12 Key Interview Techniques for Investigators

As an investigator, your job is to talk to people and collect information. Talking to people can be informal (like over a cup of coffee in a cafe) or formal (like in an interview room or "in the booth"). As an investigator, you also know how you talk to people matters. If you speak to people the right way, people will talk to you. If you talk to people the wrong way, they won't.

People may often choose to talk to you for a variety of reasons, sometimes they have to, and sometimes they want to. For example, in cases of criminal suspects, they might be talking to you to attempt to figure out what you know or to clear their name.

There are different techniques that investigators can use when communicating during an interview. Other than establishing rapport and treating people with respect and decency, there is no single "best" interview technique. Rather, any of these techniques might be useful depending who you are speaking with, if related to a criminal offense, and based on the goal of your interview.     

Most often, when conducting an interview, you probably have one of two overarching goals:

1. Gather information, or

2. Obtain a confession.  

Some of these techniques can also be useful in detecting deception. However, that is often not the primary goal of an interview. Thankfully, there is a growing body of research that can help us identify effective ways of conducting an interview and will help you meet your interview goals.

For a bit of personal background, I have some (emphasis added) research background in this area. In 2014, I was lucky enough to become involved with a team of practitioners and researchers for a research project focused on intelligence interviewing in corrections. This research was funded by the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), a U.S. Government-funded entity that focuses on developing evidence-based interview approaches. Since then, I have been involved in four research projects, helped develop research-based training, and co-authored academic journal articles on aspects of intelligence interviewing. Second Sight also recently developed a research-based course on the use of evidence during investigative interviews. More information about this course is available later in this document.

In this post, I want to share some information and resources on interview techniques that can help you improve your communication skills and collect more information, inside and outside of the booth.

Adversarial Versus Information Gathering

At the macro-level, interview techniques can be lumped into the broad categories known as adversarial and information-gathering methods. The adversarial model focuses on obtaining confessions when a subject’s guilt may already be indicated based on forensic evidence. Thus, questions tend to be closed-ended, suggestive, and designed to elicit brief responses (e.g., yes or no). Investigators also might use high-pressure tactics to extract information from the subject.

Adversarial approaches are powerful in eliciting confessions but, unfortunately, can have negative results among specific subsets of interview subjects (e.g., children, mentally ill persons). Adversarial approaches can often get someone to provide a piece of information, while the information gathering approaches encourage a person to provide everything they know.

In contrast, the information-gathering model focuses less  on "fact-finding." The questions are often open-ended, non-suggestive, and typically require the subject to give a detailed narrative in their own words. Unlike the adversarial model, information-gathering strategies emphasize rapport between the investigator and the subject.

It is essential to point out that information-gathering approaches do not mean that you don't challenge the subject when you detect deception – only that you challenge them in a way that is non-adversarial. This is a delicate balance.

Interview Techniques 

Within the larger framework, interview techniques can be broken down into six key approaches: rapport, collaboration, emotion provocation, context manipulation, confrontation, and presentation of evidence.

1. Rapport-based interview techniques focus on building a working relationship and mutual understanding between the investigator and subject, enabling better communication.

2. Collaboration aims to make the subject feel like their communication is valued during the interview process. These strategies might include incentives for subjects who provide information.

3. Emotion provocation techniques use verbal tactics that play on a subject’s emotions, such as fear, guilt, love, pride, hope, or sadness. This approach aims to influence the subject’s perception of the event to increase cooperation.

4. Context manipulation refers to the altering of contextual interview factors, such as the physical space or the appearance of the investigator, to set the "tone" for the interaction and subtly influence the subject.

5. Confrontation-based methods are typically used with people whose culpability is already indicated based on existing evidence. In this case, the investigator needs to obtain specific pieces of information, so the questions tend to be more direct and authoritative.

6. Evidence presentation interview techniques include the various subtle and strategic ways that an investigator can reveal certain pieces of evidence (real or fake) in a way that helps elicit a confession or collect more information.

In the following sections, we will describe each of these key approaches in more detail and provide examples of different techniques and skills related to each.  While we categorize and organize them here, there is a lot of overlap between the techniques and approaches.

