Premium
Measuring influential police interviewing tactics: A factor analytic approach
Author(s) -
Pearse John,
Gudjonsson Gisli H.
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
legal and criminological psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.65
H-Index - 57
eISSN - 2044-8333
pISSN - 1355-3259
DOI - 10.1348/135532599167860
Subject(s) - suspect , interview , psychology , resistance (ecology) , confession (law) , intimidation , appeal , criminology , social psychology , magistrate , jealousy , applied psychology , law , political science , ecology , biology
Purpose. This study was concerned with examining the types of tactics employed by police officers to overcome a resistant suspect and elicit a confession to a major crime. The main hypothesis is that tactics that seek to maximize or exaggerate the strength of the evidence against the suspect, or that seek to minimize the suspect's responsibility or role in the offence will be present in serious cases where initial resistance was overcome. Method. The interview data from 18 serious criminal cases were subjected to a detailed analysis using a specially constructed coding frame that identified the nature and number of tactics present in every 5‐minute segment of each interview. Results. A total of 39 interviewing tactics were identified, of which 33 were factor analysed. Six factors emerged and were rotated using the varimax procedure. The first three factors were ‘overbearing’ in character. They were labelled Intimidation, Robust Challenge and Manipulation. The remaining three factors were identified as Question Style, Appeal and Soft Challenge. Conclusion. This Police Interviewing Analysis Framework (PIAF) provides the first systematic attempt to identify, analyse, measure and display the dynamics of the police‐suspect interview. In order to overcome resistance the police resorted to manipulative and coercive tactics. The nature of the tactics used and their frequency were found to be related to the likelihood that the courts would rule the evidence inadmissible.