Forensic Psychology

by Graham M Davies

  Rapport refers to qualitative aspects of inter-personal relationships. Traditionally studied within the therapeutic setting, rapport typically referred to the relationship between therapist and client. In the investigative context it refers to the relationship between interviewer and suspect. However, what exact qualities rapport refers to remains vague and ill defined (Vallano & Shreiber Compo, 2015). Some refer to positive qualities such as harmony and empathy (Sandoval & Adams, 2001) or a friendly and comforting atmosphere (Holmberg & Madsen, 2014). Others emphasize the importance of mutual respect (Abbe & Brandon, 2013), or frame rapport more as a professional or working alliance (Clarke & Milne, 2001).

  PHOTO 8.3 Rapport is widely believed to both safeguard innocent suspects and increase information and co-operation from the guilty.

  Source: © Stokkete/Shutterstock

  The most comprehensive attempt at creating a reliable framework for categorizing rapport in an investigative interview is the ORBIT (Observing Rapport-Based Interpersonal Techniques) tool developed by Alison and colleagues (Alison, Alison, Noone, Elntib, & Christiansen, 2013). ORBIT measures rapport at a macro-level and is based on two frameworks developed in other fields of psychological research: motivational interviewing (MI) (Rollnick & Miller, 1995) from counseling literature; and the interpersonal behavior circle (IBC) theory (Leary & Coffey, 1954; Birtchnell, 2002) from personality research. MI is a counselling method built on principles of empathy and autonomy, designed to facilitate a client’s intrinsic motivation to change. IBC classifies interpersonal interactions in a circular model across two axes: love–hate and dominance–submission. The ORBIT tool combines these two approaches to measure rapport in terms of the broad themes highlighted by MI (e.g. the interviewer showing the suspect empathy and providing autonomy to the suspect in terms of their choices to cooperate) and by classifying specific behaviours as interpersonally adaptive or maladaptive according to IBC.

  Putting conceptual issues aside, a growing corpus speaks to the advantages of rapport in investigative contexts. For instance, in one study convicted murderers and sexual offenders in Sweden answered a questionnaire about their experiences of police interviews (Holmberg & Christianson, 2002). The questionnaire included information on what style of interview was employed, broadly categorized by the authors into an interview characterised by dominance (e.g. impatience, aggression) or humanity (e.g. the interviewer was cooperative, empathic, helpful), the latter approach being more characteristic of a good rapport. In brief, convicts that reported the interview as more humane provided more admissions. Similar findings have been found with an Australian sample of convicted sexual offenders (Kebbell, Hurren & Mazerolle, 2006). That is, offenders who reported being interviewed by humane tactics with an emphasis on rapport provided more admissions of their guilt. Alison and colleagues (Alison et al., 2013) provide further support of the value of rapport. Their studies observed a sample of real-life interviews with suspected terrorists in the UK. The recorded interviews were coded using the ORBIT tool. The results were clear; in interviews where the relationship between the interviewer and the suspect was classified as adaptive (i.e. by a good rapport), suspects provided considerably more information (Alison et al., 2013). In subsequent studies, the same research group argued that rapport is effective because it helps an interviewer circumvent a suspect’s counter-interrogation strategies (Alison et al., 2014a, 2014b).

  One caveat to this research concerns the direction of causality. That is, were rapport based techniques genuinely more effective at eliciting information, or were interviewers more kind, empathetic, and respectful in interviews when the suspect was more forthcoming to begin with? Compelling arguments in favor of the effectiveness of rapport have been provided (e.g., Alison, Giles, & McGuire, 2015). As an example, consider the concept of reactance (Brehm, 1966), which refers to one’s tendency to insist on a choice of action once the option to pursue that action has been taken away by an external force. In the therapeutic setting, reactance refers to situations where a therapist encounters more resistance from a patient when they are pushed to provide information or act in a specific way (Moyers, 2014). Alison et al. (2013) argue that the same phenomenon can be expected in suspect interviewing situations. They explain that coercive measures that push a suspect to provide a specific piece of information may paradoxically encourage resistance from the suspect. In contrast, rapport-based approaches that give greater autonomy to a suspect to provide information of his or her choosing may reduce resistance. This should in turn encourage cooperation and increase the information yield from the suspect. Such arguments, however, only go part of the way in addressing the issue of causality mentioned above. To truly get to grips with the direction of causality, experimental research on rapport is crucial. This has been conducted in related fields such as the interviewing of cooperative witnesses (Vallano & Schreiber Compo, 2011), but is badly lacking in the field of suspect interviewing.

