Interviewing Suspects in Denial: On How Different Evidence Disclosure Modes Affect the Elicitation of New Critical Information

This study examines how different evidence disclosure modes affect the elicitation of new critical information. Two modes derived from the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) framework were compared against an early disclosure mode (i.e., the evidence was disclosed at the outset of the interview). Participants (N = 88) performed a mock crime consisting of several actions before they were interviewed as suspects. In both SUE conditions the interviewer elicited and disclosed statement-evidence inconsistencies in two phases after an introductory phase. For the SUE-Confrontation (SUE-C) condition, the interview was introduced in a business-like manner, and the interviewer confronted the suspects with the in/consistencies without giving them a chance to comment on these. For the SUE-Introduce-Present-Respond (SUE-IPR) condition, the interviewer introduced the interview in a non-guilt-presumptive way, presented the in/consistencies and allowed the suspects to comment on these, and then responded to their comments; at all times in a non-judgmental manner. Both SUE conditions generated comparatively more statement-evidence inconsistencies. The SUE-IPR condition resulted in more new critical information about the phase of the crime for which the interviewer lacked information, compared to the Early disclosure condition. A likely explanation for this was that (for the SUE-IPR condition) the interviewer used the inconsistencies to create a fostering interview atmosphere and made the suspects overestimate the interviewer's knowledge about the critical phase of the crime. In essence, this study shows that in order to win the game (i.e., obtaining new critical information), the interviewer needs to keep the suspect in the game (i.e., by not being too confrontational and judgmental)

The Scharff-Technique:Eliciting Intelligence From Human Sources

This study is on how to elicit intelligence from human sources. We compared the efficacy of two human intelligence gathering techniques: the Scharff-technique (conceptualized as four different tactics) and the Direct Approach (a combination of open and direct questions). Participants (N = 60) were asked to take on the role of “sources” and were given information about a planned terrorist attack. They were to reveal part of this information in an upcoming interview. Critically, the participants were instructed to strike a balance between not revealing too much or too little information. As predicted, the participants revealed significantly more, and more precise, new information when interviewed with the Scharff-technique (vs. the Direct Approach). Furthermore, and as predicted, the participants in the Scharff condition underestimated how much new information they revealed whereas the participants in the Direct Approach overestimated how much new information they revealed. The study provides rather strong support for the Scharff-technique as an effective human intelligence gathering technique

Data from Interviews with 95 Respondents Recollecting Repeated Dental Visits

In 2012, Swedish dental care patients (n = 95) participated in a quasi-experiment in which they were interviewed twice about dental visits they had made between 2002 and 2012. For verification purposes, the participants' narratives were compared to the dental records. The qualitative data was quantified, stored as a .csv file, and supplemented with a codebook in plain text. All study materials are freely available online. The data can be reused to further analyse memory for repeated events. The data can be used both as data from an experiment (including both interviews) and as single interview data (including data only from the first interview, i.e., before the respondents were provided with memory cues)