臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

研究者與實務工作者都強調建立關係（rapport-building）在嫌疑人詢訊問中的重要性，但少有研究比較不同建立關係的風格及其效果。有些人認為必須與嫌疑人建立較為親近的人際連結（即「關係基礎建立關係風格」），有些則主張強調建立關係必須相對中性且強化雙方對於訪談程序與角色的理解（即「程序基礎建立關係風格」）。本研究利用Russano 等人（2005）的作弊實驗典範，比較不同關係建立風格（關係基礎、程序基礎、無建立關係）對57名在「有罪」的參與者詢訊問的影響。結果顯示，相較於關係基礎與無建立關係組，在程序基礎組別的參與者有更高比例的人自白。然而，建立關係風格並不影響參與者揭露的細節數量。我們也發現，程序基礎的建立關係方式會影響參與者感知到的證據強度。本研究除了增進我們對於嫌疑人詢訊問的理解，也有助於未來建立以證據為基礎的詢訊問方式。

Both researchers and practitioners have stressed the importance of developing rapport in the investigative interviewing of criminal suspects. There is, however, no clear definition of what constitutes rapport and ways of achieving and maintaining rapport. Most research on rapport-building with suspects have focused on a positive personal bond between the investigator and suspect (i.e., relationship-based approach), while more recent research suggests a neutral type of rapport-building that focuses on developing a mutual understanding of the interrogation process and roles (i.e., procedure-based approach). The present study thus aimed to examine the effects of relationship- and procedure-based rapport-building approaches on suspect interviewing outcome. Using a modified version of Russano et al. (2005)’s cheating paradigm, ”guilty” participants were interviewed using different rapport-building approaches in a laboratory setting. We found that participants were more likely to confess in the procedure-based condition than in the relationship-based and control conditions. However, both approaches did not have an effect on the number of details participants were willing to disclose. We also found that the procedure-based approach affected participants’ perception about the evidence. Theoretical and practical implications for rapport-building in suspect interviewing are discussed.

1. Introduction 1
1.1 Rapport-building in Suspect Interviewing 3
1.2 Rapport-building Approaches 8
1.3 The Current Study 13
2. Methods 16
2.1 Participants 16
2.2 Design 16
2.3 Procedure 16
2.4 Materials 20
2.5 Coding 22
3. Results 23
3.1 Preliminary Analyses 23
3.2 Interviewee’s Experiences 25
3.3 Interview Outcomes 28
4. Discussion 30
4.1 Implications for Research, Practice, and Policy 36
5. References 38
6. Appendix 45