Rapport and Relationship Building

Building rapport is one of the most important aspects of investigative interviews. For our purposes, rapport is a relationship between the subject and the investigator during an interview. The more rapport we have, the more likely someone is to talk to us.

One easy way to gain rapport? Help meet someone's needs: get them something to drink or eat, or give them time to use the restroom. Rapport can also be enhanced by showing genuine empathy, offering the interviewee autonomy over what they say or don't say (i.e., explicitly communicating that any decision to disclose information is their choice), or finding common ground with respect to mutual interests.

Rapport can be strongly influenced by the questioning tactics or communication methods that an investigator uses. Likewise, rapport-based interview techniques strongly emphasize listening and communication skills.

Strategies under the rapport and relationship-building domain have been found to effectively facilitate cooperation and increase information disclosure. According to the research, rapport can enhance feelings of guilt, responsibility, and remorse, all of which likely plays a role in the effectiveness of these techniques.

Three techniques that are related to rapport building are motivational interviewing, OARS, and the PEACE model. Each, with resources to learn more, are described below.

1. Motivational Interviewing

Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a collaborative conversation style designed to enhance a subject's intrinsic motivation to change. As described by its founders, MI's central principle is that "motivation to change should be elicited from people, not imposed on them." The technique works by eliciting and exploring a person's own reasons for change in a non-judgmental environment. Substance abuse therapists initially developed MI, but it has been deployed by experts in other areas.

MI's five main components include: expressing empathy, allowing the subject to realize the importance of change for themselves (autonomy), acceptance (lack of judgment), evoking the subject's story through their own words, and adaptation, or being flexible with the subject (e.g., not demanding for change or pushing for certain answers).

MI has been found to be effective in facilitating behavioral change. As an interview technique, MI can help an investigator reduce subject resistance, increase motivation to cooperate, and therefore increase information disclosure. It can also be useful when working with persons with a mental illness.

To learn more about using MI as an interview technique, download this "cheat sheet" courtesy of Rutgers University.

2. Open-Ended Questions, Affirmations, Reflections, and Summaries (OARS)

The four key communication skills that are used to demonstrate active and reflective listening in the MI approach are represented by the acronym "OARS," which stands for Open-Ended Questions, Affirmations, Reflections, and Summaries.

• Open-ended questions give the interviewee a chance to tell their story in their own words, which helps in building acceptance and trust.

• Affirmation of strengths, efforts, and past successes helps to build the person's hope and confidence in their ability to change.

• Reflections involve repeating or rephrasing information back to the interviewee to ensure that the message is conveyed clearly.

• Summarizing involves linking themes from previous information, sometimes from previous interviews, and reinforces the key points generated by the discussion.

To learn more about how to apply the OARS principles to investigative interviewing, check out this article.

3. The Peace Model

An alternative rapport building approach, is the PEACE model.  PEACE is a primarily rapport-based technique, though it incorporates some adversarial elements. It is characterized by five phases: Preparation, Engagement, Account and Clarification, Closure, and Evaluation.

• The Preparation phase involves reviewing all evidence and suspect information, determining the objective of the interview, and devising a written interview plan that details what questions will be asked and what evidence will be presented.

• In the Engagement phase, the investigator conveys the objective and expectations of the interview to the subject and encourages them to tell their story in as much detail as possible.

• In the Account and Clarification phase, the investigator clarifies necessary details and encourages further conversation. Sometimes this phase may include adversarial techniques, such as the use of close-ended questions, or the investigator may challenge the subject regarding any inconsistencies in their account.

• During the Closure phase, the investigator asks the subject if they have any further questions and provides information on the next steps.

• Following the interview is the Evaluation phase, where investigators evaluate what was said, consider how it fits in context with other evidence, and determine whether further action is necessary.

To learn more, check out this guide to the PEACE model, developed for use in Europe.

Collaboration

Collaborative interview techniques involve exchanges between parties, where the subject feels like they are an equal part of the interview process. As part of this process, the investigator might leverage principles of persuasion and social influence. For example, the investigator can offer an incentive for cooperation or show acts of hospitality to influence a subject's reciprocity, which is known to increase information disclosure.

There are a number of techniques that involve collaboration, these include the Cognitive Interview, ORBIT, and the Cylinder Model. More about each is below.

