Interview Approach to Information Gathering
Axios
Problems addressed
Effectiveness

Promising

.

.

.

.

.

Promising

Want to know more about this classification? Check out our methodological manual.

Life periods served
Where the program was applied
Country of application
Description

This is a strategy based on the interview method as the basis for gathering information, rather than the accusatory interrogation method. An experimental study sought to determine which method was more effective to obtain valid confessions and minimize false confessions. To do this, researchers compared the accusatory method, common in the United States, with the information-gathering method, common in England [1].
This difference is observed through four elements:
1) The relationship with the suspect involves positive confrontation, clearly explaining the accusations, while the accusatory model utilizes confrontation, manipulation, and control strategies;
2) The questioning approach prioritizes open and exploratory questions, while the accusatory model prioritizes closed and confirmatory questions;
3) The primary expected result seeks the truth, while the accusatory model seeks a confession;
4) Upon detection of deception, cognitive signs are observed, while the accusatory model is based on signs of anxiety.

Impact evaluations

An impact assessment showed that both the information-gathering method and the accusatory method increased the likelihood of confessions compared to general interrogation methods. However, experiments with information-gathering methods reduced false confessions and, in certain cases, increased the likelihood of true confessions, while the accusatory method made confessions less reliable [1].

Bibliographic reference

[1] Meissner, C. A., Redlich, A. D., Bhatt, S. & Brandon, S. (2012). Interview and interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 8(1), 1–53. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2012.13