The impact of rapport on intelligence yield: police source handler telephone interactions with covert human intelligence sources

Figures & data

Table 1. A framework of verbal rapport for source handler and CHIS interactions.

Component	Rapport indicator	Definition	Source
Attention	Back channel responses	Back channel responses act as facilitators/encourages, e.g. ‘uh huh’ or ‘hmm’, this does not include qualitative feedback such as ‘perfect’ or ‘good’ as these can be viewed as leading and therefore negative.	Abbe & Brandon, 2013, 2014; Collins & Carthy, 2019
	Paraphrasing	Repeating back what the CHIS said, which demonstrates the source handler has clearly attempted to process what the CHIS is saying.	Abbe & Brandon, 2014; Alison et al., 2013; Collins & Carthy, 2019.
	Identifying emotions	The source handler attends to the CHIS’ emotions, e.g. ‘you sound upset’.	Alison et al., 2013; Collins & Carthy, 2019
	Explores and probes information	Goes beyond just accepting information but searches for further detail, identifying the provenance of the information provided, funnel from open to closed questioning.	Alison et al., 2013; Walsh & Bull, 2012
	Intermittent summarising	Provides regular and accurate summarising of the CHIS’ account.	Abbe & Brandon, 2014; Alison et al., 2013; Walsh & Bull, 2012
	Provides final summary of interaction	Final summary that accurately resumes key issues discussed and captures key proses from the CHIS.	Walsh & Bull, 2012
	Asks if the CHIS wishes to add or alter anything	Provides opportunity for the CHIS to make any amendments or additions to their account.	Walsh & Bull, 2012
	Explores motivation	Tries to find, with understanding, why the CHIS is willing to share their information and also use the CHIS’ motivation for the conversation. Source handler may use the motivation as a hook for cooperation.	Abbe & Brandon, 2013; Taylor, 2002
Positivity	Use of CHIS’ preferred name	‘Where did you buy the computer James?’	Abbe & Brandon, 2014; Collins & Carthy, 2019; Collins et al., 2002; Kieckhaefer et al., 2014; Vallano & Compo, 2011; Walsh & Bull, 2012
	Empathy	A sensitive approach demonstrated by empathic responses, e.g. ‘I can understand why you might feel nervous’.	Abbe & Brandon, 2014; Alison et al., 2013; Collins & Carthy, 2019; Beune et al., 2010; Holmberg & Madsen, 2014; Oxburgh et al., 2014; Walsh & Bull, 2012
	Self-disclosure	When you feel you have learned something about the source handler that you didn't know before, e.g. ‘I have children too’.	Abbe & Brandon, 2014; Kieckhaefer et al., 2014; Nash et al., 2016; Vallano & Compo, 2011; Vallano et al., 2015
	Common ground by getting to know the CHIS	The use of questions around the CHIS’ lifestyle, hobbies, family etc. to display a genuine interest towards the CHIS	Abbe & Brandon, 2014; Kieckhaefer et al., 2014; Holmberg & Madsen, 2014; Nash et al., 2016; Vallano et al., 2015
	Equality signs/ Friendliness	Matches CHIS’ style and does not belittle or talk condescendingly to or ‘above’ the CHIS. Is polite, friendly, respectful and courteous, e.g. ‘thank you’; ‘how are you feeling today?’.	Abbe & Brandon, 2013; Alison et al., 2013; Beune et al., 2010; Collins & Carthy, 2019; Collins et al., 2002; Holmberg & Madsen, 2014; Vallano & Compo, 2011; Vallano et al., 2015; Walsh & Bull, 2012
	Humour	The CHIS must find the use of humour as a positive, e.g. ‘thanks for telling me your age, I know you said your date of birth, but I couldn’t work it out as my maths isn’t all that great (laughs)’	Alison et al., 2013; Collins & Carthy, 2019.
	Reassurance	The source handler provides encouragement and places the CHIS at ease e.g. ‘we will get this sorted’; ‘keep at what you’re doing’.	Collins & Carthy, 2019
Coordination	Agreement	Working towards a common goal or working alliance e.g. ‘yeah that is what I meant’.	Abbe & Brandon, 2013; Collins & Carthy, 2019
	Encourages CHIS to give account	Evidence of explicitly asking the CHIS for their account and allowing the CHIS to give it without any inappropriate interruptions.	Alison et al., 2013; Walsh & Bull, 2012
	Appropriate use of pauses	Source handler uses pauses to facilitate talking, which are not awkwardly placed.	None
	Process, procedure and what happens next	Explains future agenda and processes, any necessary regulatory requirements such as ‘don’t tell anyone about this conversation’, maintain security and welfare, when to next contact, and future taskings.	Abbe & Brandon, 2013; Collins & Carthy, 2019; Nash et al., 2016; Walsh & Bull, 2012

