Social Behaviour in Police Interviews: Relating Data to Theories

  • Merijn Bruijnes
  • Jeroen Linssen
  • Rieks op den Akker
  • Mariët Theune
  • Sjoerd Wapperom
  • Chris Broekema
  • Dirk Heylen
Part of the Computational Social Sciences book series (CSS)


We analysed a corpus of enacted police interviews to get insight into the social behaviour of interviewees and police officers in this setting. We (exhaustively) collected the terms used to describe the interactions in those interviews. Through factor analysis, we showed that the theories interpersonal stance, face, and rapport and the meta-concepts information and strategy are necessary to include in a model that captures the social interaction in a police interview. Subsequent validation and relational analysis of the concepts from these theories showed which concepts from these theories are related. This work will be used to inform the construction of a virtual agent acting as a suspect in a training game for police officers.


Social interaction Police interview Data analysis Mental models Virtual agents Tutoring application 



This publication was supported by the Dutch national program COMMIT.


  1. Allan K (2001) Natural language semantics. Blackwell Publishers, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin JL (1975) How to do things with words, vol 1955. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateson G (1955) A theory of play and fantasy. Psychiatr Res Rep 2(39):39–51Google Scholar
  4. Bickmore T (2008) Framing and interpersonal stance in relational agents. In: Functional markup language workshop at AAMAS 2008Google Scholar
  5. Brown P, Levinson SC (1987) Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruijnes M (2013) Affective conversational models: interpersonal stance in a police interview context. In: Humaine Association conference on affective computing and intelligent interaction, pp 624–629Google Scholar
  7. Bruijnes M, Kolkmeier J, op den Akker R, Linssen JM, Theune M, Heylen DKJ (2013) Keeping up stories: design considerations for a police interview training game. In: Social believability in games workshop at ACE 2013Google Scholar
  8. Campos H, Campos J, Martinho C, Paiva A (2012) Virtual agents in conflict. In: Intelligent virtual agents, pp 105–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cassell J, Gill AJ, Tepper PA (2007) Coordination in conversation and rapport. In: Proceedings of the workshop on embodied language processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, Prague, pp 41–50Google Scholar
  10. Core MG, Lane HC, Van Lent M, Gomboc D, Solomon S, Rosenberg M (2006) Building explainable artificial intelligence systems. In: Proceedings of the national conference on artificial intelligence, vol 21Google Scholar
  11. Culpeper J, Bousfield D, Wichmann A (2003) Impoliteness revisited: with special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects. J Pragmat 35(10):1545–1579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fillmore C (1981) Pragmatics and the description of discoruse. In: Cole P (ed) Radical pragmatics. Academic Press, New York, pp 143–166Google Scholar
  13. Giebels E (2002) Beïnvloeding in gijzelingsonderhandelingen: De tafel van tien. Nederlands tijdschrift voor de psychologie 57:145–154Google Scholar
  14. Goffman E (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Gupta S, Walker M, Romano D (2007) How rude are you? Evaluating politeness and affect in interaction. In: Proceedings of the international conference on affective computing and intelligent interaction, pp 203–217Google Scholar
  16. Holmberg U, Christianson SÅ (2002) Murderers’ and sexual offenders’ experiences of police interviews and their inclination to admit or deny crimes. Behav Sci Law 20(1–2):31–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huang L, Morency LP, Gratch J (2011) Virtual rapport 2.0. In: Intelligent virtual agents. Springer, Berlin, pp 68–79Google Scholar
  18. Koops M, Hoevenaar M (2013) Conceptual change during a serious game: using a Lemniscate Model to compare strategies in a physics game. Simul Gaming 44(4):544–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kopp S, Gesellensetter L, Krämer NC, Wachsmuth I (2005) A conversational agent as museum guide-design and evaluation of a real-world application. In: Intelligent virtual agents, Springer, pp 329–343Google Scholar
