We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Investigative interviews with suspects are complex interpersonal interactions that are focused on eliciting statement evidence to use within subsequent investigative and judicial processes. When conducting an investigative interview, criminal investigators face a series of decision points – involving potentially competing alternatives – which collectively determine how the interview will unfold. These decisions are also made under real-world constraints of limited time and knowledge. Interviewer decision-making, therefore, is both psychologically complex and practically consequential. In the present chapter we examine the role of interviewer decision-making across five dimensions of investigative interviewing: Why (is an interview conducted?), Who (will participate?), When and Where (will the interview occur?), and What (techniques will be used?). We use this structure to outline the current state of the literature on suspect interviewing best practices and how each decision point raises factual and ethical considerations for interviewers, interviewees, and the criminal justice system more broadly. We conclude by discussing potential future directions for research that can continue to inform effective decision-making in this area.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.