/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk:80/docs/pea
ceinterviewcourse.pdf
Collins, R., Lincoln, R., & Frank, M. G. (2002). The Effect of Rapport in Forensic Interviewing.
Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 9(1), 69–78. http://doi.org/10.1375/pplt.2002.9.1.69
Da Silva, C. S., & Leach, A.-M. (2013). Detecting deception in second-language speakers. Legal and
Criminological Psychology, 18(1), 115–127. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02030.x
Davis, D., Soref, A., Guillermo, J., & Mikulincer, M. (2016). Priming States of Mind Can Affect
Disclosure of Threatening Self-Information: Effects of Self-Affirmation, Mortality Salience,
and Attachment Orientations. Law and Human Behavior, No Pagination Specified.
http://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000184
Dawson, E., Hartwig, M., & Brimbal, L. (2015). Interviewing to elicit information: Using priming to
promote disclosure. Law and Human Behavior, 39(5), 443–450.
http://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000136
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003).
Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74–118. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.129.1.74
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, n/a-n/a.
http://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3065
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(2), 83–88. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.03.002

DEVELOPING DIAGNOSTIC, EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES TO INTERROGATION 14
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 and Cognition, 2(1), 33–41.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.02.002
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, n/a-n/a.
http://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12067
Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The
cognitive interview. Charles C Thomas Publisher.
Garrett, B. L. (2015). Contaminated confessions revisited. Virginia Law Review, 101, 395–454.
Goodman-Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N., & Dhami, M. K. (2014). Interviewing High Value
Detainees: Securing Cooperation and Disclosures. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 883–897.
http://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3087
Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions: A Handbook. John Wiley &
Sons.
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P.-A., & Luke, T. (2014). Strategic use of evidence during investigative
interviews: The state of the science. In Credibility Assessment: Scientific research and applicati ons
(Vol. s. 3-31). Credibility Assessment: Scientific research and applications Oxford : Elsevier/
Academic press. Retrieved from http://gup.ub.gu.se/publication/196310-strategic-use-of-
evidence-during-investigative-interviews-the-state-of-the-science
Hauch, V., Blandón-Gitlin, I., Masip, J., & Sporer, S. L. (2015). Are computers effective lie
detectors? A meta-analysis of linguistic cues to deception. Personality and Social Psychology
Review: An Official Journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc, 19(4), 307–342.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314556539

DEVELOPING DIAGNOSTIC, EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES TO INTERROGATION 15
Hauch, V., Sporer, S. L., Michael, S. W., & Meissner, C. A. (2016). Does Training Improve the
Detection of Deception? A Meta-Analysis. Communication Research, 43(3), 283–343.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214534974
Hilgendorf, E. L., & Irving, B. (1981). A Decision-Making Model of Confessions. In S. M. A. Lloyd-
Bostock (Ed.), Psychology in Legal Contexts (pp. 67–84). Palgrave Macmillan UK. Retrieved
from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-04917-2_5
Holmberg, U., & Madsen, K. (2014). Rapport operationalized as a humanitarian interview in
investigative interview settings. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 21(4), 591–610.
http://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2013.873975
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(1), 65–78.
http://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2011.561801
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), 1–8. http://doi.org/10.1080/10683160308141
Horselenberg, R., Merckelbach, H., Smeets, T., Franssens, D., Peters, G. -J. Y., & Zeles, G. (2006).
False confessions in the lab: Do plausibility and consequences matter? Psychology, Crime &
Law, 12(1), 61–75. http://doi.org/10.1080/1068310042000303076
Houston, K. A., Meissner, C. A., & Evans, J. R. (2014). Psychological Processes Underlying True
and False Confessions. In R. Bull (Ed.), Investigative Interviewing (pp. 19–34). Springer New
York. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-9642-7_2
Inbau, F., Reid, J., & Buckley, J. (2011). Criminal Interrogation and Confessions. Jones & Bartlett
Publishers.