  20. LaForge R, Suczek RF (1955) The interpersonal dimension of personality. J Personal 24(1):94–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leary T (1957) Interpersonal diagnosis of personality: functional theory and methodology for personality evaluation. Ronald Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Linssen JM, Theune M, Heylen DKJ (2013) Taking things at face value: how stance informs politeness of virtual agents. In: Workshop on computers as social actors at IVA 2013Google Scholar
  23. Mann S, Vrij A, Bull R (2004) Detecting true lies: police officers’ ability to detect suspects’ lies. J Appl Psychol 89(1):137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. op den Akker R, Bruijnes M, Peters R, Krikke T (2013) Interpersonal stance in police interviews: content analysis. Comput Linguist Netherlands J 3:193–216Google Scholar
  25. Ravenet B, Ochs M, Pelachaud C (2013) From a user-created corpus of virtual agent’s non-verbal behavior to a computational model of interpersonal attitudes. In: Intelligent virtual agents. Springer, Berlin, pp 263–274Google Scholar
  26. Richardson BH, Taylor PJ, Snook B, Conchie SM, Bennell C (2014) Language style matching and police interrogation outcomes. Law Human Behavior 38(4):357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rogan RG (2011) Linguistic style matching in crisis negotiations: a comparative analysis of suicidal and surrender outcomes. J Police Crisis Negot 11(1):20–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rouckhout D, Schacht R (2000) Ontwikkeling van een nederlandstalig interpersoonlijk circumplex. Diagnostiekwijzer 4:96–118Google Scholar
  29. Schroder M, Bevacqua E, Cowie R, Eyben F, Gunes H, Heylen D, Ter Maat M, McKeown G, Pammi S, Pantic M et al (2012) Building autonomous sensitive artificial listeners. IEEE Trans Affect Comput 3(2):165–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Searle JR (1969) Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language, vol 626. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Steunebrink BR, Dastani M, Meyer JJC (2012) A formal model of emotion triggers: an approach for BDI agents. Synthese 185(1):83–129CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Swartout W (2010) Lessons learned from virtual humans. AI Mag 31(1):9–20Google Scholar
  33. Tannen D (1993) What’s in a frame? Surface evidence for underlying expectations. In: Tannen D (ed) Framing in discourse. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 14–56Google Scholar
  34. Thomas KW (1992) Conflict and conflict management: reflections and update. J Organ Behav 13(3):265–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tickle-Degnen L, Rosenthal R (1990) The nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates. Psychol Inquiry 1(4):285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Traum D, Marsella SC, Gratch J, Lee J, Hartholt A (2008) Multi-party, multi-issue, multi-strategy negotiation for multi-modal virtual agents. In: Intelligent Virtual Agents, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp 117–130Google Scholar
  37. Vaassen F, Wauters J (2012) deLearyous: training interpersonal communication skills using unconstrained text input. In: Proceedings of the 6th European conference on games based learning, pp 505–513Google Scholar
  38. Vinciarelli A, Pantic M, Heylen DKJ, Pelachaud C, Poggi I, D’Ericco F, Schroeder M (2012) Bridging the gap between social animal and unsocial machine: a survey of social signal processing. IEEE Trans Affect Comput 3(1):69–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Walker MA, Cahn JE, Whittaker SJ (1997) Improvising linguistic style: social and affective bases for agent personality. In: Proceedings of the international conference on autonomous agents, pp 96–105Google Scholar
  40. Wang WY, Finkelstein S, Ogan A, Black AW, Cassell J (2012) “Love ya, jerkface”: using sparse log-linear models to build positive (and impolite) relationships with teens. In: Proceedings of the 13th annual meeting of the special interest group on discourse and dialogue, pp 20–29Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Merijn Bruijnes
    • 1
  • Jeroen Linssen
    • 1
  • Rieks op den Akker
    • 1
  • Mariët Theune
    • 1
  • Sjoerd Wapperom
    • 1
  • Chris Broekema
    • 1
  • Dirk Heylen
    • 1
  1. 1.Human Media InteractionUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations