Productive and counterproductive interviewing techniques: Do law enforcement investigators know the difference?

Abstract

To date, there has been very little research examining the knowledge and perceived use of productive and counterproductive investigative interviewing techniques by U.S. law enforcement. The current study attempted to address this gap in the literature by presenting 212 U.S. law enforcement interviewers with video vignettes depicting productive and counterproductive interviewing techniques via an online survey. Interviewers were asked to identify each technique, report their use of each technique, and give their reasons for use and nonuse, respectively. In a subsequent section of the survey, participants were given the names and descriptions of the techniques previously shown in the videos and asked to rate the efficacy of each technique. Investigative interview training experience and knowledge of the National Institute of Justice guidelines for eyewitness evidence were also assessed. Results revealed that real-world interviewers report using productive techniques more frequently than counterproductive techniques and that the primary reason for using any interviewing technique is its perceived efficacy in gathering accurate and plentiful information. Participants also rated productive techniques as being more effective at gathering accurate and plentiful information compared to counterproductive techniques. Of participants who reported receiving academy training after the National Institute of Justice guidelines were released, only 14.6% indicated that their interview training was based on those guidelines. Taken together, law enforcement investigators presented a general awareness that using productive witness interviewing techniques elicits more plentiful, accurate information from witnesses.