Rights statement: ©American Psychological Association, 2020. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the APA journal. Please do not copy or cite without author's permission. The final article is available, upon publication, at: https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000245
Accepted author manuscript, 276 KB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Final published version
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Challenges of a "Toolbox" Approach to Investigative Interviewing
T2 - A Critical Analysis of the RCMP's Phased Interview Model
AU - Snook, Brent
AU - Fahmy, Weyam
AU - Fallon, Laura
AU - Lively, Christopher
AU - Luther, Kirk
AU - Meissner, Christian
AU - Barron, Todd
AU - House, John
N1 - ©American Psychological Association, 2020. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the APA journal. Please do not copy or cite without author's permission. The final article is available, upon publication, at: https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000245
PY - 2020/8/1
Y1 - 2020/8/1
N2 - The Royal Canadian Mounted Police implemented the Phased Interview Model in Canada and has argued that it is a novel and productive way to interview suspects. We applaud the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for moving away from a purely accusatorial approach and recognize that Phased Interview Model contains several science-based practices. In this article, however, we evaluate the Phased Interview Model critically. In particular, we present compelling empirical evidence that three fundamental practices (minimizing culpability, mischaracterizing evidence, and asking leading questions) in the Phased Interview Model put the truth-seeking function of police interviews at risk. We also explore the challenges inherent in combining accusatorial and information gathering techniques into a hybrid ‘toolbox’ approach. We conclude that advocating for interview protocols that contain dangerous or untested practices may hinder the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s ability to achieve their purported goals of obtaining voluntary statements and accurate information.
AB - The Royal Canadian Mounted Police implemented the Phased Interview Model in Canada and has argued that it is a novel and productive way to interview suspects. We applaud the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for moving away from a purely accusatorial approach and recognize that Phased Interview Model contains several science-based practices. In this article, however, we evaluate the Phased Interview Model critically. In particular, we present compelling empirical evidence that three fundamental practices (minimizing culpability, mischaracterizing evidence, and asking leading questions) in the Phased Interview Model put the truth-seeking function of police interviews at risk. We also explore the challenges inherent in combining accusatorial and information gathering techniques into a hybrid ‘toolbox’ approach. We conclude that advocating for interview protocols that contain dangerous or untested practices may hinder the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s ability to achieve their purported goals of obtaining voluntary statements and accurate information.
KW - Investigative interviewing
KW - Confessions
KW - Evidence
KW - Phased Interview Model
KW - Reid Model of Interrogation
U2 - 10.1037/law0000245
DO - 10.1037/law0000245
M3 - Journal article
VL - 26
SP - 261
EP - 273
JO - Psychology, Public Policy and Law
JF - Psychology, Public Policy and Law
SN - 1076-8971
IS - 3
ER -