Note: Academic sources were collated with the assistance of Gabbert, Hope, Luther, Ng, Wright, and Oxburgh’s (under review) rapport and disclosure searchable systematic map. CHIS = Covert Human Intelligence Source. For the purposes of this research, the term CHIS has replaced the term interviewee.

Table 2. Coefficients of determinations (R²) for rapport components against overall intelligence yield and detail type.

Rapport component	Intelligence yield
	Surrounding	Object	Person	Action	Temporal	Overall
Attention	.41***	.59***	.58***	.65***	.36***	.69***
Positivity	.03	.01	.03	.05*	.00	.04
Coordination	.01	.03	.03	.06*	.05*	.05*
Overall rapport	.29***	.38***	.40***	.48***	.24***	.48***

Note: N = 105.

*p < .050. **p < .010. ***p < .001.

Table 3. Means and standard deviations for intelligence yield across the telephone interactions.

IY	M	SD
Surrounding IY	11.74	12.74
Object IY	14.48	12.95
Person IY	26.89	21.87
Action IY	25.56	20.37
Temporal IY	06.11	04.92
Overall IY	87.26	61.62

Note: N = 105. IY = intelligence yield.

Abbe, A., & Brandon, S.E. (2013). The role of rapport in investigative interviewing: A review. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 10(3), 237–249. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1386

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Abbe, A., & Brandon, S.E. (2014). Building and maintaining rapport in investigativeinterviews. Police Practice and Research, 15(3), 207–220. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2013.827835

 Google Scholar

Collins, K., & Carthy, N. (2019). No rapport, no comment: The relationship between rapportand communication during investigative interviews with suspects. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 16(1), 18–31. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1517

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034564

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Walsh, D., & Bull, R. (2012). Examining rapport in investigative interviews with suspects: Does its building and maintenance work? Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 27(1), 73–84. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-011-9087-x

 Google Scholar

Taylor, P.J. (2002). A cylindrical model of communication behavior in crisisnegotiations. Human Communication Research, 28(1), 7–48. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00797.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Collins, R., Lincoln, R., & Frank, M.G. (2002). The effect of rapport in forensicinterviewing. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 9(1), 69–78. doi:https://doi.org/10.1375/pplt.2002.9.1.69

 Google Scholar

Kieckhaefer, J.M., Vallano, J.P., & Schreiber Compo, N. (2014). Examining the positive effects of rapport building: when and why does rapport building benefit adult eyewitness memory? Memory (Hove, England), 22(8), 1010–1023. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2013.864313

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Vallano, J.P., & Compo, N.S. (2011). A comfortable witness is a good witness: Rapport‐building and susceptibility to misinformation in an investigative mock‐crimeinterview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(6), 960–970. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1789

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810369623

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Holmberg, U., & Madsen, K. (2014). Rapport operationalized as a humanitarian interview ininvestigative interview settings. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 21(4), 591–610. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2013.873975

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Oxburgh, G., Ost, J., Morris, P., & Cherryman, J. (2014). The impact of question type andempathy on police interviews with suspects of homicide, filicide and child sexualabuse. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 21(6), 903–917. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2014.918078

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nash, R.A., Nash, A., Morris, A., & Smith, S.L. (2016). Does rapport‐building boost the eye witness eye closure effect in closed questioning? Legal and Criminological Psychology, 21(2), 305–318. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12073

 Google Scholar

Vallano, J.P., Evans, J.R., Schreiber Compo, N., & Kieckhaefer, J.M. (2015). Rapport‐building during witness and suspect interviews: A survey of law enforcement. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(3), 369–380. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3115

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gabbert, F., Hope, L., Luther, K., Ng, M., Wright, G., & Oxburgh, G. (under review). Exploring the use of rapport in professional information-gathering contexts via systematically mapping the evidence base.

 Google Scholar