Rapport Tactics Non-Verbal Tactics contact / exposure immediacy leaning forward, orienting one’s • body toward the source, or reducing the physical distance (must be culturally-appropriate, non-threatening) Abbe & Brandon (2013, 2014)
Rapport Tactics mirroring non-verbal behavior, simulating speech • rate, or matching linguistic patterns Verbal & Non-Verbal Tactics mimicry Abbe & Brandon (2013, 2014)
Rapport Tactics reflectives, summarizing, or labeling; nodding • and eye contact Verbal & Non-Verbal Tactics mimicry active listening Abbe & Brandon (2013, 2014)
Houston et al. (2014)
Rapport Tactics Verbal Tactics Non-Verbal Tactics self-disclosure contact / exposure affirmations immediacy common ground Verbal & Non-Verbal Tactics mimicry active listening Abbe & Brandon (2013, 2014)
Leveraging Influence
Leveraging Influence people are more likely to exhibit a people follow the recommendations Commi mitme ment behavior that they have committed to of people they like or respect Affi finity ty & C Cons nsistenc ency when a person receives a gift, Recip iprocit ity they are burdened by the desire to give something back Cialdini (2006)
Leveraging Influence Commi mitme ment Affi finity ty & C Cons nsistenc ency a person’s behavior is influenced Soc Socia ial P l Proof by those of others, especially those Recip iprocit ity in their peer group Expe perti tise se we are persuaded by people we & Illus usion on o of perceive as having greater expertise Knowin ing Cialdini (2006)
Leveraging Influence Commi mitme ment Affi finity ty & C Cons nsistenc ency CARE RES Soc Socia ial P l Proof Recip iprocit ity Expe perti tise se & Illus usion on o of Knowin ing Cialdini (2006)
Influence N = 120 Houston et al. (2014)
Fair Respect Sincere Competent Cognitive Trust .63 Affective Trust Like Empathy Positive Interest N = 68 Kleinman, Oleszkiewicz, Atkinson, & Meissner
- room-set up AUTONOMY: agent shows acceptance that it is - initial instructions the subject’s choice not to talk or cooperate; - warnings prime openness and autonomy in the room. EVOCATION: agent draws out the subject; - reflective statements curious and patient; guides subject to the reasons they hold for cooperating. - encouragers ACCEPTANCE: extent to which agent - paraphrasing communicates unconditional positive regard - nonjudgmental words ADAPTATION: agent adapts to responses of the - listening skills subject, allows the subject some influence on - being flexible the agenda of the interview. - echoing words EMPATHY: extent to which agent attempts - reflective listening to understand the subject’s perspective. - mirroring - listening position Alison et al. (2013, 2014)
Questioning Skills O Open-Ended Questions A Affirmations R Reflective Listening S Summaries Alison et al. (2013, 2014)
Questioning Skills T.E.D. Questions Open Probes Extension Questions Specific Probes Appropriate Closed Summary
Cognitive Interview 30 years of research has now demonstrated that a “cognitive interview” approach can dramatically increase the amount of correct information recalled Develop rapport and give-up control Encourage “ don’t know ” and discourage guessing Open-ended, uninterrupted recall Use mnemonic strategies (context reinstatement, varied retrieval, imagery, code-compatible output)
Credibility Assessment Global bal D Decept eption R Resear arch T Team am ( (2006)
Credibility Assessment it turns out that the vast majority of cues are faint and unreliable (including blinking, posture, speech rate, hand movements, and eye contact) of the 12 most diagnostic cues, 9 involved verbal or story-based cues, 2 involved vocal characteristics, and only 1 focused on non-verbal behavior DePaulo et al. (2003)
Credibility Assessment verbal immediacy (-) discrepant or ambivalent information (+) amount of detail (-) uncertainty (+) overall nervousness (+) vocal tension (+) logical structure (-) plausibility (-) vocal frequency/pitch (+) negative statements/complaints (+) verbal involvement (-) contextual embedding (-) DePaulo et al. (2003)
Credibility Assessment verbal i imm mmed ediac acy ( (-) discrepant nt or ambivalent nt i informa mation ( n (+) amount t of d deta tail il ( (-) uncertainty ( (+) +) logica cal s struct cture ( (-) plausib ibil ility ity ( (-) verbal involveme ment nt ( (-) context xtual embedding ( g (-) DePaulo et al. (2003)
Credibility Assessment across hundreds of studies assessing deception detection performance, accuracy was little more than flipping a coin (54%) neither professional training nor experience led to improvement in performance (though they were more confident) Bond & DePaulo (2006)
Credibility Assessment across 30 studies, training to detection deception produced a small, but significant, improvement in performance (compared with a no-training control) training on verbal cues to deception produced the most robust increase in performance, exceeding that of non-verbal and paraverbal cues Hauch et al. (2016)
Credibility Assessment two cognitive aspects of lying suggest that strategic interviewing approaches can improve detection: (1) differences in the structure of truthful vs. fabricated memories
Truthful Memories many details multiple associations picture can change quite a bit depending on perspective taken rich & complex
Fabricated Memories few details limited associations picture changes little depending upon perspective taken often dull & unelaborated
Credibility Assessment two cognitive aspects of lying suggest that strategic interviewing approaches can improve detection: (1) differences in the structure of truthful vs. fabricated memories (2) lying requires executive control (cognitive load)
Cognitive Load liars must suppress the truth, create a lie, monitor the interviewer’s responses, remember what they have said, and ensure what they report is plausible given both currently known and discoverable information truth-tellers simply must report their memories, they are less concerned with monitoring their responses or the plausibility of their story Vrij & Granhag (2012)
Credibility Assessment Verifiable Unanticipated Drawing Details Questions Model Concurrent Planning Statement Task Cognitive Reverse Order Timeline Interview
Zimmerman et al. (2011)
Developing a science-based model of interrogation… Closing the translational loop: A training validation study…
Laboratory from theory to experimental research Field Validation effectiveness & adherence Training Academy efficacy vs. “current practice” Validate Training “train the trainer” & assess efficacy
Field Validation (2014 – 2015) Data Data Data Data Data Collection Collection Collection Collection Collection 14 - 19 3 - 7 9 - 13 30 Mar - September November February 3 Apr N = 30 N = 30 N = 33 N = 32 October September 2014 2015
Training curriculum was situated within (HIG-supported) • research on interviewing and interrogation instructors included practitioner-scientist teams • - practitioners had > 25 years of experience and were well versed in the relevant scientific literatures - scientists had conducted research on interviewing and interrogation scientific basis, technique, demonstrations, • and practical exercises
Course Ratings
Preparation to Interview
Conversational Rapport Cooperation- Pre-Post Resistance Training Cognitive Interview Information Yield Accusatorial N = 67
Recommend
More recommend
