Wallace, W. (2010). Wayne Wallace responds. The Jury Expert, 22(6), 20?22. Retrieved
from http://www.thejuryexpert.com/
Woody, W. D., Forrest, K. D., & Yendra, S. (2014). Comparing the effects of explicit and
implicit false-evidence ploys on Mock Jurors’ verdicts, sentencing recommendations,
and perceptions of police interrogation. Psychology, Crime and Law, 20(6), 603–617.
Wright, D. S., Wade, K. A., & Watson, D. G. (2013). Delay and déjà vu: Timing and repetition
increase the power of false evidence. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20(4), 812–
818.
Advice 3: Use of an Information-gathering Approach
The use of an information-gathering approach in suspect interviewing has been found to be
an effective interviewing technique whilst keeping the likelihood of false confession to a
minimum. This approach uses rapport building techniques, open-ended questions, and
positive confrontation to elicit information from suspects. The interviewer should create a
positive environment for the interview, where the suspect feels like it is a conversation
between two people instead of an environment where they must be deceptive to avoid
punishment. The use of coercion and threats are never used in this technique. The aim of
this approach is elicitation of information from the suspect which can be later confronted if
necessary. Interviewers are encouraged to be active listeners and let the suspect speak
freely on their account of the events. This focus on eliciting as much information as possible
from the suspect may lead to guilty suspects “letting their guard down” and reveal
contradicting accounts or information that only the perpetrator would know. On the contrast,
it also allows innocent suspects to tell their version of events and avoid false convictions.
This approach’s focus on gathering as much information as possible is what makes it highly
effective whilst reducing the possibility of false confessions.
The information-gathering approach is an interviewing style that is mainly used in European
countries (such as the UK) and Australia (Vrij et al., 2014). It focuses on gathering as much
information from a suspect as possible through methods such as rapport building and asking
open-ended questions which allow for elaboration from the suspect on their version of
events. Since the suspect is allowed to speak freely, it allows for greater volumes of
information to be elicited from a suspect. This volume of information may also elicit more
verbal cues of deception from a guilty suspect, in an attempt to “cover” themselves and
maintain their image of innocence (Vrij et al., 2007). These verbal cues of deception (such
as a lack of detail or an attempt to “keep it simple”) have been found to be more reliable
cues to deception than the traditionally believed non-verbal cues presented by researchers
Reid and Arthur (1953), who suggested that actions such as a lack of eye contact or
scratching their wrists/head suggest someone who is attempting to decieve (Vrij, 2019). In a
meta-analysis conducted by Meissner et al. (2015) the odds of eliciting a true confession
using this approach improved by as much as 85%, whilst reducing the chance of false
confessions by 74% when compared to both an accusatorial approach and traditional
questioning. This has been further studied by Evans et al. (2013), showing that the use of
the information-gathering approach elicits significantly more critical details and can lead to
an increase in confessions from guilty suspects. One of the most crucial aspects of this
technique is the use of rapport between the interviewer and the suspect. Studies have
from http://www.thejuryexpert.com/
Woody, W. D., Forrest, K. D., & Yendra, S. (2014). Comparing the effects of explicit and
implicit false-evidence ploys on Mock Jurors’ verdicts, sentencing recommendations,
and perceptions of police interrogation. Psychology, Crime and Law, 20(6), 603–617.
Wright, D. S., Wade, K. A., & Watson, D. G. (2013). Delay and déjà vu: Timing and repetition
increase the power of false evidence. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20(4), 812–
818.
Advice 3: Use of an Information-gathering Approach
The use of an information-gathering approach in suspect interviewing has been found to be
an effective interviewing technique whilst keeping the likelihood of false confession to a
minimum. This approach uses rapport building techniques, open-ended questions, and
positive confrontation to elicit information from suspects. The interviewer should create a
positive environment for the interview, where the suspect feels like it is a conversation
between two people instead of an environment where they must be deceptive to avoid
punishment. The use of coercion and threats are never used in this technique. The aim of
this approach is elicitation of information from the suspect which can be later confronted if
necessary. Interviewers are encouraged to be active listeners and let the suspect speak
freely on their account of the events. This focus on eliciting as much information as possible
from the suspect may lead to guilty suspects “letting their guard down” and reveal
contradicting accounts or information that only the perpetrator would know. On the contrast,
it also allows innocent suspects to tell their version of events and avoid false convictions.
This approach’s focus on gathering as much information as possible is what makes it highly
effective whilst reducing the possibility of false confessions.
The information-gathering approach is an interviewing style that is mainly used in European
countries (such as the UK) and Australia (Vrij et al., 2014). It focuses on gathering as much
information from a suspect as possible through methods such as rapport building and asking
open-ended questions which allow for elaboration from the suspect on their version of
events. Since the suspect is allowed to speak freely, it allows for greater volumes of
information to be elicited from a suspect. This volume of information may also elicit more
verbal cues of deception from a guilty suspect, in an attempt to “cover” themselves and
maintain their image of innocence (Vrij et al., 2007). These verbal cues of deception (such
as a lack of detail or an attempt to “keep it simple”) have been found to be more reliable
cues to deception than the traditionally believed non-verbal cues presented by researchers
Reid and Arthur (1953), who suggested that actions such as a lack of eye contact or
scratching their wrists/head suggest someone who is attempting to decieve (Vrij, 2019). In a
meta-analysis conducted by Meissner et al. (2015) the odds of eliciting a true confession
using this approach improved by as much as 85%, whilst reducing the chance of false
confessions by 74% when compared to both an accusatorial approach and traditional
questioning. This has been further studied by Evans et al. (2013), showing that the use of
the information-gathering approach elicits significantly more critical details and can lead to
an increase in confessions from guilty suspects. One of the most crucial aspects of this
technique is the use of rapport between the interviewer and the suspect. Studies have
