Interviewing Suspects in Denial: On How Different Evidence Disclosure Modes Affect the Elicitation of New Critical Information

Journal article


May, L., Granhag, P. A. and Tekin, S. Interviewing Suspects in Denial: On How Different Evidence Disclosure Modes Affect the Elicitation of New Critical Information. Frontiers in Psychology. 8, pp. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01154
AuthorsMay, L., Granhag, P. A. and Tekin, S.
Abstract

This study examines how different evidence disclosure modes affect the elicitation of new critical information. Two modes derived from the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) framework were compared against an early disclosure mode (i.e., the evidence was disclosed at the outset of the interview). Participants (N = 88) performed a mock crime consisting of several actions before they were interviewed as suspects. In both SUE conditions the interviewer elicited and disclosed statement-evidence inconsistencies in two phases after an introductory phase. For the SUE-Confrontation (SUE-C) condition, the interview was introduced in a business-like manner, and the interviewer confronted the suspects with the in/consistencies without giving them a chance to comment on these. For the SUE-Introduce-Present-Respond (SUE-IPR) condition, the interviewer introduced the interview in a non-guilt-presumptive way, presented the in/consistencies and allowed the suspects to comment on these, and then responded to their comments; at all times in a non-judgmental manner. Both SUE conditions generated comparatively more statement-evidence inconsistencies. The SUE-IPR condition resulted in more new critical information about the phase of the crime for which the interviewer lacked information, compared to the Early disclosure condition. A likely explanation for this was that (for the SUE-IPR condition) the interviewer used the inconsistencies to create a fostering interview atmosphere and made the suspects overestimate the interviewer's knowledge about the critical phase of the crime. In essence, this study shows that in order to win the game (i.e., obtaining new critical information), the interviewer needs to keep the suspect in the game (i.e., by not being too confrontational and judgmental).

Keywordssuspect interview, information elicitation, information gathering, counter-interrogation strategies, strategic use of evidence
JournalFrontiers in Psychology
Journal citation8, pp. 1-11
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01154
Publication dates
Print17 Jul 2017
Publication process dates
Accepted19 Apr 2017
Deposited15 Oct 2019
Publisher's version
License
File Access Level
Open
Permalink -

https://openresearch.lsbu.ac.uk/item/880w7

Download files


Publisher's version
fpsyg-08-01154.pdf
License: CC BY 4.0
File access level: Open

  • 84
    total views
  • 19
    total downloads
  • 0
    views this month
  • 0
    downloads this month

Export as

Related outputs

Strategies of Preparation and Impression Management - How Innocence can Backfire
Welch, L., Poland, V., Tekin, S., Talwar, V., Memon, A. and Colwell, K. (2020). Strategies of Preparation and Impression Management - How Innocence can Backfire. 2020 American Psychology-Law Society Annual Meeting. USA
Untapped Potential? A Survey Study with German Police Officers into Suspect Interviewing Practices and the Strategic Use of Evidence
Clemens, F., Knieps, M. and Tekin, S. (2019). Untapped Potential? A Survey Study with German Police Officers into Suspect Interviewing Practices and the Strategic Use of Evidence. Journal of Forensic Psychology:Research and Practice. 20 (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/24732850.2019.1684123
POLICE OFFICERS’ USE OF EVIDENCE IN SUSPECT INTERVIEWS: HOW AND WHY?
Tekin, S. (2016). POLICE OFFICERS’ USE OF EVIDENCE IN SUSPECT INTERVIEWS: HOW AND WHY? International Investigative Interviewing Research Group 9th Annual Conference.
Police officers' use of evidence to elicit admissions in a fictitious criminal case
Tekin, S., Granhag, P. A., Stromwall, L. and Vrij, A. (2016). Police officers' use of evidence to elicit admissions in a fictitious criminal case. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling. pp. 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1463
How to make perpetrators in denial disclose more information about their crimes
Tekin Eriksson, S., Granhag, P.A., Stromwall, L. and Vrij, Aldert (2016). How to make perpetrators in denial disclose more information about their crimes. Psychology, Crime & Law. 22 (6), pp. 261-280. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2016.1168425
Strategic interviewing to elicit admissions: Making guilty suspects more forthcoming
Tekin, S., Granhag, P. A. and Mac Giolla, E. (2015). Strategic interviewing to elicit admissions: Making guilty suspects more forthcoming. 2015 American Psychology-Law Society Annual Meeting. San Diego, USA 2015 - 2016
Interviewing Strategically to Elicit Admissions From Guilty Suspects
Tekin, S., Granhag, P. A., Stromwall, L.A., Mac Giolla, E., Vrij, A. and Hartwig, M. (2015). Interviewing Strategically to Elicit Admissions From Guilty Suspects. Law and Human Behavior. 39 (3), p. 244 –252. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000131