The Effect of Rapport in Forensic Interviewing

By Collins, Roger; Lincoln, Robyn et al. | Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, April 2002 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

The Effect of Rapport in Forensic Interviewing

Collins, Roger, Lincoln, Robyn, Frank, Mark G., Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

The psychological literature suggests that establishing rapport between interviewer and subject--whether in clinical, experimental or forensic settings--is likely to enhance the quality of the interaction. Yet there are surprisingly few studies that test this assumption. This article reports a study of the effect of rapport on eyewitness recall of a dramatic videotaped event by creating three interviewer-attitude conditions--"rapport", "neutral" and "abrupt". Participants were randomly assigned to the three conditions, and recall was elicited by two methods--free narrative and a semi-structured questionnaire. The results indicate participants in the rapport interview recalled more correct information, and the same amount of incorrect information as participants in the other two conditions. However, prompting via the semi-structured questionnaire yielded additional correct as well as incorrect information for the neutral and abrupt conditions. The results are discussed for their relevance to interviews conducted in forensic settings, and to highlight the need for more specific and improved interview training for police and other justice personnel.


Forensic Interviewing

Forensic interviewing is a burgeoning enterprise. Police, crime control agents (e.g., tax, customs, securities), lawyers, psychologists, other health professionals and private security personnel all conduct forensic interviews. Generally, however, the research literature concentrates on interviews performed by police with witnesses, victims or suspects (McMahon, 2000). Forensic interviews are merely aimed at obtaining a narrative of what was observed (Gudjonsson, 1992) which is a seemingly prosaic and achievable goal. Yet it can be an imprecise practice, as shown by the equivocal results in the research literature about the most appropriate strategy, the best outcome methods to utilise, and the characteristics of both interviewers and interviewees that elicit more useful information (Forrester, McMahon & Greenwood, 2001).

What is less equivocal is the critical role that forensic interviews play in criminal investigations (Sanders, 1986). Crime investigations require considerable interaction by operational police with members of the public (Swanton & Wilson, 1992). Obtaining information by way of "purposive conversations" comprises up to 80% of the duties of law enforcement personnel (Newberry, 1997) and, of course, the objective is to gather information that is as accurate and complete as possible in order for police to be as effective and efficient as possible (Gudjonsson, 1992). Witness accuracy and completeness are essential factors in determining if a case is solved or not (Fisher, McCauley & Geiselman, 1994; Sanders, 1986) and is recognised as a critically important element of criminal investigations (C.R. Bartol & A.M. Bartol, 1994; Geiselman & Fisher, 1989).

In addition, this information-gathering process may have evidential ramifications that affect subsequent forensic procedures (committal, trial, etc.). The reliability of the process is also important in avoiding miscarriages of justice, where it is estimated that perhaps 3,000 cases of criminal justice errors in the United States annually may be attributed to incorrect eyewitness testimony (Py, Ginet, Desperies & Cathey, 1997). Furthermore, greater efficiencies in crime clear-up rates would seem achievable if law enforcement personnel were properly trained in effective interviewing practices, thereby allowing for improved collection of witness information and enhanced investigative productivity (Grabosky, 1992; Wrightsman, Nietzel & Fortune, 1994).

Despite this acknowledged importance of the police interview, many police do not receive adequate training (Fisher, Chin & McCauley, 1990; Fisher et al., 1994; Lauchland & Le Brun, 1996). There is often little formal instruction, with officers learning their interview skills in the field, which may foster the use of erroneous methods and result in considerable loss of potentially valuable information (Fisher et al.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

The Effect of Rapport in Forensic Interviewing


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?