Advancing the Shift-of-Strategy approach: Shifting suspects' strategies in extended interviews.

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Lina Nyström, Timothy J Luke, Pär Anders Granhag, Aziz-Kaan Dönmez, Malin Ekelund, Pär D Stern
{"title":"Advancing the Shift-of-Strategy approach: Shifting suspects' strategies in extended interviews.","authors":"Lina Nyström, Timothy J Luke, Pär Anders Granhag, Aziz-Kaan Dönmez, Malin Ekelund, Pär D Stern","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000554","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Interviewers often face the challenge of obtaining information from suspects who are willing to speak but are motivated to conceal incriminating information. The Shift-of-Strategy (SoS) approach is an interviewing technique designed to obtain new information from such suspects. This study provides a robust empirical test of the SoS approach using more complex crime events and longer interviews than previously tested as well as testing a new variation of the approach (SoS-Reinforcement) that included a strategic summary of the suspect's statement. We compared this new variation with a standard version of the approach (SoS-Standard) and an interviewing approach that involved no confrontation of discrepancies in the suspects' statements (Direct).</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We predicted that the two SoS versions would outperform the Direct condition in terms of participants' disclosure of previously unknown information. We also predicted that SoS-Reinforcement would outperform SoS-Standard. Finally, we expected that participants in the SoS conditions would not assess the interview or the interviewer more poorly than participants in Direct.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A total of 300 participants completed an online mock crime procedure, and they were subsequently interviewed with one of the three interviewing techniques. Following the interview, participants provided assessments of their experiences being interviewed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants in both SoS-Standard (d = 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI: 0.21, 0.78]) and SoS-Reinforcement (d = 0.59, 95% CI [0.30, 0.87]) disclosed more previously unknown information than participants in the Direct condition, but SoS-Reinforcement did not outperform SoS-Standard (d = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.36]). Participants in SoS-Reinforcement assessed their experience more negatively than those in Direct. No such differences were observed in the remaining two-way comparisons.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study provides support for the effectiveness of eliciting new information through the SoS approach and illuminates possible experiential downsides with being subjected to the SoS-Reinforcement approach. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"48 1","pages":"50-66"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Human Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000554","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Interviewers often face the challenge of obtaining information from suspects who are willing to speak but are motivated to conceal incriminating information. The Shift-of-Strategy (SoS) approach is an interviewing technique designed to obtain new information from such suspects. This study provides a robust empirical test of the SoS approach using more complex crime events and longer interviews than previously tested as well as testing a new variation of the approach (SoS-Reinforcement) that included a strategic summary of the suspect's statement. We compared this new variation with a standard version of the approach (SoS-Standard) and an interviewing approach that involved no confrontation of discrepancies in the suspects' statements (Direct).

Hypotheses: We predicted that the two SoS versions would outperform the Direct condition in terms of participants' disclosure of previously unknown information. We also predicted that SoS-Reinforcement would outperform SoS-Standard. Finally, we expected that participants in the SoS conditions would not assess the interview or the interviewer more poorly than participants in Direct.

Method: A total of 300 participants completed an online mock crime procedure, and they were subsequently interviewed with one of the three interviewing techniques. Following the interview, participants provided assessments of their experiences being interviewed.

Results: Participants in both SoS-Standard (d = 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI: 0.21, 0.78]) and SoS-Reinforcement (d = 0.59, 95% CI [0.30, 0.87]) disclosed more previously unknown information than participants in the Direct condition, but SoS-Reinforcement did not outperform SoS-Standard (d = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.36]). Participants in SoS-Reinforcement assessed their experience more negatively than those in Direct. No such differences were observed in the remaining two-way comparisons.

Conclusions: The study provides support for the effectiveness of eliciting new information through the SoS approach and illuminates possible experiential downsides with being subjected to the SoS-Reinforcement approach. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

推进策略转换方法:在扩展访谈中转变嫌疑人的策略。
目的:访谈者经常面临的挑战是,如何从愿意开口但有隐瞒罪证动机的疑犯口中获取信息。策略转换(SoS)方法是一种访谈技巧,旨在从这类嫌疑人那里获取新信息。本研究使用比以往更复杂的犯罪事件和更长的访谈时间,对策略转换法进行了有力的实证测试,并测试了策略转换法的新变体(策略转换-强化),其中包括对嫌疑人陈述的策略性总结。我们将这种新方法与标准版本的方法(SoS-标准)和不涉及嫌疑人陈述差异的面谈方法(直接)进行了比较:我们预测,就参与者披露先前未知信息的情况而言,两个 SoS 版本的效果将优于 "直接 "条件。我们还预测,"强化 "SoS 将优于 "标准 "SoS。最后,我们预计,SoS 条件下的参与者对访谈或访谈者的评价不会比直接条件下的参与者更差:共有 300 名参与者完成了在线模拟犯罪程序,随后他们使用三种面试技巧中的一种接受了面试。访谈结束后,参与者对自己的访谈经历进行了评估:结果:SoS-标准(d = 0.49,95% 置信区间[CI: 0.21, 0.78])和 SoS-强化(d = 0.59,95% 置信区间[0.30, 0.87])条件下的参与者比直接条件下的参与者披露了更多之前未知的信息,但 SoS-强化条件下的参与者披露的信息并没有超过 SoS-标准(d = 0.08,95% 置信区间[-0.20, 0.36])。SoS-Reinforcement参与实验者对其体验的评价比Direct参与实验者更消极。在其余的双向比较中没有观察到这种差异:本研究为通过 SoS 方法激发新信息的有效性提供了支持,并揭示了采用 SoS-强化方法可能带来的体验上的负面影响。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
8.00%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Law and Human Behavior, the official journal of the American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association, is a multidisciplinary forum for the publication of articles and discussions of issues arising out of the relationships between human behavior and the law, our legal system, and the legal process. This journal publishes original research, reviews of past research, and theoretical studies from professionals in criminal justice, law, psychology, sociology, psychiatry, political science, education, communication, and other areas germane to the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信