调查性访谈中的“Rapport近视”:来自语言和主观融洽关系指标的证据

IF 2.2 2区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Beth H. Richardson, Robert A. Nash
{"title":"调查性访谈中的“Rapport近视”:来自语言和主观融洽关系指标的证据","authors":"Beth H. Richardson,&nbsp;Robert A. Nash","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12193","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>Rapport-building has beneficial effects in investigative and security contexts. However, there remains limited understanding of the extent of agreement between different parties in their judgments of rapport.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We observed 133 mock suspect interviews, and subsequently surveyed the lead interviewer and secondary interviewer (trainees undertaking an undergraduate Policing programme), the ‘suspect’ (an actor), and an expert observer (a retired, highly experienced police detective). Each of these parties provided subjective judgments of the degree of rapport that had been formed between suspect and lead interviewer. Furthermore, we assessed whether these subjective judgments were associated with the degree of ‘Language Style Matching’ (LSM) between lead interviewer and suspect: a key linguistic measure of interpersonal synchrony.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The suspect, secondary interviewer, and expert observer had generally good agreement about the degree of rapport achieved, as evidenced through significant, moderate to strong correlations between their rapport ratings. However, these parties’ rapport ratings were weakly associated with those of the lead interviewer. Our linguistic analysis provided similar results: the extent of LSM was significantly associated with suspects’ and the expert’s subjective ratings of rapport, but not with the interviewers’ ratings.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The findings suggest that the demands of interviewing might impede interviewers’ insight into the success of their rapport-building efforts, leading them to overlook cues that other parties rely upon. We discuss the need for future experimental manipulations to directly test this suggestion, and we consider the value of interpersonal synchrony in defining and measuring rapport.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"27 1","pages":"32-47"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/lcrp.12193","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Rapport myopia’ in investigative interviews: Evidence from linguistic and subjective indicators of rapport\",\"authors\":\"Beth H. Richardson,&nbsp;Robert A. Nash\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/lcrp.12193\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>Rapport-building has beneficial effects in investigative and security contexts. However, there remains limited understanding of the extent of agreement between different parties in their judgments of rapport.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We observed 133 mock suspect interviews, and subsequently surveyed the lead interviewer and secondary interviewer (trainees undertaking an undergraduate Policing programme), the ‘suspect’ (an actor), and an expert observer (a retired, highly experienced police detective). Each of these parties provided subjective judgments of the degree of rapport that had been formed between suspect and lead interviewer. Furthermore, we assessed whether these subjective judgments were associated with the degree of ‘Language Style Matching’ (LSM) between lead interviewer and suspect: a key linguistic measure of interpersonal synchrony.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The suspect, secondary interviewer, and expert observer had generally good agreement about the degree of rapport achieved, as evidenced through significant, moderate to strong correlations between their rapport ratings. However, these parties’ rapport ratings were weakly associated with those of the lead interviewer. Our linguistic analysis provided similar results: the extent of LSM was significantly associated with suspects’ and the expert’s subjective ratings of rapport, but not with the interviewers’ ratings.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The findings suggest that the demands of interviewing might impede interviewers’ insight into the success of their rapport-building efforts, leading them to overlook cues that other parties rely upon. We discuss the need for future experimental manipulations to directly test this suggestion, and we consider the value of interpersonal synchrony in defining and measuring rapport.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18022,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Legal and Criminological Psychology\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"32-47\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/lcrp.12193\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Legal and Criminological Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lcrp.12193\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lcrp.12193","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的。在调查和安全方面,建立关系具有有益的作用。然而,人们对不同当事人在对关系的判断中意见一致的程度的了解仍然有限。方法。我们观察了133次模拟嫌疑人访谈,并随后调查了主要访谈官和次要访谈官(参加警务本科课程的学员)、“嫌疑人”(演员)和专家观察员(退休的、经验丰富的警察侦探)。这些当事人中的每一方都对嫌疑犯和主要采访者之间形成的融洽程度提供了主观判断。此外,我们评估了这些主观判断是否与主要采访者和嫌疑人之间的“语言风格匹配”(LSM)程度有关,LSM是衡量人际同步的关键语言指标。结果。嫌疑人、二次访谈者和专家观察者对融洽程度的达成程度大体上是一致的,这可以通过他们的融洽程度评分之间的显著、中等到强烈的相关性来证明。然而,这些政党的关系评级与首席采访者的评级弱相关。我们的语言分析提供了类似的结果:LSM的程度与嫌疑人和专家对融洽关系的主观评分显著相关,但与面试官的评分无关。结论。研究结果表明,面试的要求可能会阻碍面试官对他们建立融洽关系的努力是否成功的洞察力,导致他们忽视了其他各方所依赖的线索。我们讨论了对未来实验操作的需求,以直接测试这一建议,我们考虑了人际同步在定义和测量融洽关系中的价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
‘Rapport myopia’ in investigative interviews: Evidence from linguistic and subjective indicators of rapport

Purpose

Rapport-building has beneficial effects in investigative and security contexts. However, there remains limited understanding of the extent of agreement between different parties in their judgments of rapport.

Methods

We observed 133 mock suspect interviews, and subsequently surveyed the lead interviewer and secondary interviewer (trainees undertaking an undergraduate Policing programme), the ‘suspect’ (an actor), and an expert observer (a retired, highly experienced police detective). Each of these parties provided subjective judgments of the degree of rapport that had been formed between suspect and lead interviewer. Furthermore, we assessed whether these subjective judgments were associated with the degree of ‘Language Style Matching’ (LSM) between lead interviewer and suspect: a key linguistic measure of interpersonal synchrony.

Results

The suspect, secondary interviewer, and expert observer had generally good agreement about the degree of rapport achieved, as evidenced through significant, moderate to strong correlations between their rapport ratings. However, these parties’ rapport ratings were weakly associated with those of the lead interviewer. Our linguistic analysis provided similar results: the extent of LSM was significantly associated with suspects’ and the expert’s subjective ratings of rapport, but not with the interviewers’ ratings.

Conclusions

The findings suggest that the demands of interviewing might impede interviewers’ insight into the success of their rapport-building efforts, leading them to overlook cues that other parties rely upon. We discuss the need for future experimental manipulations to directly test this suggestion, and we consider the value of interpersonal synchrony in defining and measuring rapport.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
4.30%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: Legal and Criminological Psychology publishes original papers in all areas of psychology and law: - victimology - policing and crime detection - crime prevention - management of offenders - mental health and the law - public attitudes to law - role of the expert witness - impact of law on behaviour - interviewing and eyewitness testimony - jury decision making - deception The journal publishes papers which advance professional and scientific knowledge defined broadly as the application of psychology to law and interdisciplinary enquiry in legal and psychological fields.
×
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