  8.4.3 Use of Evidence in Suspect Interviews

  Researchers (Bull, 2014), practitioners (Kelly et al., 2015), and offenders (Kebbell, Alison, Hurren, & Mazerolle, 2010) all acknowledge the importance of evidence in a suspect interview. Time and time again the strength of the evidence against a suspect emerges as a key reason for a guilty suspect’s confession (e.g., Deslauriers-Varin, Lussier, & St-Yves, 2011; Horgan, Russano, Meissner & Evans, 2012; Wachi, Watanabe, Yokota, Otsuka & Lamb, 2015). Yet, police officers seem to receive little training in how to use evidence in suspect interviews (Smith and Bull, 2014) and interview manuals often have little to say on the issue (Hartwig, Granhag, Strömwall, & Kronkvist, 2006). An exception is the aforementioned Reid manual (Inbau et al., 2013). The Reid technique advocates confronting a suspect with the available evidence at the outset of an interview. The aim is to emphasize the strength of the evidence that the interviewer holds against the suspect with the hopes of eliciting a confession. Considering the influence of the Reid technique it is perhaps not surprising that many officers report using this form of evidence disclosure (Leo, 1996; Moston, Stephenson, & Williamson, 1992; Tsan-Chang & Chih-Hung, 2013).

  Early disclosure of evidence, however, has been criticized on a number of grounds. From the perspective of interviewing an innocent suspect, evidence confrontation coupled with an accusation of guilt can increase the likelihood of a false confession (Gudjonsson, 2003). Relatedly, by disclosing information early in a suspect interview the chance is increased that an innocent suspect, especially a vulnerable suspect, will include incriminating information in subsequent accounts (Bull, 2014). This is especially the case when fabricated evidence is used, as is advocated by the Reid technique.

  From the perspective of interviewing a guilty suspect there are also a number of disadvantages. First, presenting information at the outset of the interview plays into the hands of the evasive strategies (e.g. withholding information, denial strategies) that guilty suspects employ (Granhag, Hartwig, Mac Giolla, & Clemens, 2015; Hartwig, Granhag, & Strömwall, 2007). Second, by disclosing evidence early, guilty suspects are better able to create statements that are consistent with both the evidence and their claimed innocence (Sellers & Kebbell, 2009). Third, if the evidence is disclosed confrontationally this could damage rapport between an interviewer and a suspect (Sellers & Kebbell, 2009). Fourth, if the evidence the interviewer presents is inaccurate this may reduce the credibility of the interviewer in the eyes of the suspect, which can in turn reduce the likelihood of true confessions (Kebbell, Hurren, & Roberts, 2006). Finally, there is always a risk in presenting evidence to a suspect in so far as once the evidence has been used it cannot be unused. The interviewer has in other words shown their cards.

  Due to such arguments many researchers and practitioners advocate a late or gradual disclosure of evidence (Bull, 2014; Hartwig et al., 2006; Sellers & Kebbell, 2009). Experimental research demonstrates that late and gradual disclosure increases the chances of guilty suspects producing statement-evidence inconsistencies – an important indicator of decei
t (Granhag & Hartwig, 2015; Granhag, Strömwall, Willén, & Hartwig, 2013; Hartwig, Granhag, Strömwall, & Vrij, 2005, Jordan & Hartwig, 2013). Gradual disclosure has also been shown to result in more true confessions than early disclosure (Sellers & Kebbell, 2009). Furthermore, late or gradual evidence disclosure has also been associated with generally more skillfully conducted interviews (Walsh & Bull, 2015). Finally, recent experimental research demonstrates that strategically timed gradual disclosure can result in guilty suspects providing more admissions about information unknown to the interviewer compared to an early disclosure of evidence (Tekin, Granhag, Strömwall, Mac Giolla, Vrij, & Hartwig, 2015; Tekin, Granhag, Strömwall, & Vrij, 2016).

