Search

This research examines how suspects attempt to influence interviewers during investigative interviews. Twenty-nine interview transcripts with suspects accused of controlling or coercive behavior within intimate relationships were submitted to a thematic analysis to build a taxonomy of influence behavior. The analysis classified 18 unique suspect behaviors: the most common behaviors were using logical arguments (17% of all observed behaviors), denial or denigration of the victim (12%), denial or minimization of injury (8%), complete denials (7%), and supplication (6%). Suspects' influence behaviors were mapped along two dimensions: power, ranging from low (behaviors used to alleviate investigative pressure) to high (behaviors used to assert authority), and interpersonal alignment, ranging from instrumental (behaviors that relate directly to evidence) to relational (behaviors used to bias interviewer perceptions of people and evidence). Proximity analysis was used to examine co-occurrence of influence behaviors. This analysis highlighted combinations of influence behaviors that illustrate how different behaviors map onto different motives, for example shifting attributions from internal to external to the suspect, or to use admissions strategically alongside denials to mitigate more serious aspects of an allegation. Our findings draw together current theory to provide a framework for understanding suspect influence behaviors in interviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This experiment examines how a police interviewer’s judgment error and apology affect a sexual violence victim’s secondary victimization, trust in the interviewer, rapport, and willingness to provide information. Ninety students from Peru were asked to imagine being sexual violence victims and were interviewed online by a mock police interviewer. Participants were randomized into three conditions: judgment error without apology, judgment error with apology, and a no-error control. The judgment error involved suggesting the victim was partly responsible for their victimhood, citing women’s clothing choices and questioning men’s masculinity. Our findings show judgment errors reduced trust, rapport, and willingness to provide information while increasing secondary victimization; apologizing improved trust and rapport but did not affect secondary victimization or willingness to provide information. These outcomes indicate that judgment errors in sexual violence victim interviews can negatively impact the interviewing process and outcomes and highlight the importance of an apology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]