Abbe, A., & Brandon, S. E. (2013). The role of rapport in investigative interviewing: A review. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 10, 237-249. doi: 10.1002/jip.1386
Alison, L. J., Alison, E., Noone, G., Elntib, S., & Christiansen, P. (2013). Why tough tactics fail and rapport gets results: Observing Rapport-Based Interpersonal Techniques (ORBIT) to generate useful information from terrorists. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19, 411-431. doi: 10.1037/a0034564
Alison, L., Alison, E., Noone, G., Elntib, S., Waring, S., & Christiansen, P. (2014). The efficacy of rapport-based techniques for minimizing counter-interrogation tactics amongst a field sample of terrorists. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 421-430. doi: 10.1037/law0000021
Beune, K., Giebels, E., & Sanders, K. (2009). Are you talking to me? Influencing behaviour and culture in police interviews. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 597-617. doi: 10.1080/10683160802442835
Beune, K., Giebels, E., & Taylor, P. J. (2010). Patterns of interaction in police interviews: The role of cultural dependency. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 904-925. doi: 10.1177/0093854810369623
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591-621. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015
Cleary, H. M., & Bull, R. (2019). Jail inmates’ perspectives on police interrogation. Psychology, Crime & Law, 25, 157-170. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2018.1503667
Collins, K., & Carthy, N. (2019). No rapport, no comment: The relationship between rapport and communication during investigative interviews with suspects. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 16, 18-31. doi: 10.1002/jip.1517
Collins, R., Lincoln, R., & Frank, M. G. (2002). The effect of rapport in forensic interviewing. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 9, 69–78. doi: 10.1375/pplt.2002.9.1.69
Duke, M. C., Wood, J. M., Bollin, B., Scullin, M., & LaBianca, J. (2018). Development of the Rapport Scales for Investigative Interviews and Interrogations (RS3i), Interviewee version. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24, 64-79. doi: 10.1037/law0000147
Fisher, R. P., Geiselman, R. E., & Amador, M. (1989). Field test of the Cognitive Interview: Enhancing the recollection of actual victims and witnesses of crime. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 722-727. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.74.5.722
Geiselman, R. E. (2012). The cognitive interview for suspects (CIS). American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 30(3), 5-20.
Giebels, E., Oostinga, M. S., Taylor, P. J., & Curtis, J. L. (2017). The cultural dimension of uncertainty avoidance impacts police–civilian interaction. Law and Human Behavior, 41, 93-102. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000227
Giebels, E., & Taylor, P. J. (2009). Interaction patterns in crisis negotiations: Persuasive arguments and cultural differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 5-19. doi: 10.1037/a0012953
Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Howes, L. M. (2016). Social persuasion to develop rapport in high-stakes interviews: Qualitative analyses of Asian-Pacific practices. Policing and Society, 26, 270-290. doi: 10.1080/10439463.2014.942848
Goodman‐Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N., & Dhami, M. K. (2014). Interviewing high value detainees: Securing cooperation and disclosures. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 883-897. doi: 10.1002/acp.3087
Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). United Kingdom: Sage Publications Inc..
Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. C. (2013). Criminal interrogation and confessions (5th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning.
Kassin, S. M., Leo, R. A., Meissner, C. A., Richman, K. D., Colwell, L. H., Leach, A. M., & La Fon, D. (2007). Police interviewing and interrogation: A self-report survey of police practices and beliefs. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 381-400. doi: 10.1007/s10979-006-9073-5
Kelly, C. E., Miller, J. C., & Redlich, A. D. (2016). The dynamic nature of interrogation. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 295-309. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000172
Kelly, C. E., Miller, J. C., Redlich, A. D., & Kleinman, S. M. (2013). A taxonomy of interrogation methods. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19, 165-178. doi: 10.1037/a0030310
Kelly, C. E., Redlich, A. D., & Miller, J. C. (2015). Examining the meso-level domains of the interrogation taxonomy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21, 179-191. doi: 10.1037/law0000034
Kieckhaefer, J. M., Vallano, J. P., & Schreiber Compo, N. (2014). Examining the positive effects of rapport building: When and why does rapport building benefit adult eyewitness memory?. Memory, 22, 1010-1023. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2013.864313
Leahy-Harland, S., & Bull, R. (2017). Police strategies and suspect responses in real-life serious crime interviews. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 32, 138-151. doi: 10.1007/s11896-016-9207-8
Marteau, T. M., & Bekker, H. (1992). The development of a six‐item short‐form of the state scale of the Spielberger State—Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 31, 301-306. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1992.tb00997.x
Martin, D. J., Garske, J. P., & Davis, M. K. (2000). Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome and other variables: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 438. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.68.3.438
Meissner, C. A., Kelly, C. E., & Woestehoff, S. A. (2015). Improving the effectiveness of suspect interrogations. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 11, 211-233. doi: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120814-121657
Meissner, C. A., Redlich, A. D., Michael, S. W., Evans, J. R., Camilletti, C. R., Bhatt, S., & Brandon, S. (2014). Accusatorial and information-gathering interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10, 459-486. doi: 10.1007/s11292-014-9207-6
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2009). Ten things that motivational interviewing is not. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 37, 129 –140. http://10.1017/S1352465809005128.
Milne, R., Shaw, G. and Bull, R. (2007). Investigative interviewing: The role of psychology. In D. Carson, R. Milne, F. Pakes & K. Shalev (Eds), Applying psychology to criminal justice (pp. 65–80). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Nash, R. A., Nash, A., Morris, A., & Smith, S. L. (2016). Does rapport‐building boost the eyewitness eyeclosure effect in closed questioning?. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 21, 305-318. doi: 10.1111/lcrp.12073
Russano, M. B., Meissner, C. A., Narchet, F. M., & Kassin, S. M. (2005). Investigating true and false confessions within a novel experimental paradigm. Psychological Science, 16, 481-486. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01560.x
Sauerland, M., Brackmann, N., & Otgaar, H. (2019). Rapport: Little effect on children’s, adolescents’, and adults’ statement quantity, accuracy, and suggestibility. Journal of Child Custody, 15, 268-285. doi: 10.1080/15379418.2018.1509759
St-Yves, M. (2006). The psychology of rapport: Five basic rules. In Tom Williamson (Ed.), Investigative interviewing: Rights, research, regulation (pp. 87–106). Cullompton, Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.
Sukumar, D., Wade, K. A., & Hodgson, J. S. (2016). Strategic disclosure of evidence: Perspectives from psychology and law. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22, 306. doi: 10.1037/law0000092
Swanner, J. K., Meissner, C. A., Atkinson, D. J., & Dianiska, R. E. (2016). Developing diagnostic, evidence-based approaches to interrogation. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5, 295-301. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.07.001
Tickle-Degnen, L., & Rosenthal, R. (1990). The nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 285-293. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli0104_1
Vallano, J. P., Evans, J. R., Schreiber Compo, N., & Kieckhaefer, J. M. (2015). Rapport‐building during witness and suspect interviews: A survey of law enforcement. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, 369-380. doi: 10.1002/acp.3115
Vallano, J. P., & Schreiber Compo, N. (2011). A comfortable witness is a good witness: Rapport-building and susceptibility to misinformation in an investigative mock-crime interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 960–970. doi: 10.1002/acp.1789
Vallano, J. P., & Schreiber Compo, N. S. (2015). Rapport-building with cooperative witnesses and criminal suspects: A theoretical and empirical review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21, 85-99. doi: 10.1037/law0000035
Villalba, D. K. (2014). The effect of rapport building in police interrogations: Can rapport improve the diagnosticity of confession evidence? (Doctoral dissertation). Florida International University, Miami, FL. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd/1700
Wachi, T., Kuraishi, H., Watanabe, K., Otsuka, Y., Yokota, K., & Lamb, M. E. (2018). Effects of rapport building on confessions in an experimental paradigm. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24, 36-47. doi: 10.1037/law0000152
Wachi, T., Watanabe, K., Yokota, K., Otsuka, Y., Kuraishi, H., & Lamb, M. (2014). Police interviewing styles and confessions in Japan. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20, 673-694. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2013.854791
Wachi, T., Watanabe, K., Yokota, K., Otsuka, Y., & Lamb, M. E. (2016). Japanese interrogation techniques from prisoners’ perspectives. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43, 617-634. doi: 10.1177/0093854815608667
Walsh, D., & Bull, R. (2010). What really is effective in interviews with suspects? A study comparing interviewing skills against interviewing outcomes. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 305-321. doi: 10.1348/135532509X463356
Walsh, D., & Bull, R. (2012). Examining rapport in investigative interviews with suspects: Does its building and maintenance work?. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 27, 73-84. doi: 10.1007/s11896-011-9087-x
Wright, D. S., Nash, R. A., & Wade, K. A. (2015). Encouraging eyewitnesses to falsely corroborate allegations: Effects of rapport-building and incriminating evidence. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21, 648-660. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2015.1028543