4. The Cognitive Interview

Informed by decades of cognitive health research, the Cognitive Interview (CI) incorporates memory-enhancing techniques to increase the subject's memory recall. For example, closing one's eyes can help facilitate recollection, or the subject might respond using non-verbal channels (such as by drawing a sketch). Alternatively, the investigator may ask the person to recall the incident in a different order or from a different perspective.

Extensive research has shown that the CI is effective at increasing the accuracy and amount of information which can be recalled during an interview. In addition, by using multiple layers of questioning strategies, the CI protocol is also a helpful method for detecting deception. It also requires a subject willing to talk to you.

To learn more about using the CI when interviewing subjects, check out this presentation from the National Crisis Intervention Training Institute.

5. Observing Rapport-Based Interpersonal Techniques (ORBIT)

Observing Rapport Based Interpersonal Techniques (ORBIT) is a collaborative approach that combines the rapport-based elicitation methods from MI with interpersonal skills from Leary and Coffey's Interpersonal Behavioral Circle Model. Interpersonal skills enhance the MI approach by helping investigators manage difficult or resistant subjects.

The ORBIT framework measures rapport through empathy, empowerment, respectfulness and open-mindedness (similar to MI). In contrast, interpersonal behaviors are measured as either adaptive (beneficial to communication) or maladaptive (impedes communication) in relation to intelligence yield. Research has found ORBIT to be effective in improving adaptive behavior, which can help increase cooperation and information disclosure.

For more information on the ORBIT model, see this guide from the Center for Research and Evidence on Security Threats (CREST).

6. The Cylinder Model

Sensemaking is the process by which people give meaning to their collective experiences. For investigators, one way of illustrating this concept is the Cylinder Model, which posits that communication is more successful when the investigator aligns their frame of communication with the subject.

The cylinder model characterizes three orientations people have towards interactions, which are: 

• Avoidant (refusing to talk about or take responsibility for an event),

• Competitive (arguing or acting defensive), and

• Cooperative (being willing to talk and make concessions).

Within each orientation, there are three motivational frames. These are:

• Identity (focus on one's own wants or needs),

• Instrumental (focus on problem solving), and

• Relational (focus on establishing a relationship with the other party).

Further, people can exhibit different intensities when communicating. Someone showing a high degree of intensity (e.g., shouting demands) will not be able to move to a different frame of communication until that intensity has been reduced.

The Cylinder Model interview technique has been found to be effective in increasing cooperation and rapport, though it can be complicated to understand and implement.

Full disclosure, I have attended some instruction on the Cylinder Model and struggled to understand the approach. It is one that requires extensive training and careful integration into interview planning.

To learn more about the Cylinder Model, see this article by the Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats (CREST).

Emotion Provocation

Emotion provocation interview techniques use psychological manipulation to evoke strong emotions (negative or positive) from the subject, manipulating their perception of the crime and ideally compelling them to confess. One set of techniques associated with emotion provocation is maximization and minimization.

7. Maximization and Minimization

Maximization and minimization strategies are used to convince a subject that it is in their best interest to confess.

Maximization involves scare tactics that shift the subject's attitude from confident to hopeless. For example, the investigator could exaggerate the consequences for the alleged act or present real or fake evidence (the latter of which is obviously deceptive and not something we endorse) to elicit a confession.

Minimization aims to positively influence a suspect's perception of the crime, possible punishments, and themselves by essentially downplaying the offense's seriousness. This can make a confession appear less daunting to the subject. For example, the investigator might make a "justifiable" excuse for the crime, or they may feign sympathy for the subject.

Per the research, emotional provocation and other adversarial techniques can increase the subject's disclosure of incriminating evidence, though they have an increased risk for false confessions compared to rapport-based techniques. This is particularly true for children and those people with reduced mental capacity. Though, if comparing maximization and minimization, the latter is preferable as it can decrease anxiety and improve rapport between the investigator and subject in comparison.

For an example, check out some of the ways that police use language to downplay the seriousness of an offense.

Context Manipulation

Context manipulation refers to altering of objective interview circumstances to subtly influence the interaction between the investigator and the subject. The investigator can alter the physical environment (e.g., adjust the temperature) to set the "tone" for the interaction.

