Description
One of the techniques used by police interviewers to detect whether information is truthful or not is the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) technique. The SUE technique suggests sharing evidence (e.g., eyewitness, CCTV footage) only after the suspect has provided a full account of their activities around the criminal event (Hartwig et al., 2005). In that way, the newly provided evidence may highlight any inconsistencies in the story of the suspect and thereby trigger a suspect to share more information in order to account for those discrepancies. In theory, this is because providing more information changes the suspect’s perception of how much the interviewer already knows about what happened, and so they start sharing more information to make sure they do not further implicate themselves (Hartwig et al., 2014). More recent research shows that Tactical Use of Evidence (TUE) – gradually disclosing information throughout the interview rather than only once a full account has been taken – may be more effective in encouraging suspects to share more information without compromising interviewers ability to detect deception. Some have also argued that this gradual disclosure should have a lesser impact on the relationship between the interviewer and suspect because the suspect would not feel like the interviewer has not been transparent with them by refusing to disclose evidence. However, there has been very little analysis of the impact of evidence disclosure methods on the relationship between interviewers and suspects.
In this thesis project, we will contrast late (SUE) with gradual (TUE) disclosure of evidence to determine how these impact on cues to deception, the relationship between interviewer and suspect, and information gathering with innocent and guilty suspects.
The project extends the research projects of Steven Watson on evidence disclosure in investigative interviews, and research by Lynn Weiher on rapport-building in suspect interviews.
Research questions
- How do different disclosure times of SUE impact on rapport and trust in (innocent) suspect-interviews?
- Is there a difference in the impact of different disclosure times in a truthteller or liar?
Type of research
Experimental research.
Key words
Investigative interview, strategic use of evidence, deception detection, rapport.
Information
Please contact Lynn Weiher (l.weiher@utwente.nl) when you are interested in this assignment. The assignment is open to four students.
Literature
Polman, S., Luther, K., de Almeida, H., Eggers, J., & Watson, S. J. (2022, September 14). Examining the Effects of Evidence Disclosure Timing and Strength on Information Inconsistencies and Provision within Investigative Interviews. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/nmbr9
Oleszkiewicz, S., & Watson, S. J. (2021). A meta-analytic review of the timing for disclosing evidence when interviewing suspects. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(2), 342-359. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3767
Weiher, L., Watson, S. J., Taylor, P. J., & Luther, K. (2023). How multiple interviews and interview framing influence the development and maintenance of rapport. Psychology, Crime & Law, 1-25. https://doi-org.ezproxy2.utwente.nl/10.1080/1068316X.2023.2265527
Gabbert, F., Hope, L., Luther, K., Wright, G., Ng, M., & Oxburgh, G. (2021). Exploring the use of rapport in professional information‐gathering contexts by systematically mapping the evidence base. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(2), 329-341.