  CASE STUDY 8.2 A SKILLFUL USE OF EVIDENCE

  In 2010, in an acknowledgment of the importance of evidence in suspect interviews, the Edmonton police force in the Alberta province of Canada introduced into their interviewing training curriculum, specific interview methods that take into consideration the evidence against the suspect (Tedeschini, 2012). As an illustrative example, Tedeschini (2012) describes the interview of Russell Williams by Detective Sergeant Jim Smyth of the Ontario Provincial Police. Williams was a former Colonel in the Canadian Air Force who was convicted on numerous counts, including murder and sexual assault. The convictions were in part due to the full confessions Williams gave while being interviewed by Smyth. The noteworthy aspect of Smyth’s interview was his dynamic use of evidence. For example, Smyth held tire track and footwear impression evidence that linked Williams to the crime scene. However, rather than confront Williams with the evidence at the start of the interview, Smyth cautiously asked Williams about his previous whereabouts, without revealing what specific evidence he held. The questions were posed in such a manner to give an innocent suspect ample opportunity to provide an explanation for the evidence. For example, Smyth asked “Has there been a time in the recent one or two weeks that your vehicle has left that road for any reason whatsoever.” Followed by “Is there anything that you can remember doing that would have caused you to drive off the road at that section?” Only after receiving denials on both of these questions did Smyth proceed to reveal the tire track and footwear impression evidence that he held. A similar tactic was used with pending DNA evidence. This form of questioning elicited statement evidence inconsistencies—an important diagnostic cue to deceit (Granhag & Hartwig, 2015)—and ultimately resulted in Williams’ full confession.

  An applied example comes from the Dutch Police Academy, who at the beginning of the 1990s developed interview protocols that took into account the available evidence that an interviewer held against a suspect. In this protocol, interviewers cautiously ask questions that are related to the evidence without revealing to the suspect what evidence the interviewer holds. Only later in the interview is the suspect asked to explain inconsistencies between their statements and the evidence (van der Sleen, 2009). The Dutch protocol corresponds well with the experimental studies on the strategic use of evidence (SUE) technique (Granhag & Hartwig, 2015; Hartwig, Granhag, & Luke, 2014; Hartwig, et al., 2006). In sum, police training should include guidance on how to use evidence in suspect interviews. Although many questions need to be addressed, it seems that a late or gradual disclosure of evidence may be most effective in both safeguarding innocent suspects and convicting the guilty.

  8.4.4 Suspect vs. Intelligence-Gathering Interviews

  Despite the vast quantities of information available in the digital age, interviews with people remain a primary source of information in intelligence gathering operations. In law enforcement a distinction between investigative and intelligence operations is common. Similarly, distinctions are made between suspect interviewing and human intelligence (HUMINT) interviewing (Evans, Meissner, Brandon, Russano, & Kleinman, 2010; Redlich, 2007). However, as will be shown, many of these differences are largely academic, and the similarities between the two forms of interviewing are considerable. For this reason, research and insights from HUMINT interviewing has the potential to inform about suspect interviewing, and vice versa.

  Broadly speaking, the goal of both HUMINT and suspect interviewing is to obtain reliable information from an individual. Nonetheless, the breadth of the information the interviewer seeks differs somewhat (Hartwig, Meissner, & Semel, 2014). Traditionally, suspect interviews are confession-focused, where the aim is to obtain incriminating information. In contrast, HUMINT interviews are broader and simply seek to obtain useful information from a source (Redlich, 2007). Law enforcement officers are by tradition focused on evidence (not intelligence), whereas many intelligence officers are inexperienced in collecting evidence for trial (McGarrity, 2014). However, as suspect interviewing practices become more focused on information gathering rather than on eliciting confessions, differences between HUMINT and suspect interviews are diminishing.