For example, let's give you two different contexts for the same interview. Interview Context A involves a cold dark interview room with no natural light, and the interviewee is handcuffed to the desk. Interview Context B involves a warmer room and natural light, and the interviewee is unhandcuffed. Which is likely to result in a more cooperative interview subject?

8. Conceptual Priming 

Conceptual priming is a type of context manipulation that involves exposing an individual to a concept via imagery or words, subtly priming the individual to be familiar with that concept in the future. There are many ways of doing this.

Overall, the research on context manipulation has been inconclusive typically indicating null or mixed results in increasing cooperation and information disclosure.

To learn more about how context manipulation works in investigative interviews, check out this article, which explains the impact that the environment can have on investigative interviews.

Confrontation and Competition

Confrontation-based interview techniques are more high-pressure in comparison to some of the other techniques. As the name implies, questioning strategies in this domain are more confrontational.  One such technique that is historically described as involving more confrontational approaches is the Reid Technique.

9. The Reid Technique

One prevalent example is the Reid technique, which is probably the most widely known interrogation method. Historically, the Reid technique has been the predominant interview technique in the United States, and law enforcement organizations throughout the country have trained in Reid for decades.

The technique occurs in multiple stages. First, non-confrontational questions are used, and the investigator observes the suspect's verbal or behavioral cues for signs of deception. Next, the investigator uses potentially psychologically manipulative interview techniques (e.g., maximization or minimization tactics, which can include deception) to elicit a confession.

This interview technique is often used with people whose culpability is already established based on existing evidence. At this point, the purpose of the interrogation is to result in a confession that will be able to secure the conviction of the offender.

The Reid technique has resulted in many accurate and legal confessions. However, its assumptions about coercion and human behavior may not be applicable to all situations. Thus, some research suggests it can increase the risk of false confessions. Across most settings, rapport-based techniques tend to achieve better outcomes.

To learn more, read about the common types of questions used in the technique.

Presentation of Evidence

Presenting evidence is a powerful interview technique that can influence what information the subject is willing to reveal or withhold. There are multiple facets to evidence presentation: why, what, when, and how.

 As described in the figure above, there are many different facets to presenting evidence. We can't cover them all here – but think about the difference between telling an interview subject about weak evidence or showing them strong evidence – you will get a different response.

For example, an investigator can attempt to overwhelm the subject with strong (and sometimes false) evidence of guilt early on in the interview, or they may present pieces of evidence systematically in a way that purposefully contraindicates the subject after receiving a statement from them. A further distinction regards the timing in which evidence is presented, where different pieces of evidence might be revealed gradually over time.

Some investigators in some settings can lie about evidence. This is not an approach that we recommend. First, because it is morally problematic. Second, if the person finds out you lied to them, then the likelihood of that person talking to you again is low. 

There are a number of techniques related to the presentation of evidence. One of the most commonly known is SUE. The Scharf technique is also another that can relate to evidence and interviewing more generally.  The Rapport-based Evidence Presentation model is a third techniques and we will describe each in more detail below.

10. Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE)

Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) seeks to elicit an open-ended narrative from the subject and then strategically disclose evidence to confront the subject and challenge their narrative. SUE has been found to be effective in detecting deception as well as eliciting confessions. In fact, even being aware that possible evidence could be presented increases the extent to which guilty subjects confess.

To learn more, check out this 2014 research review on the SUE technique.

11. The Scharff Technique

In the Scharff technique, the investigator demonstrates knowledge of the case and then subtly elicits additional information using five tactics: a friendly approach, not pressing for information, creating an 'illusion of knowing it all', using confirmations, and ignoring new information that is brought up. Because this technique discourages coercive strategies, sometimes the Scharff technique is referred to as a "friendly" interrogation method.

This approach can be helpful with resistant subjects. Resistant subjects often will try to estimate what the investigator already knows, which should inform what information the investigator withholds or reveals. When people are asked very explicit questions, as with some other interview techniques, it can lead the subject to believe that the interview knows very little about the situation.

However, in the Scharff technique, the investigator is seen as more knowledgeable and strategically reveals information to steer the subject toward previously unknown information.

 This interviewing technique has been found to be effective in eliciting new information compared to asking explicit questions. Furthermore, the Scharff technique consistently influences subjects to underestimate how much information they have disclosed.

