Humane interrogation strategies are associated with confessions, cooperation, and disclosure: Evidence from a field study of incarcerated individuals in the United States

The techniques used to interrogate individuals suspected of a crime can profoundly impact their decisions to confess, cooperate, or disclose information. Research using different methods suggests that two prevailing interrogation approaches—accusatorial and information-gathering—differentially impact interrogation outcomes. However, confession, cooperation, and information disclosure are ultimately the suspected person’s decision, yet few studies directly examine their perspectives about how interrogation techniques affect their decisions, and none examine a U.S. sample. The present study assessed how interrogation strategies characterized by humanity, rapport, confrontation, and dominance/control predicted interrogation outcomes in a sample of 249 individuals incarcerated in two U.S. jails. Respondents who reported experiencing humane strategies were more likely to confess, cooperate completely, and disclose incriminating information. Dominance/control-oriented strategies predicted partial confession (but not cooperation or disclosure), and rapport-based and confrontational techniques did not predict outcomes. Findings highlight humane interrogation strategies as likely the most productive strategies to adopt in criminal interrogations.