Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > The influence strategies of interviewees suspec...

Associated organisational unit

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

The influence strategies of interviewees suspected of controlling or coercive behavior

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

E-pub ahead of print

Standard

The influence strategies of interviewees suspected of controlling or coercive behavior. / Watson, Steven J.; Luther, Kirk; Taylor, Paul J. et al.
In: Psychology, Crime and Law, 11.11.2022, p. 1-27.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Watson SJ, Luther K, Taylor PJ, Bracksieker AL, Jackson J. The influence strategies of interviewees suspected of controlling or coercive behavior. Psychology, Crime and Law. 2022 Nov 11;1-27. Epub 2022 Nov 11. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2022.2144853

Author

Bibtex

@article{e1824b8d7119473b95593d643c02c436,
title = "The influence strategies of interviewees suspected of controlling or coercive behavior",
abstract = "This research examines how suspects attempt to influence interviewers during investigative interviews. Twenty-nine interview transcripts with suspects accused of controlling or coercive behavior within intimate relationships were submitted to a thematic analysis to build a taxonomy of influence behavior. The analysis classified 18 unique suspect behaviors: the most common behaviors were using logical arguments (17% of all observed behaviors), denial or denigration of the victim (12%), denial or minimization of injury (8%), complete denials (7%), and supplication (6%). Suspects{\textquoteright} influence behaviors were mapped along two dimensions: power, ranging from low (behaviors used to alleviate investigative pressure) to high (behaviors used to assert authority), and interpersonal alignment, ranging from instrumental (behaviors that relate directly to evidence) to relational (behaviors used to bias interviewer perceptions of people and evidence). Proximity analysis was used to examine co-occurrence of influence behaviors. This analysis highlighted combinations of influence behaviors that illustrate how different behaviors map onto different motives, for example shifting attributions from internal to external to the suspect, or to use admissions strategically alongside denials to mitigate more serious aspects of an allegation. Our findings draw together current theory to provide a framework for understanding suspect influence behaviors in interviews.",
keywords = "Law, General Psychology, Pathology and Forensic Medicine",
author = "Watson, {Steven J.} and Kirk Luther and Taylor, {Paul J.} and Anna-Lena Bracksieker and Julie Jackson",
year = "2022",
month = nov,
day = "11",
doi = "10.1080/1068316X.2022.2144853",
language = "English",
pages = "1--27",
journal = "Psychology, Crime and Law",
issn = "1068-316X",
publisher = "Routledge",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The influence strategies of interviewees suspected of controlling or coercive behavior

AU - Watson, Steven J.

AU - Luther, Kirk

AU - Taylor, Paul J.

AU - Bracksieker, Anna-Lena

AU - Jackson, Julie

PY - 2022/11/11

Y1 - 2022/11/11

N2 - This research examines how suspects attempt to influence interviewers during investigative interviews. Twenty-nine interview transcripts with suspects accused of controlling or coercive behavior within intimate relationships were submitted to a thematic analysis to build a taxonomy of influence behavior. The analysis classified 18 unique suspect behaviors: the most common behaviors were using logical arguments (17% of all observed behaviors), denial or denigration of the victim (12%), denial or minimization of injury (8%), complete denials (7%), and supplication (6%). Suspects’ influence behaviors were mapped along two dimensions: power, ranging from low (behaviors used to alleviate investigative pressure) to high (behaviors used to assert authority), and interpersonal alignment, ranging from instrumental (behaviors that relate directly to evidence) to relational (behaviors used to bias interviewer perceptions of people and evidence). Proximity analysis was used to examine co-occurrence of influence behaviors. This analysis highlighted combinations of influence behaviors that illustrate how different behaviors map onto different motives, for example shifting attributions from internal to external to the suspect, or to use admissions strategically alongside denials to mitigate more serious aspects of an allegation. Our findings draw together current theory to provide a framework for understanding suspect influence behaviors in interviews.

AB - This research examines how suspects attempt to influence interviewers during investigative interviews. Twenty-nine interview transcripts with suspects accused of controlling or coercive behavior within intimate relationships were submitted to a thematic analysis to build a taxonomy of influence behavior. The analysis classified 18 unique suspect behaviors: the most common behaviors were using logical arguments (17% of all observed behaviors), denial or denigration of the victim (12%), denial or minimization of injury (8%), complete denials (7%), and supplication (6%). Suspects’ influence behaviors were mapped along two dimensions: power, ranging from low (behaviors used to alleviate investigative pressure) to high (behaviors used to assert authority), and interpersonal alignment, ranging from instrumental (behaviors that relate directly to evidence) to relational (behaviors used to bias interviewer perceptions of people and evidence). Proximity analysis was used to examine co-occurrence of influence behaviors. This analysis highlighted combinations of influence behaviors that illustrate how different behaviors map onto different motives, for example shifting attributions from internal to external to the suspect, or to use admissions strategically alongside denials to mitigate more serious aspects of an allegation. Our findings draw together current theory to provide a framework for understanding suspect influence behaviors in interviews.

KW - Law

KW - General Psychology

KW - Pathology and Forensic Medicine

U2 - 10.1080/1068316X.2022.2144853

DO - 10.1080/1068316X.2022.2144853

M3 - Journal article

SP - 1

EP - 27

JO - Psychology, Crime and Law

JF - Psychology, Crime and Law

SN - 1068-316X

ER -