The Scharf technique is also difficult to implement and not an approach that is widely taught. We have included it in this post because it comes up a lot, so we wanted to make sure you had information on it.

To learn more, read about the current state of the research on the Scharff technique.

12. Rapport-Based Evidence Presentation

As part of a recently-completed Department of Defense contract and in collaboration with Dr. Christopher Kelly at Saint Joseph's University, my team and I at Second Sight recently developed a course centered around the Rapport-Based Evidence Presentation (REP) model. This model was developed through an extensive literature review, consultation with subject matter experts, and a content analysis of interviews. Research papers are currently in publication on this topic, and we will share more when possible.

The REP Model approach involves gaining rapport through non-confrontation techniques and maintaining rapport throughout an interview. It involves the gradual presentation of evidence to reduce resistance and increase information yield.

This model was developed through an extensive literature review, consultation with subject matter experts, and a content analysis of interviews. Research papers are currently in publication on this topic and we will share more when possible.

You can learn more about instructor-led training options for the use of evidence on our instructor-led courses page.

Next Steps

In the last several years, empirical support for these information-gathering and rapport-building approaches has grown enough such that it is sufficient to justify the transition of investigators to rapport-based techniques for some situations.

A fair amount of evidence suggests that information-gathering strategies are effective in eliciting true confessions. This is likely because they increase rapport, which is known to enhance feelings of guilt, responsibility, and remorse, increasing the probability of truthful information disclosure. Thankfully as new evidence has emerged, interest in rapport-based interview techniques is higher than ever.

In short, a science-based model of interrogation is beginning to replace outdated, ineffective, and problematic methods. To this end, Second Sight's new course, "Evidence Disclosure in Investigative Interviews," teaches participants how to implement a unique blend of rapport-based and evidence presentation interview techniques to enhance their approach to investigative interviewing.   

Over the next several months, Second Sight will continue to release more information and resources on these topics. To stay in the loop regarding this emerging research and learn about new classes on interviewing, click here to sign up for our mailing list.   

• References

  Alison, L., & Alison, E. (2017). Revenge versus rapport: Interrogation, terrorism, and torture. American psychologist, 72(3), 266.

  Beek, M. V., Bull, R., & Chen, M. (2021). When the evidence is incorrect: an exploration of what happens when interviewers unwittingly present inaccurate information in interviews with suspects. Journal of police and criminal psychology, 36(4), 769-782.

  Birtchnell, J. (2014). The interpersonal circle and the interpersonal octagon: A confluence of ideas. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 21(1), 62-72.

  Brimbal, L., Kleinman, S. M., Oleszkiewicz, S., & Meissner, C. A. (2019). Developing rapport and trust in the interrogative context: An empirically-supported and ethical alternative to customary interrogation practices. SJ, Barela, MJ, Fallon, G., Gaggioli, JD Ohlin,(Eds.), Interrogation and torture: Integrating efficacy with law and morality, 141-196.

  Cleary, H., & Bull, R. (2021). Contextual factors predict self-reported confession decision-making: A field study of suspects’ actual police interrogation experiences. Law and Human Behavior, 45(4), 310.

  Eisenberg, P. (2019). The cognitive interview and enhanced cognitive interview in financial forensics and investigations. Journal of Contemporary Research in Social Sciences, 1(1), 55-64.

  French, D. J. (2018). The cutting edge of confession evidence: Redefining coercion and reforming police interrogation techniques in the American criminal justice system. Tex. L. Rev., 97, 1031.

  French, D. J. (2018). The cutting edge of confession evidence: Redefining coercion and reforming police interrogation techniques in the American criminal justice system. Tex. L. Rev., 97, 1031.

  Gaines, Philip. (2018). "Presupposition as investigator certainty in a police interrogation: The case of Lorenzo Montoya's false confession." Discourse & Society, 29(4) 399-419. DOI:10.1177/0957926518754417.

  Goodman‐Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N., & Dhami, M. K. (2014). Interviewing high value detainees: Securing cooperation and disclosures. Applied cognitive psychology, 28(6), 883-897.

  Granhag, P. A., Kleinman, S. M., & Oleszkiewicz, S. (2016). The Scharff technique: On how to effectively elicit intelligence from human sources. International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, 29(1), 132-150.

