International consensus on effective and ineffective interviewing strategies: a survey of experienced practitioners

ABSTRACT

We explored interviewing practitioners’ views about the effectiveness of a range of diverse interview strategies in the field. An online survey examined 73 interviewing practices comprising six broad strategy types and their perceived effectiveness. Interview practices were rated by a multinational sample of 324 criminal investigators and intelligence operators. Experienced interviewers reported preferences for cooperative, non-coercive information-gathering approaches. Rapport-building was rated highly effective in securing reliable information. Interviewers reported some use of coercive techniques, but more commonly employed procedural justice elements of respect, kindness, genuine concern, and addressing basic interviewee needs to build rapport. They favoured non-coercive presentations of testimonial inconsistencies and evidence. Results demonstrate support by a large, experienced, international sample of interviewing practitioners for rapport-based techniques over coercive techniques and revealed broad consensus on effective strategies. Furthermore, findings demonstrated that this consensus centres around the effectiveness of rapport-based investigative interviewing, rather than coercive or accusatorial techniques.

KEYWORDS:

• Accusatorial interviews
• investigative interviewing
• information-gathering
• interrogation
• policing
• rapport

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the research assistance of Thea Gumbert-Jourjon, a doctoral student at the University of New South Wales School of Law.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. While confession and prosecution are independent goals, they are distinct from the other goals listed here because either or both are particularly important in the context of criminal interrogations. In contrast, the other goals would be more important in HUMINT interrogations (Evans, Meissner, Brandon, Russano, Kleinman, 2010).

2. Our assertion that approximately 60% of our sample were Australian was based on the number of participants who explicitly reported that they were Australian.

3. The actual proportion of Australians in our sample could be higher than 60% if some of the participants who did not provide their nationality were Australian.

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded by the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group through the Centre for Law and Human Behavior at the University of Texas at El Paso (Grant Numbers: J-FBI-10-00926-3002-4130 and 4125). 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 HIG or the U.S. Government.

Notes on contributors

Diane Sivasubramaniam

Diane Sivasubramaniam is an Associate Professor in Psychology at Swinburne University of Technology. Her PhD was awarded in 2006 by the University of New South Wales. Before moving to Swinburne University, she completed Postdoctoral Fellowships in New York at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and Barnard College, Columbia University, and was an Assistant Professor at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT) in Canada.

Jane Goodman-Delahunty

Jane Goodman-Delahunty, JD, PhD, is a Research Professor in Forensic and Legal Psychology at Charles Sturt University and a Member of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Author of over 200 books and scholarly articles promoting evidence-based policies to enhance justice, she served as Editor of Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, and President of both the American Psychology-Law Society and the Australia and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law.