  One aspect that remains different is the topic of the interview. Suspect interviews will typically focus on a specific crime that occurred at a specific time and place. The topic of HUMINT interviews is often much more diffuse and is not limited to isolated past events (Hartwig et al., 2014). HUMINT interviews can concern specific crimes but can also concern large scale security operations about potential crimes that have yet to occur. Similarly, in HUMINT settings the relationship between the interviewer and the interviewee is more diffuse. In suspect interviews, the interviewee is a suspected perpetrator of a crime. In HUMINT interviews the interviewee is simply a source of potentially useful information and need not be accused of any specific crime. For instance, sources in HUMINT interviews include anything from police informants to prisoners of war, and detainees to undetained members of the public. Of course, in broader investigative interviews (e.g. interviews involving alibis), such strict differences between investigative interviews and HUMINT interviews again become blurred.

  Research directly examining HUMINT interviews is sparse. In recent years, however, empirical studies have emerged. In one of the first experimental studies on the topic, researchers compared an information-gathering approach to an accusatorial approach (Evans et al., 2013). The experimental set-up consisted of an altered version of the false confession paradigm used by Russano et al. (2005) that mirrored important aspects of a HUMINT situation. Results showed that information-gathering approaches resulted in more relevant information being elicited by the interviewee compared with an accusatorial approach.

  Granhag, Montecinos and Oleszkiewicz (2015) introduced an additional experimental set-up for examining HUMINT interviews. Participants received information about an upcoming terrorist attack. In subsequent interviews they were asked to consider an information management dilemma and were requested not to reveal too much information (because of sympathies for the terrorist group) or too little information (for fear of not receiving assistance from the police). The aim of the set-up was to mirror that of a semi-cooperative source. In a series of studies using this set-up the same researchers have compared different interview methods for eliciting information from participants (for an overview of this research see Granhag, Kleinman & Oleszkiewicz, 2016).

  Specifically, they have compared standard interview methods consisting of open and specific questions, to strategic interviewing methods based around the tactics used by the German WW2 interrogator Hanns Scharff. Scharff’s particular brand of interviewing advocated a humane and friendly approach and put great emphasis on establishing rapport with the interviewee. In addition, Scharff developed a set of specific tactics designed to circumvent an interviewee’s counter-interrogation strategies. For example, to avoid resistance from his interviewees he never pressured for information, and rarely asked direct questions (Toliver, 1997). Instead, he would bed questions in conversational statements that naturally and unknowingly encouraged an interviewee to provide information. In the experimental studies to date, the Scharff technique consistently outperforms standard questioning in eliciting information from semi-cooperative sources.

  8.5 CONCLUSIONS

  In this chapt
er we have reviewed research on interviewing suspects. This topic has been examined for quite some time within forensic psychology and there are plenty of sources to draw on, including surveys, archival studies, and experimental research. It is easy to find arguments that speak to the importance of this topic. For example, it is well-documented that accusatorial interview practices increase the risk of obtaining false confessions. The general trend is that the police today interview suspects in a more humane and ethical way than before. This is not to say that there are no interviews where suspects are put under heavy pressure, manipulated, and more or less forced to confess. Such interviews still occur, and there are compelling reasons to believe that they can be found all over the world.

  Research on suspect interviewing can serve many different purposes; it can be used to describe and understand what is happening inside interrogation rooms and it can help to debunk some of the more ill-founded recommendations found in interview manuals. These are important contributions. However, more can and more will be asked from research in this domain. We believe that future research will be characterized by a shift of focus. Although it will always be important to detect and explain errors and to warn against potentially dangerous interview practices, there is also a strong need for research that is geared towards providing normative and constructive outcomes (see Meissner et al., 2010). Scholars in this field need to (1) suggest and test interview techniques that increase the probability of obtaining true confessions, without increasing the risk of false confessions, and (2) continue to develop models for strategic use of evidence that may elicit, not only reliable cues to deceit, but also new critical information. Today there are clear signs that this new wave of research is beginning to emerge.