Description
Law enforcement is always on the look-out for suspect interviewing methods that lead a suspect to share reliable information. One of the techniques used 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 interviewers that accidently make errors prompt suspects to share more information but may also negatively affect their perceived trust and rapport (Oostinga et al., 2018). This poses the question of what happens when an interviewer makes errors while using the SUE technique. Will suspect share even more information to correct the interviewer? Or does making errors lead suspect to question the interviewer’s competence and so encourage them to provide minimal information?
In this exploratory master thesis project, we will combine the longstanding SUE technique with the impact of errors in suspect interviews. The project extends the research projects of Steven Watson on interrogation and investigative interviews, and research by Miriam Oostinga on communication error management in suspect interviews and crisis negotiations.
Research questions
1. What is the impact of a communication error on the suspect when the strategic use of evidence technique is used (trust, rapport, information provision)?
2. Is there a difference in the impact of a communication error in a truthteller or liar?
Type of research
Experimental research.
Key words
Investigative interview, strategic use of evidence, deception detection, error management.
Information
Please contact Steven Watson (s.j.watson@utwente.nl) when you are interested in this assignment. The assignment requires two students.
Start
2023-2024 Second semester
Literature
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
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Vrij, A. (2005). Detecting deception via strategic disclosure of evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 469-484.
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
Oostinga, M. S. D., Giebels, E., & Taylor, P. J. (2020). Communication error management in law enforcement interactions: A sender’s perspective. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(1), 39-60. doi:10.1177/0093854819870856