  Hagsand, A. V., Kelly, C. E., Mindthoff, A., Evans, J. R., Compo, N. S., Karhu, J., & Huntley, R. (2022). The interrogator‐suspect dynamic in custodial interrogations for high‐stakes crimes in Sweden: An application of the interrogation taxonomy framework. Scandinavian journal of psychology.

  Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., & Luke, T. (2014). Strategic use of evidence during investigative interviews: The state of the science. Credibility assessment, 1-36.

  Hoogesteyn, K., Meijer, E., & Vrij, A. (2019). The influence of room spaciousness on investigative interviews. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 24(2), 215-228.

  Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 3–38. doi:10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6

  Kelly, C. E., Dawson, E., & Hartwig, M. (2021). Context manipulation in police interviews: a field experiment. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 17, 67-86.

  Kelly, C. E., Meehan, N., Mcclary, M., & Jenaway, E. M. (2021). Just a normal conversation: Investigative interviews in a county jail. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 48(8), 1166-1184.

  Kelly, C. E., Miller, J. C., Redlich, A. D., & Kleinman, S. M. (2013). A taxonomy of interrogation methods. Psychology, public policy, and law, 19(2), 165.

  Kelly, C. E., Russano, M. B., Miller, J. C., & Redlich, A. D. (2019). On the road (to admission): Engaging suspects with minimization. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 25(3), 166.

  Leary, T., & Coffey, H. S. (1954). The prediction of interpersonal behavior in group psychotherapy. Group Psychotherapy.

  Leo, R. A. (2020). Structural police deception in American police interrogation: A closer look at minimization and maximization. Interrogation confession and truth: Comparative studies in criminal procedure, 183-207.

  Luke, T. J. (2021). A meta‐analytic review of experimental tests of the interrogation technique of Hanns Joachim Scharff. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35(2), 360-373.

  Luke, T. J., & Alceste, F. (2020). The mechanisms of minimization: How interrogation tactics suggest lenient sentencing through pragmatic implication. Law and Human Behavior, 44(4), 266.

  Luke, T. J., Hartwig, M., Joseph, E., Brimbal, L., Chan, G., Dawson, E., ... & Granhag, P. A. (2016). Training in the Strategic Use of Evidence technique: Improving deception detection accuracy of American law enforcement officers. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 31, 270-278.

  May, L., Granhag, P. A., & Tekin, S. (2017). Interviewing suspects in denial: On how different evidence disclosure modes affect the elicitation of new critical information. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1154.

  Meissner, C. A., Redlich, A. D., Bhatt, S., & Brandon, S. (2012). Interview and interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions. Campbell systematic reviews, 8(1), 1-53.

  Meissner, C. A., Surmon-Böhr, F., Oleszkiewicz, S., & Alison, L. J. (2017). Developing an evidence-based perspective on interrogation: A review of the US government’s high-value detainee interrogation group research program. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(4), 438.

  Oleszkiewicz, S., Granhag, P. A., & Kleinman, S. M. (2014). On eliciting intelligence from human sources: Contextualizing the Scharff‐technique. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 898-907.

  Redlich, A. D. (2004). Law & psychiatry: Mental illness, police interrogations, and the potential for false confession. Psychiatric Services, 55(1), 19-21.

  Redlich, A. D., Kelly, C. E., & Miller, J. C. (2014). The who, what, and why of human intelligence gathering: Self‐reported measures of interrogation methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 817-828.

  Seda, G., & Rafayel, H. (2021). Manipulative speech: A theoretical overview. Armenian Folia Anglistika, 17(24-2), 11-26.

  Sellers, S., & Kebbell, M. R. (2009). When should evidence be disclosed in an interview with a suspect? An experiment with mock‐suspects. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 6(2), 151–160.

  Tedeschini, J., & Jung, S. (2018). Motivational interviewing in the context of police investigative interviews with suspects. Investigative Interviewing: Research and Practice, 9(1), 1-13.

  Vrij, A., Meissner, C. A., Fisher, R. P., Kassin, S. M., Morgan III, C. A., & Kleinman, S. M. (2017). Psychological perspectives on interrogation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 927-955.

  Walsh, D., & Fogarty, K (2021). Evaluation of the Impact of Power on Police and Suspects Dialogue.