Description
Untangling the effect of (multiple) errors in suspect interviews
In all high-stake interaction communication errors occur (Oostinga et al., 2018a). Someone is approached in the wrong manner, or the wrong name is used. Recent research shows that errors not necessarily have negative consequences for the trust/relationship with the person of interest, if this error is being repaired appropriately (Oostinga et al., 2018b). Remarkably, the making of errors can lead to more information, as the suspect may explain why the police interviewer is being wrong. The question is, however, whether the same if true if multiple errors are being made. Will the suspect still trust and respect the interviewer if they make a mistake more than once? And if so, is there an optimum in how many errors you should make?
In this bachelor thesis project, we will have a closer look at the effect of making multiple errors in suspect interviews and try to find this error optimum. The project extends the PhD project of Miriam Oostinga that focused on the effect of communication error management in law enforcement interactions (suspect interviews and crisis negotiations) as well as previous BSc theses projects in this direction.
Research questions
1. What is the impact of a communication error on the receiver (trust, rapport, information provision)?
2. Is there a difference between the impact of a communication error on the receiver when just one error or multiple errors are being made?
Type of research
Depends on the specific research questions. Both surveys as well as experimental research are possible research methods.
Key words
Error management, communication errors, suspect interviews, multiple errors.
Information
Please contact Lynn Weiher (l.weiher@utwente.nl) when you are interested in this assignment. The assignment is open to four students.
Literature
Ferrin, D.L., Kim, P.H., Cooper, C.D., & Dirks, K.T. (2007). Silence speaks volumes: The effectiveness of reticence in comparison to apology and denial for responding to integrity- and competence-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 893-908. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.893
Lewicki, R. J., Polin, B., & Lount Jr, R. B. (2016). An exploration of the structure of effective apologies. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 9(2), 177-196.
Oostinga, M. S. D., Giebels, E., & Taylor, P. J. (2018-a). ‘An error is feedback’: The experience of communication error management in crisis negotiations. Police Practice and Research, 19(1), 17-30. doi:10.1080/15614263.2017.1326007
Oostinga, M. S. D., Giebels, E., & Taylor, P. J. (2018-b). Communication error management in law enforcement interactions: A receiver’s perspective. Psychology, Crime and Law, 24(2), 134-155. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2017.1390112