DEVELOPING DIAGNOSTIC, EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES TO INTERROGATION 16
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(1), 3–38. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6
Kassin, S. M., & Kiechel, K. L. (1996). THE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OF FALSE
CONFESSIONS: Compliance, Internalization and Confabulation. Psychological Science (Wiley-
Blackwell), 7(3), 125–128.
Kelly, C. E., Redlich, A. D., & Miller, J. C. (2015). Examining the meso-level domains of the
interrogation taxonomy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21(2), 179–191.
http://doi.org/10.1037/law0000034
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(1), 71–88. http://doi.org/10.1348/135532507X193051
Leal, S., Vrij, A., Warmelink, L., Vernham, Z., & Fisher, R. P. (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(1), 129–146.
http://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12017
Leary, T., & Coffey, H. S. (1954). The prediction of interpersonal behavior in group psychotherapy.
Psychodrama and Group Psychotherapy Monographs, 28.
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(6), 926–935. http://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3041
Leo, R. A. (2008). Police Interrogation and American Justice (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2243909).
Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from
http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2243909

DEVELOPING DIAGNOSTIC, EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES TO INTERROGATION 17
Luke, T. J., Dawson, E., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2014). How Awareness of Possible
Evidence Induces Forthcoming Counter-Interrogation Strategies. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
28(6), 876–882. http://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3019
Ma, Y. (2007). A Comparative View of the Law of Interrogation. International Criminal Justice Review,
17(1), 5–26. http://doi.org/10.1177/1057567706298912
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(1), 60–74. http://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000011
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 and
Human Behavior, 34(1), 43–45. http://doi.org/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(5), 469–480.
Meissner, C. A., Kelly, C. E., & Woestehoff, S. A. (2015). Improving the Effectiveness of Suspect
Interrogations. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 11(1), null.
http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120814-121657
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, 1–28.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-014-9207-6
Meissner, C. A., Russano, M. B., & Narchet, F. M. (2010). The importance of a laboratory science
for improving the diagnostic value of confession evidence. In G. D. Lassiter & C. A.
Meissner (Eds.), Police interrogations and false confessions: Current research, practice, and policy
recommendations (pp. 111–126). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

DEVELOPING DIAGNOSTIC, EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES TO INTERROGATION 18
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(4), 340–372.
http://doi.org/10.1037/a0020518
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2009). Ten Things that Motivational Interviewing Is Not. Behavioural
and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 37(2), 129. http://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465809005128
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(6), 452–465.
http://doi.org/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(5), 624–637.
http://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1500
Perillo, J. T., & Kassin, S. M. (2011). Inside interrogation: The lie, the bluff, and false confessions.
Law and Human Behavior, 35(4), 327–337. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9244-2
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(2), 141–156.
Redlich, A. D., Kulish, R., & Steadman, H. J. (2011). Comparing true and false confessions among
persons with serious mental illness. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(3), 394–418.
http://doi.org/10.1037/a0022918
Reik, T. (1959). The Compulsion to Confess (First Edition edition). Farrar, Straus, and Cudahy.
Rivard, J. R., Fisher, R. P., Robertson, B., & Hirn Mueller, D. (2014). Testing the Cognitive
Interview with Professional Interviewers: Enhancing Recall of Specific Details of Recurring
Events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 917–925. http://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3026

DEVELOPING DIAGNOSTIC, EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES TO INTERROGATION 19
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(6), 481–
486. http://doi.org/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(6), 829–846.
http://doi.org/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(6), 847–859.
http://doi.org/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(2), 151–160. http://doi.org/10.1002/jip.95
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(2), 259–
269. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.1996.tb00324.x
Smith, S. M., Stinson, V., & Patry, M. W. (2009). Using the “Mr. Big” technique to elicit confessions:
Successful innovation or dangerous development in the Canadian legal system? Psychology,
Public Policy, and Law, 15(3), 168–193. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0016962
Tickle-Degnen, L., & Rosenthal, R. (1990). The Nature of Rapport and Its Nonverbal Correlates.
Psychological Inquiry, 1(4), 285–293. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0104_1
Vallano, J. P., & 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(6), 960–970. http://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1789

DEVELOPING DIAGNOSTIC, EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES TO INTERROGATION 20
Vrij, A., Fisher, R. P., & Blank, H. (2015). A cognitive approach to lie detection: A meta -analysis.
Legal and Criminological Psychology, n/a-n/a. http://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12088
Walsh, D., & Bull, R. (2015). Interviewing suspects: examining the association between skills,
questioning, evidence disclosure, and interview outcomes. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21(7),
661–680. http://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2015.1028544
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(4), 812–818.
http://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0398-z