Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 73–84 | Cite as

Examining Rapport in Investigative Interviews with Suspects: Does its Building and Maintenance Work?



Rapport is an important part of the interviewing of suspects, enabling them to supply information more freely. This study examined 142 actual interviews with suspects, focussing on key tasks that aid rapport. Using an established framework to examine rapport building skills in the early stages of interviews, the study also measured how skilled attempts at sustaining rapport were when interviewers attempted to gather information from suspects and probe accounts for their reliability. It was found that opportunities were often missed to build rapport in the initial stages as several tasks were overlooked. Also, where any rapport had been initially built, it was not always maintained as tasks undertaken later in the interview which may well have assisted rapport maintenance were often conducted unsatisfactorily. Thus, initial rapport building of itself, therefore, is not sufficient in influencing overall interview quality and outcomes, since rapport also has to be maintained throughout the interview.


Investigative interviewing Rapport Benefit fraud PEACE model Questioning suspects 


  1. Baldwin J (1993) Police interview techniques: establishing truth or proof? Br J Criminol 33:325–351Google Scholar
  2. Bernieri F, Gillis J (2001) Judging rapport: employing Brunswik’s lens model to study interpersonal insensitivity. In: Hall JA, Bernieri FJ (eds) Interpersonal sensitivity: theory and measurement. Lawrence Erlbaum, New Jersey, pp 67–88Google Scholar
  3. Bernieri F, Davis J, Rosenthal R, Knee C (1994) Interactional synchrony and rapport: measuring synchrony in displays of sound and facial affect. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 20:303–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bull R, Cherryman J (1996) Helping to identify skills gaps in specialist investigative interviewing. London: Home Office Police DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke C, Milne R (2001) National evaluation of the PEACE investigative interviewing course. Police Research Award Scheme Report No. PRAS/149. London: Home OfficeGoogle Scholar
  6. Clare ICH, Gudjonsson GH, Harari PM (1998) Understanding of the current police caution (England and Wales). J Community Appl Soc Psychol 8:323–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Collins R, Lincoln R, Frank MG (2002) The effect of rapport in forensic interviewing. Psychiatry Psychol Law 9:69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colwell K, Hiscock CK, Memon A (2002) Interviewing techniques and the assessment of statement credibility. Appl Cogn Psychol 16:287–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colwell K, Hiscock-Anisman CK, Memon A, Taylor L, Prewett J (in press) Assessment Criteria Indicative of Deception (ACID): an integrated system of investigative interviewing and detecting deception. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender ProfilingGoogle Scholar
  10. Cramer D, Howitt D (2004) The Sage dictionary of statistics. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Fenner S, Gudjonsson GH, Clare ICH (2002) Understanding of the current police caution (England and Wales) among suspects in police detention. J Community Appl Soc Psychol 12:83–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Geiselman RE, Fisher RP, Firstenberg I, Hutton LA, Sullivan SJ, Avetissian IV, Prosk AL (1984) Enhancement of eyewitness memory: an empirical evaluation of the cognitive interview. J Police Sci Adm 12:74–80Google Scholar
  13. Griffiths A (2008) An examination into the efficacy of police advanced investigative interview training? Unpublished PhD thesis. University of PortsmouthGoogle Scholar
  14. Griffiths A, Milne R (2006) Will it all end in tiers? Police interviews with suspects in Britain. In: Williamson T (ed) Investigative interviewing: rights, research and regulation. Willan, Cullompton, pp 167–189Google Scholar
  15. Hargie O, Dickson D (2004) Skilled interpersonal communication. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Hendrick C (1990) The nature of rapport. Psychol Inq 4:312–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holmberg U, Christianson S (2002) Murderers’ and sexual offenders’ experiences of police interviews and their inclination to admit or deny crimes. Behav Sci Law 20:31–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Home Office (2006) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984: Codes of Practice A-G. The Stationery Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. McGurk BJ, Carr MJ, McGurk D (1993) Investigative interviewing courses for police officers: An evaluation. Police Research Group Paper No. 4, London: Home OfficeGoogle Scholar
  20. Milne R, Bull R (1999) Investigative interviewing: psychology and practice. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  21. Moston S, Stephenson GM, Williamson T (1992) The effects of case characteristics on suspect behaviour during police questioning. Br J Criminol 32:23–40Google Scholar
  22. National Crime Faculty (2000) A practical guide to investigative interviewing. Bramshill, National Police Training CollegeGoogle Scholar
  23. Ord B, Shaw G (1999) Investigative interviewing explained: The operational guide to practical interviewing skills. Woking: The New Police BookshopGoogle Scholar
  24. Oxburgh G, Ost J, Cherryman J (2010, in press) Police interviews with suspected child sex offenders: does use of empathy and question type influence the amount of investigation relevant information obtained? Psychol, Crime, LawGoogle Scholar
  25. Rackham N (2003) The behavior of successful negotiators. In: Lewicki R, Saunders D, Minton J, Barry B (eds) Negotiation: readings, exercises and cases. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 169–181Google Scholar
  26. Rock F (2007) Communicating rights. Palgrave Macmillan, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shawyer A (2009) Investigative interviewing: interviewing counter fraud and deception. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of PortsmouthGoogle Scholar
  28. Shawyer A, Milne R (2006) Investigative interviewing and fraud. Presented paper at the Second International Investigative Interviewing Conference. Portsmouth, JulyGoogle Scholar
  29. Shepherd E (2007) Investigative interviewing: the conversation management approach. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Shepherd EW, Mortimer AKO, Mobasheri R (1995) The police caution: comprehension and perceptions in the general population. Expert Evid 4:60–67Google Scholar
  31. St Yves M (2006) The psychology of rapport: five basic rules. In: Williamson T (ed) Investigative interviewing: rights, research and regulation. Willan, Cullompton, pp 167–189Google Scholar
  32. Tickle-Degnen L, Rosenthal R (1990) The nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates. Psychol Inq 4:285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Walsh DW, Bull RH (2010a) Interviewing suspects of fraud: an analysis of interviewing skills. J Psychiatry Law 38:99–135Google Scholar
  34. Walsh DW, Bull RH (2010b) What really is effective in interviews with suspects? A study comparing interview skills against interview outcomes. Legal Criminol Psychol 15:305–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Walsh DW, Bull RH (in press) Evaluating investigative interviews effectively? A study of professionals’ perceptions, attitudes and beliefs. Social Psychology ReviewGoogle Scholar
  36. Walsh DW, Milne R (2008) Keeping the P.E.A.C.E.? An analysis of the taped interview performance of benefit fraud investigators within the DWP. Legal Criminol Psychol 13:39–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Law and CriminologyUniversity of DerbyDerbyUK
  2. 2.School of PsychologyUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations