J Police Crim Psych (2018) 33:158–174 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-017-9243-z Planning Ahead? An Exploratory Study of South Korean Investigators’ Beliefs About Their Planning for Investigative Interviews of Suspects 1 1 1 1 Jihwan Kim & Dave Walsh & Ray Bull & Henriette Bergstrøm Published online: 16 November 2017 The Author(s) 2017. This article is an open access publication Abstract Preparation and planning has been argued to be Introduction vitally important as to how effectively investigators undertake their interviews with suspects. Yet, it has also been found in Police interviewing of suspects is one of the most crucial previous research that investigators admit that they plan only stages in criminal investigations (Hartwig et al. 2005a, b; occasionally, often attributing insufficient time as a reason for Milne and Bull 1999). Through an interview, the police can not undertaking the task. Employing a novel research para- obtain valuable information that can assist in solving a crim- digm that utilised theoretical foundations concerning plan- inal case (Leo 2008). In some cases, an interview can also lead ning, the present study explored empirically 95 South to a confession or admission of guilt, which, in turn, will make Korean financial crime investigators’ views, using a self- prosecution easier (Kassin 2008; Stephenson and Moston administered questionnaire. With the use of second- 2008). Because of its importance, multiple models for inter- generation statistical modelling, an understanding was devel- views have been proposed and utilised depending on the ju- oped of the relative relationships between various concepts risdiction (e.g. the Reid model in North America; Leo 2008; (which had themselves emerged from an established theoret- the PEACE model in the UK; Shepherd and Griffiths 2013). ical framework of planning that had been further extended to To ensure the success of such models, the interviewers them- accommodate the context of the present study). The study selves are central to the process (Leo 2008), and Baldwin found that perceived time pressures actually showed a very (1993) identified the qualities of a good interviewer through low association with interview planning. Rather, investiga- a thorough analysis of police interviews. He described that tors’ self-belief as to their own capability alongside workplace good officers should know the relevant law, study the avail- culture was each found to have stronger associations with able evidence, and think of the best structure of the interview. investigators’ intentions to plan for their interviews. As such, Soukara et al. (2002) also found that preparation was consid- we argue that there should be more focus on improving occu- ered by police detectives to be a core element of successful pational culture relating to interview planning, while develop- suspect interviewing. ing training programs that identify, evaluate, and enhance in- It has, however, only been in the last 20 years or so that vestigators’ planning skills. Implications for practice are there- interview training has emphasised the importance of planning fore discussed. ahead of interviews (Scott et al. 2015). Despite such training, field studies conducted in the UK suggest concerns with some . . Keywords Interviewplanning PEACEmodel Investigative of the interview skills that are believed to be associated with . . interviewing Fraud investigation South Korean policing planning (Clarke and Milne 2001;Walsh andBull 2010; Walsh and Milne 2008). Walsh and Milne (2007)found that, while most investigators acknowledged the importance of * Dave Walsh planning, far fewer actually said they undertook the task (see firstname.lastname@example.org also Baldwin 1993; Cherryman and Bull 2001; Clarke and Milne 2001; Walsh and Bull 2011). The main reason offered was that they had insufficient time to plan. It is, however, not Department of Social Sciences, University of Derby, 1 Friar Gate Square, Agard Street, Derby DE1 1DZ, UK known whether this given reason is a valid one. Moreover, J Police Crim Psych (2018) 33:158–174 159 previous research has tended to explore how much criminal and Milne 2008). Planning before interviewing victims, wit- investigators prepare for interviewing rather than what factors nesses, and suspects has been incorporated within a prescribed influence investigators’ decisions whether or not to plan model of interviewing in England and Wales (i.e. PEACE, an (Clarke and Milne 2001; Walsh and Bull 2010). As a result, acronym for its recommended five stages of planning, engag- little remains known about actual planning and preparation of ing and explaining, account gathering, closing, and evaluating investigative interviews. The present study is the first study interviews—see Shepherd and Griffiths 2013 for a more de- known to the authors that aims to examine which matters tailed explanation of the model). Since its introduction in the (including whether time pressure is responsible for not plan- 1990s in England and Wales, various other countries have ning interviews or whether other reasons might be more begun to employ the model (e.g. Scandinavia, Canada, and strongly associated). Australia, albeit on occasions in adapted forms, see Bull 2014; Walsh et al. 2016). Regardless of such modifications, it has Planning for Investigative Interviews been commonly contended that investigators should conduct substantial groundwork ahead of interviews. An early definition of planning for investigative interviews Research examining interview planning and preparation described the task as Bthe mental process of getting ready to has mostly been conducted as part of overall field evaluations interview^ and preparation as Bconsidering what needs to be of the PEACE model (Clarke and Milne 2001; Walsh and made ready prior to interview. It includes such things as the Milne 2008; Walsh and Bull 2010). Such research has tended location, the environment and the administration^ (Central to judge how well interview preparation has been conducted Police Training Unit (CPTU) 1993, p. 1, cited in Milne and by examining if, for example during interviews, investigators Bull 1999, p. 159). Since that initial clarification, other re- appeared to (i) be familiar with the case details, (ii) have ac- searchers have provided suggestions as to the sub-tasks appro- tually undertaken groundwork beforehand, (iii) be prepared priate to planning (McGurk et al. 1993; Milne and Bull 1999; when faced with alibis and the like from suspects, (iv) conduct National Crime Faculty (NCF) 1996; Schollum 2005). the interview in a logical order of topic development, and (v) Schollum (2006) aggregated these tasks for all investigative be familiar with the legal points needed to be proven interviewing contexts, including those involving victims and concerning the suspected offences under investigation. witnesses (see Table 1). However, research examining what they actually do in terms Further activities include the following: (i) contingency of preparation for interviews remains rare. Regardless, re- planning for the suspect’s potential defence(s), (ii) considering search has often found that investigators admitted to undertak- the method/order of disclosing several items of evidence/in- ing little or no planning ahead of interviews, despite formation, and (iii) organising the sequence of topics and professing its importance (Walsh and Milne 2007). Even more questions each need to be added to Table 1 (Dando and Bull uncommon in prior research is an exploration of what factors 2011; Hartwig et al. 2006; Walsh and Bull 2015). appear to be associated with investigators’ decisions whether The importance of pre-interview groundwork has been re- or not to plan. peatedly mentioned in the literature as a pivotal attribute of Important to investigator decision-making (i.e. in the con- good interviewers (Baldwin 1993;Bull 2013; Cherryman and text of the present study, whether to plan) may well be an Bull 2001; Soukara et al. 2002; Walsh and Bull 2010; Walsh investigative mindset (Mortimer and Shepherd 1999; Shepherd and Griffiths 2013). Defectiveness in decision- making (e.g. developing either a single or premature hypoth- Table 1 Tasks required when planning for interviews esis, confirmation bias or stereotyping) has been repeatedly mentioned as a critical factor in investigative failures (Ask Task and Granhag 2005;Hilletal. 2008;Kassinetal. 2003; ○ Understanding the purpose of the interview Rassin et al. 2010;Rossmo 2009). Despite this, little research ○ Obtaining as much background information as possible on the incident had been conducted into what influences investigators’ under investigation, including (for suspects) information on the person decision-making (Fahsing and Ask 2013). Shepherd and to be interviewed Griffiths (2013) suggest that various actual or perceived work- ○ Defining the aims and objectives of the interview place pressures may lead investigators to decide upon more ○ Understanding and recognising the points to prove expedient ways of investigation, describing this state as one of ○ Assessing what evidence is available and from where it was obtained Bdefensive avoidance^ (Janis and Mann 1977). Such a notion ○ Assessing what evidence is needed and how it can be obtained (as a means of coping with decisional conflict) in the context ○ Understanding the legislation and associated guidelines and of interview planning is manifest in the (i) minimisation of considerations mental demands, (ii) evasion of complex judgement, and ○ Preparing the mechanics of the interview (attending to exhibits, (iii) undertaking detailed investigation (Shepherd and logistics, venue, equipment functioning, seating, and so on) Griffiths 2013). Such a situation, for example, may lead to 160 J Police Crim Psych (2018) 33:158–174 the generation of a premature and single-case hypothesis, thorough understanding of the interview process, planning for reflecting only minimal mental effort and expeditious action interviews with suspects in the present study is understood as: (which supports a pre-determined case theory). Accordingly, Binvestigators’ constructive preparation activity for as thorough planning requires exerted cognitive effort (rather interviewing suspects, which involves setting specific aims than avoidance), investigators possessing a high need and objectives, planning for potential defences, and for cognitive closure (see Kruglanski and Webster 1996) organising an appropriate sequence of topics, questions and might be reasonably assumed to display a relatively low level evidence/information disclosure in order to fulfil the purpose of planning. of the interview (that is, the gathering of a reliable and com- Mortimer and Shepherd (1999)have also argued that in- prehensive account)^. vestigators’ mindset influences pre-interview activities such as gathering and analysing information. Investigators’ own Theoretical Framework of Investigative Interview schemata and confirmation biases may act as critical elements Planning in accessing, processing, interpreting, and evaluating such in- formation. This can lead to potentially erroneous decision- In addition to such operationalisation of interview planning, making throughout the entire investigation (see Shepherd we also established that there were no suitable measurement and Griffiths 2013). Mortimer (1994) found that many inves- tools available to assess planning in an investigative interview tigators had a confession-seeking bias tendency, which affect- context. As such, it was necessary to create one for the current ed how, and whether, they undertook subsequent information study. This was grounded in theoretical perspectives that will gathering. Other studies have also found that most investiga- be discussed in the current section. The theory of planned tors presume suspects to be guilty before an interview takes behaviour (Ajzen and Fishbein 2000; Fishbein and Ajzen place (Fahsing and Ask 2013; Walsh and Bull 2011; Walsh 1975) was adapted as a framework for the present study (see and Milne 2007). Mortimer (1994) also contended that police Fig. 1). In brief, the theory accords that human behaviour is investigators’ occupational norms influence investigators’ anchored by three kinds of beliefs: behavioural beliefs (i.e. reasoning, judgement, and decision-making. Following these attitude towards the behaviour), normative beliefs (i.e. subjec- arguments, cognitive factors and the occupational culture may tive norm), and control beliefs (i.e. perceived behavioural con- well also account for attitudes towards pre-interview investi- trol) (Ajzen 2006). Each type of belief is argued to effect, gative activity, including planning. either favourably or unfavourably, subsequent components Another factor that might well influence investigators’ (Ajzen 2006). decision-making as to whether or not to plan thoroughly (if Subjective norm, according to Ajzen (1991), relates to the at all) concerns their own estimations as to how effectively possible presence of any social pressure (whether approval or they conduct interviews without having sufficient preparation. disapproval) that effects the act of planning, which may be A recent study (Walsh et al. 2017) found that investigators evident in strong organisational cultures such as policing consistently over-estimate their interview skills, compared to (Davis 2013;Mortimer 1994). Perceived behavioural control an independent assessment of the same interviews (which has two aspects (i.e. internal and external). The former is found their skills generally to be at mediocre levels). It might thought to be associated with Bandura’s Bperceived self- be reasonably presumed that interviewers, lacking self- efficacy^ concept (1982), being found to mediate participants’ awareness as to their lack of competence in interviewing perseverance on solving intellectual problems (Cervone and skills, might fail to connect such shortfalls to a lack of plan- Peake 1986). External factors (such as perceived time ning and preparation, particularly as it has been found they pressure—see Walsh and Milne 2007) might be related to rarely evaluate their own interview performance (Walsh and Bperceived controllability over behaviour^ (Conner and Milne 2007). Moreover, field studies of investigative inter- Armitage 1998, p. 1439). Individuals’ intentions represent views have found strong correlations between planning skills the motivational factors which influence their behaviour, indi- and subsequent interview performance (Clarke and Milne cating how much people will exert effort in order to perform 2001; Walsh and Bull 2010, 2015). Walsh and Bull (2010) the behaviour. Conner and Armitage (1998, p.1450) argued, found that those interviewers, whose planning skills were rat- however, that Bintentions do not always lead to the successful ed as skilled, more often than not obtained a detailed account enactment of behaviour^. from suspects (being the aim of the PEACE model), while Investigators’ decision-making was also incorporated into those interviewers rated as least skilled almost always only the framework. Investigative mindset and defensive avoid- obtained fractional accounts. ance are argued to be integral components of the concept of In addressing the large research gap regarding what factors the need for cognitive closure (or NFCC; see Kruglanski determine whether interviewers decide whether or not to plan, 1989, 1996). NFCC refers to individuals’ preference for it was necessary to operationalise the construct of planning for unambiguity, with those assessed with a high need being investigative interview. Based on the authors’ expertise and characterised by a tendency to form quick judgements based J Police Crim Psych (2018) 33:158–174 161 planning behaviour. In addition, it was hypothesised that Btime pressure^ and NFCC would have a moderating effect on the relationship between intention and planning. Method Materials A questionnaire was developed following the above theoreti- Fig. 1 Structural model of the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen 2006) cal framework. Having first obtained ethical approval from the authors’ home university, the questionnaire (see Appendix 1) was successfully piloted with 15 investigators (i.e. no issues of on a solitary hypothesis, despite inconclusive evidence, while avoiding others’ dissenting viewpoints (Kruglanski and ambiguity were found with the questions, while reporting rel- Webster 1996). While Ask and Granhag (2005) did not find ative ease in both understanding and completing the question- confirmation bias linked to NFCC among investigators, the naire). The instrument firstly involved a series of demographic current study examined whether NFCC is associated with in- questions relating to gender, rank, and length of professional sufficient planning. experience. Three dichotomous questions were also asked re- In summary, in building a theoretical framework of plan- lating to respondents’ experience/views concerning training ning for interviews with suspects (see Fig. 2), the present (in either the PEACE model or any preparation train- study suggests an exploratory model of investigators plan- ing). Thirty items associated with the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) were assessed using a seven-point ning, based on the existing theory of planned behaviour, while incorporating the two additional factors of NFCC, and per- Likert scale, where 1 = Strongly disagree and 7 = ceived time pressure. Strongly agree. The 15 NFCC-related questions follow- In light of the foregoing, we hypothesised that there would ed the work of Roets and Van Hiel (2011) using an ascending be positive associations between interviewers’ (i) attitudes six-point Likert scale, where 6 = Strongly agree). Each of the towards undertaking the planning task, (ii) cultural expecta- two sets of questions was interspersed. Further, some ques- tions and beliefs concerning the task, (iii) beliefs as to their tions were inversely coded (see Appendix 1: reverse coded own ability to undertake interviews efficaciously without thor- items = Nos. 2, 10, 19, 22, and 23 TPB questions; Nos. 2, ough planning, and (iv) perceived planning intent and 10, and 15 of the NFCC ones). Fig. 2 Theoretical model of interview planning behaviour 162 J Police Crim Psych (2018) 33:158–174 Also included in the questionnaire were questions relating time pressure involved five questions (modified from Teng to investigators’ attitudes. First, questions concerning evalua- et al. 2010—see PTP1–5inTable 8 in Appendix 2). Finally, tion ahead of planning were asked (see Table 8 in Appendix 2, the perceived level of planning interviews (PLPI) concerns items APP1–2). The questionnaire additionally covered more investigators’ recall of their planning experiences (PLPI1–6) specified aspects of evaluation (that is, necessity, effective- during the preceding 2 months before their survey responses. ness, efficiency, and usefulness of interview planning). The questionnaire also included questions concerning subjective Participants norms (adapted from Fishbein and Ajzen 2010) that related to investigators’ perceptions of external pressure from, say, Korean financial crime investigators (FCIs) were selected as peers or superiors (SN1–4). Self-efficacy was also included, the sample participants, since they generally undertake inves- which measured investigators’ beliefs in their own interview tigations themselves from the outset of the case. Convenience planning skill (SE1–6). sampling was adopted because of time and environmental Regarding investigators’ motivation to undertake planning, limitations. However, as the research involved police stations intention (INT1–3—see Table 8 in Appendix 2) was measured. in a similar law enforcement area, systemic error was expected NFCC was measured by a single indicator, while perceived to be small. No incentives were given to respondents. Table 2 Harman’s factor analysis Component Initial eigenvalues Extraction of squared loadings Total % variance Cumulative % Total % variance Cumulative % 1 10.117 33.725 33.725 10.117 33.725 33.725 2 4.812 16.039 49.764 4.812 16.039 49.764 3 3.037 10.124 59.889 3.037 10.124 59.889 4 1.809 6.030 65.919 1.809 6.030 65.919 5 1.110 3.701 69.619 1.110 3.701 69.619 6 1.081 3.604 73.223 1.081 3.604 73.223 7 .789 2.628 75.851 8 .728 2.427 78.279 9 .706 2.353 80.632 10 .646 2.153 82.785 11 .600 1.998 84.784 12 .518 1.726 86.510 13 .449 1.497 88.007 14 .433 1.444 89.450 15 .382 1.272 90.722 16 .355 1.184 91.906 17 .316 1.054 92.960 18 .292 .974 93.935 19 .256 .853 94.788 20 .235 .783 95.571 21 .213 .712 96.283 22 .186 .621 96.904 23 .178 .595 97.498 24 .168 .560 98.058 25 .135 .451 98.509 26 .108 .360 98.869 27 .097 .323 99.192 28 .094 .312 99.504 29 .077 .256 99.761 30 .072 .239 100.000 Extraction method: principal component analysis J Police Crim Psych (2018) 33:158–174 163 Fig. 3 Redundancy analysis of attitude (ATT) indicators Procedure analysis, being a form of structural equation modelling (SEM). The PLS-PM is especially well suited for the present study with During 2014, FCIs in eight police stations, located in Gyeonggi its relatively small sample size. The PLS-PM method estimates and Incheon areas of Korea, were selected as sources of possi- parameters of both inner (structural) and outer (measurement) ble participants. Each FCI team manager agreed to distribute models. BOuter model^ refers to the evaluation of the relation- the questionnaires to relevant FCI participants in their team, ship between observable indicators and latent (or unobservable) who were given a week to voluntarily complete the question- variables, such as attitudes and perceptions, while Binner model^ naires. Participants were first instructed not to confer with their involves the evaluation of the latent (or hidden) variables. colleagues when completing the questionnaire and then place We used SmartPLS 3.0 to analyse both the outer and inner them. Once completed, they were each placed in sealed enve- models. PLS algorithms were calculated with all indicators of lopes in a designated area for the team manager to collect, each latent variable, followed by bootstrapping in order to as- before their onward dispatch by the manager to the first author. sess statistical significance. The analysis criteria were based on Since the questionnaire contained no identifying information, the default setting (i.e. 300 maximum iterations and 500 sub- the participants could be assured of their anonymity. samples, where p = 0.05). Three potentially problematic indica- tors loaded especially poorly on the latent variable in question and were therefore excluded from later analysis. Firstly, SN4 Results was removed since it showed low loading (i.e. 0.35). Secondly, PLPI5 (and PTP2) were both excluded because they did not Demography of the Participants significantly load onto the proposed latent factor. The present study also investigated the potential for mea- Of the approximate 125 distributed questionnaires, 95 com- surement error as a result of the chosen methodology (com- pleted ones were received. Eighty percent (n = 76) of the re- mon method variance). The importance of testing this is evi- spondents were male, and of the whole sample, all but two dent as it can skew the results (Podsakoff et al. 2003). indicated that they had undergone PEACE training (however, Common method bias was tested by two distinct approaches despite this training, only 82 felt that had received training in (see below) on how to address potential self-administered sur- planning). Even so, 94.74% (n = 90) expressed a view that vey method biases. Harman’s single factor test was conducted being trained to conduct planning was a necessity. Among by undertaking an exploratory, un-rotated factor analysis of all the sample was one (1.05%) junior ranked frontline officer, the indicators with the exception of NFCC. This produced while 30.53% (n = 29) were senior frontline police officers, showed six distinct factors, with the largest one explaining 17.89% (n = 17) were assistant inspectors, 42.11% (n = 40) 33.7% of the variance, as shown in Table 2. Secondly, as there were inspectors, and 8.42% (n = 8) were senior inspectors. was no correlation which exceeded 0.90 between the indica- Forty-eight respondents each possessed over 3 years of inves- tors, no common method bias was found. This indicates that tigation experience, regardless of their rank (with 35 of these such systematic measurement error will not threaten the valid- possessing over 5 years of experience). Thirty (31.58%) re- ity of the results and conclusions of the present study spondents had been less than a year in post, while 17 respon- (Podsakoff et al. 2003). dents had been a FCI between 1 and 3 years. The analysis of the measurement (outer) and structural (inner) model was conducted simultaneously but is presented Analytical and Statistical Framework separately here for the ease of reading. A second-generation statistical program of path modelling Measurement Model (Outer Model) termed partial least squares (PLS-PM) was used for the data Evaluation of the Formative Indicators The exact number of questionnaires distributed is not known, owing to staff Firstly, the formative measurement model was tested because movements/absence of the FCIs in the eight stations, and this is an approxi- this should be differentiated from reflective indicators (Chin mate figure. 164 J Police Crim Psych (2018) 33:158–174 2010). As we noted above, the aim of the measurement model SE3 and SE5 showed relatively stronger weightings than SE4 is to establish the relationships between the observed variables and SE6 (both of which were non-significant). Nonetheless, (indicators) and the proposed latent factors. Following the the latter indicators were not excluded as all outer model load- initial indicator screening, multi-collinearity was checked for ings were significant (p < 0.01). The VIFs for all self-efficacy each of the formative indicators by the level of variance infla- indicators were below the acceptable criterion of 10 (Lowry tion factor (VIF). Next, a two-block model Bredundancy and Gaskin 2014). analysis^ was conducted to investigate the convergent validity Undergoing the same procedure, the PLPI construct was of indicators. PLS bootstrapping was also conducted, and the also similarly tested. The correlation between the PLPI indi- indicators were considered significant at p < 0.05. For the as- cators was 0.79 (see Fig. 5). As such, all formative indicators sessment, three new models for each formative construct were were found to be significant (see Table 3). Multi-collinearity created for redundancy analysis to assess convergent validity was again not found (i.e. all indicators with VIF below 3.3). and analysed by PLS. The attitude construct model for redundancy analysis Evaluation of the Reflective Indicators showed a high correlation of 0.85 between its indicators (see Fig. 3). However, the weightings of two indicators (i.e. ATT5 To assess the reflective indicators, the constructs were and ATT6) were found not significant (p >0.05). analysed by performing a confirmatory factor analysis. As Nevertheless, it was decided to still include them due to their shown in Table 4, all indicators showed high loadings over absolute contribution to each latent variable (i.e. high loadings 0.70, except SN1 (0.67), which is acceptable, all being signif- with significant level, see Table 3) and their conceptual mean- icant. Also, all composite reliabilities, used to assess internal ing for this study. Next, multi-collinearity was checked for consistency (being an alternative to Cronbach’s alpha), were each of the indicators by the level of VIF. It was found that, found to be over 0.70 (i.e. the reliability threshold). as the VIF for all attitude indicators was below Lowry and To evaluate the convergent validity of the indicators, the Gaskin’s(2014) threshold of rigour of 3.3 (see Table 3), multi- average variance extracted (AVE) was examined (see Table 4), collinearity did not exist. This result indicated that sufficient consistently finding values exceeding the threshold of 0.5 validation of attitude indicators was achieved. (Bagozzi and Yi 1988). Outer loadings of indicators on their The self-efficacy construct was then similarly tested. The latent construct were compared with the loadings of other path coefficient was 0.79, argued as acceptable in such an indicators (see Table 5), concluding that the loadings had ac- exploratory study as the present one (see Fig. 4). Indicators ceptable values (Lowry and Gaskin 2014). Each square root of Table 3 Analysis result of Construct Loadings p value Weights T-statistics p value WIF Path coefficients p value indicators Attitude ATT1 0.908 0.000 0.479 31.637 0.000 2.041 0.853 0.000 ATT2 0.942 0.000 0.600 19.602 0.000 2.041 ATT3 0.892 0.000 0.325 2.365 0.018 2.613 ATT4 0.951 0.000 0.564 3.758 0.000 2.626 ATT5 0.670 0.000 0.131 1.569 0.117 1.548 ATT6 0.741 0.000 0.115 1.115 0.265 1.874 Self-efficacy SE1 0.888 0.000 0.712 10.648 0.000 1.146 0.786 0.000 SE2 0.746 0.000 0.493 9.983 0.000 1.146 SE3 0.910 0.000 0.415 2.657 0.008 2.655 SE4 0.737 0.000 0.166 1.250 0.212 1.729 SE5 0.946 0.000 0.594 3.041 0.002 4.300 SE6 0.821 0.000 − 0.076 0.462 0.644 3.720 PLPI PLPI1 0.934 0.000 0.508 29.752 0.000 2.417 0.790 0.000 PLPI2 0.945 0.000 0.556 25.940 0.000 2.417 PLPI3 0.873 0.000 0.362 3.181 0.002 2.104 PLPI4 0.725 0.000 0.254 2.283 0.023 1.494 PLPI6 0.918 0.000 0.544 5.033 0.000 1.957 PLPI perceived level of planning interviews J Police Crim Psych (2018) 33:158–174 165 Fig. 4 Redundancy analysis of self-efficacy (SE) indicators AVE of the latent variables was examined (see Table 6). All present study set out to examine an area yet to be explored, the relationships were stronger than those between the latent that is, the possible reasons associated with investigators’ variables. This indicates that the constructs have good dis- decision-making as whether or not to plan. As such, the cur- criminant validity. rent study adds to the increasing and expanding literature based on investigative interviewing. Structural Model (Inner Model) The present exploratory study provided empirical under- standing of factors proposed to be associated with investiga- Figure 6 shows the inner model results. As can be seen from tors’ planning interviews with suspects. Firstly, it was this figure, three pathways were statistically significant hypothesised that interview planning would be positively as- (p < 0.05). The beta for the path between subjective norm sociated by interviewers’ attitudes towards undertaking the and intention was 0.45, while the corresponding figures be- task. Among the antecedent factors of the theory of planned tween self-efficacy and intention and, in turn, between inten- behaviour, attitude was found to have a weak relationship with tion and PLPI were found to be beta = 0.41 and beta = 0.80, planning intentions. The findings indicated that regardless of respectively. The R of intention was 0.65, and that of PLPI their rank, career, or gender, most participants in our survey was 0.67 (p < 0.01). Attitude, subjective norm, and self- provided a positive evaluation of planning. Contrary to as- efficacy accounted for 65% of the variance in intention, while, sumptions, however, investigators’ attitudes were not found in turn, intention accounted for 66.7% of the variance in PLPI. to be associated with their interview preparations. This could Not all paths between the latent variables were significant as be so due to the inconsistency between attitude and actual can be seen from Table 7. behaviour (Ajzen and Fishbein 2005). The relative importance Effect sizes were calculated, finding f square for the relation- of each indicator of investigators’ attitudes towards planning ships between (i) self-efficacy and intention to be 0.42 and (ii) varied. Perceptions relating to the usefulness of planning and subjective norm and intention to be 0.33, while (iii) the effect those concerning efficiency were found to be more important than indicators pertaining to perceived necessity of planning size was 1.89 for intention on PLPI (where 0.40 values and above for f are deemed strong, while medium-strength effect and its effectiveness, which were found to be much less sizes lie between 0.25 to 0.49 for f (see Gefen and Straub 2005). influential. Only attitude to intention and perceived time pressures to As hypothesised, intention to plan was strongly associated PLPI showed path coefficients at the level of p < 0.10. In with PLPI. This finding suggests that police investigators who addition, the proposed moderating effect of perceived time have more intention to plan would, in turn, engage in more pressures and NFCC between intention and PLPI was not planning than those who have less. This supports the belief significant (i.e. perceived time pressures interaction = − 0.07 that intention is probably most strongly associated with the with p = 0.18, NFCC interaction = 0.01 with p =0.61). prediction of planning behaviour (Ajzen 1991; Armitage and Conner 2001). It is, however, acknowledged that this finding could possibly stem from one of the study’s methodological Discussion limitations, since PLPI was measured by surveying partici- pants’ perceptions rather than their actual practice. As previous research upon the planning phase of investigative Investigators may also have considered that since they believe interviews has mostly examined only the level of planning, the that they undertake much planning, their intentions must be Fig. 5 Redundancy analysis of perceived level of planning interviews (PLPI) indicators 166 J Police Crim Psych (2018) 33:158–174 Table 5 Cross loading accordingly strong. If that is indeed the case, it might be the INT PTP SN of reflective models perceived level of planning that is prompting the intention, and not the reverse. As such, it is recommended that future INT1 0.864 0.038 0.565 research into this area is undertaken by other methods, such as INT2 0.886 0.059 0.637 observational or Bthink aloud^ methodologies. INT3 0.883 − 0.199 0.634 In line with the next hypothesis, the correlations suggested PTP1 0.009 0.838 0.052 a strong relationship between subjective norm and planning PTP3 0.050 0.866 0.111 intentions. Such a relationship is perhaps not surprising since PTP4 − 0.112 0.877 − 0.068 such normative beliefs (or organisational culture) have repeat- PTP5 − 0.041 0.856 0.027 edly been considered an important factor in criminal investi- SN1 0.399 − 0.110 0.674 gations (Chan 2007;Crank 2010;Gottschalk 2007). The latter SN2 0.597 − 0.081 0.847 is likely related to the specific and unique working culture that SN3 0.639 0.167 0.854 dominates much police practice, which is mostly learned from INT intention, PTP perceived time pres- Bon the job^ experience (Tong et al. 2009). sure, SN subjective norm Interestingly, the variable of whether fellow investigators tended to investigate first before interviewing did not load onto the subjective norm construct. This was not unexpected detectives (where matters of public protection from further because the content of the question is quite different from that harm are more likely to prompt both earlier arrest and inter- of the other subjective norm indicators contained in the ques- view of a suspect, before opportunity has occurred to collect much evidence). tionnaire, and consequently, the question may have been un- familiar to participants. At the same time, two thirds of partic- Self-efficacy was found to have a strong relationship, as ipants provided a rating for this question of less than the mid- hypothesised, with both planning intention and PLPI. point of the scale. As such, it might be assumed that the in- Indeed, self-efficacy was found to have a stronger association vestigators’ perceptions concerning the culture of Binvestigate with intention than subjective norm. A possible explanation after interviewing^ are relatively high. This finding would might involve the cognitively demanding activity associated reflect inconsistency with the fundamental aims of investiga- with the planning of interviews. Prior research has found self- tive interviewing (i.e. where, whenever possible, interviews efficacy to have a significant relationship with various cogni- with suspects should be undertaken later in the investigative tive tasks (e.g. Celuch et al. 2010; Cervone and Peake 1986; Conner and Armitage 1998; Pajares and Kranzler 1995; process). Considering that the survey involved financial crime investigators, this is a finding of some concern, if found to be Pajares and Schunk 2001). Self-efficacy has also been found to be associated with employee motivation and effort when one that plays out in practice. Such investigators have greater opportunity to defer interviews until after a comprehensive learning difficult tasks (Lunenberg 2011). Walsh et al. (2017) investigation has been completed, and fulsome evidence found, in their study of investigators, a self-confidence about painstakingly gathered, than say, homicide or terrorism own interviewing ability, which, in turn, was found consistent- ly inferior to that objectively assessed. Table 4 Results summary for outer models Of the examined self-efficacy indicators, that of Borganising questions^ was found to be of highest importance Construct Loadings p Composite AVE to investigators in their planning, while other indicators of value reliability Bpredicting suspects’ defences^, Bknowing topics to ask^, INT and Bknowing points to prove^ were found to be much less INT1 0.864 0.000 0.909 0.770 important. The latter three interviewing tasks are, however, INT2 0.886 0.000 considered to be critical when planning interviews INT3 0.883 0.000 (Shepherd and Griffiths 2013; Walsh and Bull 2010). As such, PTP it is a matter of concern that investigators feel that these PTP1 0.838 0.029 0.919 0.738 PTP3 0.866 0.036 Table 6 Discriminant validity by the square root of AVE PTP4 0.877 0.015 PTP5 0.856 0.012 Construct AVE INT PTP SN SN INT 0.770 0.878 SN1 0.674 0.000 0.837 0.634 PTP 0.738 − 0.050 0.859 SN2 0.847 0.000 SN3 0.854 0.000 SN 0.634 0.700 0.011 0.796 INT intention, PTP perceived time pressure, SN subjective norm INT intention, PTP perceived time pressure, SN subjective norm J Police Crim Psych (2018) 33:158–174 167 Fig. 6 PLS results for interview planning factor relation. PTP perceived time pressures, ATT attitudes, SN subjective norms, INT intention, PLPI perceived level of planning interviews, SE self-efficacy, NFCC need for cognitive closure activities merit less attention. Thus, this finding suggests that and Milne 2007, 2008). This finding might be related to the police investigators who have more intention to plan would, in previously mentioned speculation that financial crime investi- turn, engage in more planning than those who have less. This gators are more likely to be able to have greater opportunity to supports the belief that intention is probably most strongly thoroughly investigate before interviewing (and thus, in prin- associated with the prediction of planning behaviour (Ajzen ciple at least, possess greater time for planning). However, it 1991; Armitage and Conner 2001). may be that time pressure, when perceived to be moderate, Perceived time pressures and NFCC, somewhat counter- may act as a stimulant for planning (Baer and Oldham 2006; intuitively, were found to have a minimal correlation with Freedman and Edwards 1988; Janssen 2001). PLPI. Participants apparently felt little time pressure for han- The findings of the present study suggest that law enforce- dling their cases, a finding that is inconsistent with prior ment agencies may well need to enhance the importance of research (Baldwin 1993; Cherryman and Bull 2001; Walsh interview planning for officers trained in the PEACE model Table 7 Summary of path Hypothesis Path coefficients T-statistics Results coefficients and significance levels Expected positive relationships Attitude→ INT 0.152 1.653 Not supported* SN→ INT 0.448 4.553 Supported** Self-efficacy→ INT 0.414 5.019 Supported** INT→ PLPI 0.795 16.133 Supported** Expected negative relationships NFCC→ PLPI 0.085 1.227 Not supported* Moderation of BNFCC^ between BINT^ and BPLPI^ 0.007 0.508 Not supported* PTP→ PLPI − 0.144 1.683 Not supported* Moderation of BPTP^ between BINT^ and BPLPI^ − 0.074 1.346 Not supported* INT intention, SN subjective norm, NFCC need for cognitive closure, PLPI perceived level of planning inter- views, PTP perceived time pressure *p > 0.01; **p <0.001 168 J Police Crim Psych (2018) 33:158–174 (through, say, good supervision following such training). motif, social desirability, leniency bias, and genuine While planning is a fundamental part of the PEACE model, misremembering). Second, the findings may not be fully studies suggest that it is a task to which officers rarely attend generalizable since it was confined to FCIs operating in (Walsh and Bull 2011; Walsh and Milne 2007). Further, stud- South Korea. Third, there may also be generalisability is- ies of interviews conducted in the field suggest that planning is sues relating to the fact that more than two thirds of re- mediocre in practice, with thorough and skilled planning rare- spondents were quite senior officers, who may not regular- ly having taken place (Clarke and Milne 2001; Walsh and Bull ly conduct interviews. On the other hand, almost a third 2010, 2012). Such studies have also noted the positive asso- stated that they had less than a year of professional expe- ciation between planning skills and the recommended PEACE rience. Nevertheless, over a third of respondents possessed interview outcomes of obtaining extensive accounts from more than 5 years of experience and it would be reasonably suspects, underlining the importance of planning. Indeed, expected that their views emerged from the vantage point Griffiths (2008) found that officers’ planning skills faded over of their having conducted many interviews. When turning time after training, also noting that training alone (no matter to investigators’ individual cognitive dispositions while how good) is insufficient in itself to ensure skills are NFCC was not found to significantly relate to PLPI, we maintained. speculate whether this finding might stem from the limita- Walsh and Bull (2010) found some interviews in their tion to assess such cognitive disposition through abridged sample (also of fraud investigators) were being conducted self-administered questionnaires. Indeed, other research before an investigation had fully taken place, noting that (which also employed similar limited predictors) also such interviews were of a Bfishing trip^ characteristic. found non-significant outcomes (O’Neill 2011). Ask and They had also rated these interviews, without exception, Granhag (2005) also found that NFCC did not significantly as the most poor in terms of planning skills (and likewise, affect bias in investigative decision-making. As these au- least associated with the gaining of comprehensive ac- thors recommend, a more valid test of this disposition counts). Fraud investigators invariably have the luxury of might be needed. being able to fully conduct a thorough investigation before any interview with identified suspects (compared, say, to Summary violent crimes, where public safety issues may mean that an early arrest and interview of a suspect might be required Overall, this exploratory research has provided empirical before a thorough investigation has been allowed to take understanding concerning investigators’ interview plan- place). The findings from the present study suggest that ning attitudes. Using the framework of a well-known the- occupational culture is associated with investigators’ deci- ory of human behaviour, the study did find factors appar- sions as to whether or not to plan. As such, if an Binterview ently associated with investigators’ planning. The work- before (fully) investigating^ occupational culture exists, ing environment norms of police investigators were found wherever possible, such a maxim should be changed to to be strongly associated with planning intentions. Also, Binterview after (fully) investigating^. investigators’ self-efficacy of their planning-related capa- Furthermore, current training should address both investi- bilities was also found to have a strong relationship with gators’ motivation to plan, as well as their capabilities of ac- intention and perceived level of planning. Above all, in- curately assessing their own performance, since the present tention to plan was found to have a powerful association study found that self-efficacy is critically important to plan- with interview planning. Contrary to common beliefs re- ning intent. Griffiths (2008) found that planning is a complex garding possible reasons for poor planning (i.e. time pres- task. However, investigators have been found to possess little sure), the present study found that investigators’ own per- self-awareness of how poor were their own planning skills ception of their planning skills and their subjective norms (Walsh et al. 2017). Griffiths and Walsh (submitted) found appear to potentially play a more substantial role. Thus, that more accurate self-awareness was only apparent when necessary measures and academic research undertaken to investigators exercised skilled reflection. Additionally, train- improve any lack of planning might be less focused on ing for interview planning should emphasise the dangers of the time pressure issue. planning inflexibly, when considering the dynamic nature of However, further research is required to understand the groundwork. actual interview planning practice of police investigators, to establish how to enhance planning practice (e.g. by using Study Limitations think aloud methodologies). Recent research on developing effective strategies when interviewing suspects has The present study, as with all studies, possesses limita- emphasised the importance of developing an interview strate- tions. First, it used a self-administered questionnaire, gy (Dando et al. 2015; Hartwig et al. 2005a, b, 2006, 2007; which could be affected by various biases (e.g. consistency van der Sleen 2009; Walsh and Bull 2015). The necessity to J Police Crim Psych (2018) 33:158–174 169 plan interviews should not be overlooked, being as important This used the seven-point Likert scale from 1, which means as other investigative tasks. Better-prepared interviewers will BStrongly disagree^,to 7,whichis BStrongly agree^. be better placed to challenge capricious and evasive suspects. Although the question looks like repeating, every question Additionally, better-prepared investigators tend more of- has its own meaning. ten to establish the reliability of given accounts (Walsh and Bull 2010). Finally, interview planning is not a discrete task No. Question Absolutely Absolutely (Walsh et al. 2012). As such, further research is essential to disagree agree examine all pre-interview groundwork (such as investigative 1 I think planning suspect interviewing is 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 decision-making) to help contribute to effective investigative desirable for successful interviewing interviewing. outcome. 2 I don’t think my peer investigators 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 Funding Information No external funding was associated with this re- expect me to do planning search. interviewing for successful interviewing outcome. Compliance with Ethical Standards 3 I think I am good at planning 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 interviewing. 4 I intend to do planning interviewing 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 Ethical Statement As stated in the article, research ethics was provided prior to suspect interviewing. by the home university, having successfully proceeded through the rele- 5 I think I often feel time pressure to finish 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 vant ethics committee (who ensured that all survey respondents were the assigned criminal case. advised of their informed and voluntary consent before their 6 During the last two months, I usually 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 participation). have made specific interview plan prior to suspect interviewing. Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of 7 I think planning suspect interviewing is 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 interest. good for successful interviewing outcome. Appendix 1. Survey questionnaire (note: the original 8 I think planning suspect interviewing is 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 questionnaire was in the Korean language necessary for successful interviewing but has been translated here for the purposes outcome (or, obtaining anticipated outcome). of publication) 9 I think my team manager expect me to 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 do planning interviewing for This study intends to understand the relationship of pos- successful interviewing outcome. 10 I don’t think I have enough competences 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 sible factors which influence the investigator’s planning in planning interviewing. behaviour prior to suspect interviewing. This question- 11 I will try to do planning interviewing 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 naire was formulated to discover investigator’s percep- prior to suspect interviewing. tion, which relates to actual planning behaviour and other 12 I think I often feel in a hurry to finish the 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 assigned criminal case. internal or external factors which could affect the plan- 13 During the last two months, I usually 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 ning activity of police investigators. Your participation is have planned for suspect highly expected to contribute to the development of police interviewing. investigation. The researcher appreciates your participa- 14 I think planning suspect interviewing is 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 useful for successful interviewing tion in this study. Please read each question carefully outcome. and answer it to the best of your ability. There are no 15 I think my peer investigators are trying 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 correct or incorrect responses, so please answer those to do planning before interviewing. questions following your genuine opinion. We guarantee 16 I think I am good at figuring out 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 important topics which should be the participant’s anonymity. dealt in interviewing prior to actual <What is your gender?> interviewing. -Male/Female 17 I am well motivated to do planning 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 <What is your rank?> interviewing prior to suspect - Policeman/Senior Policeman/Assistant Inspector/ interviewing. 18 I think I often feel very busy in dealing 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 Inspector/Senior Inspector with the assigned criminal case. <How long have you been working in the current investi- 19 I don’t think I often feel heavy time 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 gation position (i.e. investigative interviewing)?> pressure to finish the assigned criminal case. - 1 year/1–2years/2–3years/3–5 years/over 5 years 20 During the last two months, I usually 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 The below questionnaire is intended to ask your perception have set some sort of interview goal on the planning suspect interviewing-related issue. Please an- which I must accomplish prior to swer with your genuine opinion, as there is no proper answer. suspect interviewing. 170 J Police Crim Psych (2018) 33:158–174 21 During the last two months, I usually 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 I feel uncomfortable when I don’t have made a list of points to prove understand the reason why an event prior to suspect interviewing. occurred in my life. 22 I don’t think planning suspect 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 5 I feel uncomfortable when I don’t 1 - 2-3-4-5-6 interviewing is efficient for intended understand the reason why an event interviewing outcome. occurred in my life. 23 I think my peer investigators do 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 6 I don’t like to go into a situation without 1 - 2-3-4-5-6 interviewing first rather than knowing what I can expect from it. investigating first. 7 When I have made a decision, I feel 1 - 2-3-4-5-6 24 I think I am confident of predicting 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 relieved. suspect’s defence before interviewing 8 When I am confronted with a problem, 1 - 2-3-4-5-6 suspect. I’m dying to reach a solution very 25 I think I often have limited time to 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 quickly. handle my case. 9 I would quickly become impatient and 1 - 2-3-4-5-6 26 During the last two months, I usually 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 irritated if I would not find a solution have contemplated the possible to a problem immediately. defence of suspect prior to suspect 10 I like to be with people who are capable 1 - 2-3-4-5-6 interviewing. of unexpected actions. 27 I think planning suspect interviewing is 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 11 I dislike it when a person’s statement 1 - 2-3-4-5-6 effective for successful interviewing could mean many different things. outcome. 12 I find that establishing a consistent 1 - 2-3-4-5-6 28 I think I have good ability to organise 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 routine enables me to enjoy life more. sequence of questioning. 13 I enjoy having a clear and structured 1 - 2-3-4-5-6 29 During the last two months, I usually 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 mode of life. have made plan for how to ask 14 I do not usually consult many different 1 - 2-3-4-5-6 questions in what order prior to opinions before forming my own suspect interviewing. view. 30 I think I have good competences in 1 - 2-3-4-5-6-7 15 Ilike unpredictable situations. 1 -2-3-4-5-6 recognising points to prove before interviewing suspect. <Have you ever had a training which is for ‘planning sus- Next, the questionnaire measures your own cognitive pect interviewing’?> disposition. Please answer in the same way as before. - Yes/No <Do you think that there is a need to training for ‘planning suspect interviewing’?> No. Question Absolutely Absolutely disagree agree - Yes/No <Have you been taught about PEACE model of England 1 I don’t like situations that are uncertain. 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 and Wales?> 2 I like questions which could be 1 - 2-3-4-5-6 - Yes/No answered in many different ways. Thank you for your participation. 3 I find that a well-ordered life with regu- 1 - 2-3-4-5-6 lar hours suits my temperament. 4 1 -2-3-4-5-6 Appendix 2 Table 8 Explanation of measurement items Construct Operationalised definition Label no. Items Type of construct Attitude (ATT) Investigator’s evaluative ATT1 I think planning suspect interviewing is Reflective perception on the planning desirable for a successful interviewing behaviour prior to suspect outcome. interviewing ATT2 I think planning suspect interviewing is good for a successful interviewing outcome. ATT3 I think planning suspect interviewing is Formative necessary for a successful interviewing outcome (or, obtaining intended outcome). J Police Crim Psych (2018) 33:158–174 171 Table 8 (continued) Construct Operationalised definition Label no. Items Type of construct ATT4 I think planning suspect interviewing is useful for a successful interviewing outcome. ATT5 I think planning suspect interviewing is efficient for a successful interviewing outcome. ATT6 I think planning suspect interviewing is effective for intended interviewing outcome. Subjective norm (SN) Investigator’s perceived external SN1 I think my peer investigators expect Reflective pressure (norm) on the planning me to do planning interviewing behaviour prior to suspect for a successful interviewing interviewing outcome. SN2 I think my team manager expect me to do planning interviewing for a successful interviewing outcome. SN3 I think my peer investigators are trying to do planning before interviewing. SN4 I think my peer investigators do interviewing first rather than investigating first. Self-efficacy (SE) Investigator’s perceived SE1 I think I am good at planning Reflective competency in planning interviewing. interviewing prior to suspect SE2 I think I have enough competences interviewing in planning interviewing. SE3 I think I am good at figuring out Formative important topics which should be dealt in interviewing prior to actual interviewing. SE4 I think I am confident of predicting suspect’s defence before interviewing suspect. SE5 I think I have a good ability to organise sequence of questioning. SE6 I think I have good competences in recognising points to prove before interviewing suspect. Intention (INT) Investigator’s desire to do INT1 I intend to do planning interviewing Reflective planning interviewing prior prior to suspect interviewing. to suspect interviewing INT2 I will try to do planning interviewing prior to suspect interviewing. INT3 I am well motivated to do planning interviewing prior to suspect interviewing. Need for cognitive Investigator’s individual NFCC Single item (actually, closure (NFCC) summational item) Perceived time Investigator’s perception on the PTP1 I think I often feel time pressure to Reflective pressure (PTP) degree of how much time finish the assigned criminal case. pressure they have in handling PTP2 I think I often feel in a hurry to their assigned investigation case finish the assigned criminal case. PTP3 I think I often feel very busy in dealing with the assigned criminal case. PTP4 I think I often feel heavy time pressure to finish the assigned criminal case. 172 J Police Crim Psych (2018) 33:158–174 Table 8 (continued) Construct Operationalised definition Label no. Items Type of construct PTP5 I think I often have limited time to handle my case. Perceived level Investigator’s perception on PLPI1 During the last two months, I usually Reflective of planning how much they did planning have made specific interview plan interviews (PLPI) interview during last 2 months prior to suspect interviewing. PLPI2 During the last two months, I usually have planned for suspect interviewing. PLPI3 During the last two months, I usually Formative have set some sort of interview goal which I must accomplish prior to suspect interviewing. PLPI4 During the last two months, I usually have made a list of points to prove prior to suspect interviewing. PLPI5 During the last two months, I usually have contemplated the possible defence of suspect prior to suspect interviewing. PLPI6 During the last two months, I usually have made plan for how to ask questions in what order prior to suspect interviewing. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative openness to experience and support for creativity. J Appl Psychol Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http:// 91(4):963–970. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.963 creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, Bagozzi RP, Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give J Acad Mark Sci 16(1):74–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02723327 appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link Baldwin J (1993) Police interview techniques: establishing truth or to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. proof? Br J Criminol 33(3):325–352. https://doi.org/10.1093/ oxfordjournals.bjc.a048329 Bandura A (1982) Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am Psychol 37(2):122–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.37.2. References Bull R (2013) What is ‘believed’ or actually ‘known’ about characteris- tics that may contribute to being a good/effective interviewer? Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Investigative Interviewing: Research and Practice 5:148–153 Process 50(2):179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91) Bull R (2014) Investigative interviewing. Springer, New York. https://doi. 90020-t org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9642-7 Ajzen I (2006) The theory of planned behavior: constructing a Theory of Celuch K, Kozlenkova I, Black G (2010) An exploration of self-efficacy Planned Behaviour questionnaire. Available: http://people.umass. as a mediator of skill beliefs and student self-identity as a critical edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf [Accessed: 14 Jan 2014] thinker. Mark Educ Rev 20(3):255–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Ajzen I, Fishbein M (2000) Attitudes and attitude-behavior relation: rea- 0273475308324088 soned and automatic processes. In: Stroebe W, Hewstone M (eds) Cervone D, Peake PK (1986) Anchoring, efficacy, and action: the influ- European review of social psychology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 1–33. ence of judgmental heuristics on self-efficacy judgments and behav- https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779943000116 ior. J Pers Soc Psychol 50(3):492–501. https://doi.org/10.1037/ Ajzen I, Fishbein M (2005) The influence of attitudes on behavior. In: 0022-35126.96.36.1992 Albarracín D, Johnson BT, Zanna MP (eds) The handbook of atti- Chan J (2007) Police stress and occupational culture. Sociol Crime Law tudes. Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 173–221 Deviance 8:129–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1521-6136(07) Armitage CJ, Conner M (2001) Efficacy of the theory of planned behav- 08005-0 iour: a meta-analytic review. Br J Soc Psychol 40(4):471–499. Cherryman J, Bull R (2001) Police officers’ perceptions of specialist https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939 investigative interviewing skills. Int J Police Sci Manag 3(3):199– Ask K, Granhag PA (2005) Motivational sources of confirmation bias in 212. https://doi.org/10.1177/146135570100300302 criminal investigations: the need for cognitive closure. J Investig Chin WW (2010) How to write up and report PLS analyses. In: Vinzi V, Psychol Offender Profiling 2(1):43–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.19 Chin WW, Henseler J, Wang H (eds) Handbook of partial least Baer M, Oldham GR (2006) The curvilinear relation between experi- squares. Springer, Berlin, pp 655–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/ enced creative time pressure and creativity: moderating effects of 978-3-540-32827-8_29 J Police Crim Psych (2018) 33:158–174 173 Clarke C, Milne R (2001) A national evaluation of the PEACE investi- satisfaction. Acad Manag J 44(5):1039–1050. https://doi.org/10. gative interviewing course. Home Office, London 2307/3069447 Conner M, Armitage CJ (1998) Extending the theory of planned behav- Kassin S (2008) The psychology of confessions. Annu Rev Law Sci 4(1): ior: a review and avenues for further research. J Appl Soc Psychol 193–217. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.4.110707. 28(15):1429–1464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998. tb01685.x Kassin SM, Goldstein CJ, Savitsky K (2003) Behavioral confirmation in CPTU (1993) Developing interview skills. Central Planning and Training the interrogation room: on the dangers of presuming guilt. Law Hum Unit, Harrogate Behav 27(2):187–203. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022599230598 Crank JP (2010) Understanding police culture. Elsevier, London Kruglanski AW (1989) Lay epistemics and human knowledge: cognitive Dando C, Bull R (2011) Maximising opportunities to detect verbal de- and motivational bases. Plenum, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/ ception: training police officers to interview tactically. J Investig 978-1-4899-0924-4 Psychol Offender Profiling 8:189–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip. Kruglanski AW (1996) A motivated gatekeeper of our minds: need-for- closure effects on interpersonal and group processes. In: Sorrentino Dando C, Bull R, Ormerod T, Sandham A (2015) Helping to sort the liars RM, Higgins ET (eds) Handbook of motivation and cognition: the from the truthtellers: the gradual revelation of information during interpersonal context. Guilford, New York, pp 465–496 investigative interviews. Leg Criminol Psychol 20(1):114–128. Kruglanski AW, Webster DM (1996) Motivated closing of the mind: https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12016 Bseizing^ and Bfreezing^. Psychol Rev 103(2):263–283. https:// Davis S (2013) Sexual assault detectives’ justifications for aggressive doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.103.2.263 victim interviewing methods: a qualitative study, University of Leo R (2008) Police interrogation and American justice. Harvard Nevada. Available at: http://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/ University Press, London. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674033702 viewcontent.cgi?article=2819&context=thesesdissertations Lunenburg FC (2011) Self-efficacy in the workplace: implications for [Accessed: 12 Aug 2014] motivation and performance. Int J Manag Bus Adm 14:1–6 Fahsing I, Ask K (2013) Decision making and decisional tipping points in Lowry PB, Gaskin J (2014) Partial least squares (PLS) structural equation homicide investigations: an interview study of British and modeling (SEM) for building and testing behavioral causal theory: Norwegian detectives. J Investig Psychol Offender Profiling 10(2): when to choose it and how to use it. IEEE Trans Prof Commun, 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1384 Available: http://www.kolobkreations.com/PLSIEEETPC2014.pdf Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an [Accessed: 15 Jul 2014] 57(2):123–146. https://doi.org/10.1109/tpc. introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, Reading 2014.2312452 Fishbein M, Ajzen I (2010) Predicting and changing behavior: the rea- McGurk BJ, Carr MJ, McGurk D (1993) Investigative interviewing soned action approach. Psychology, New York. https://doi.org/10. courses for police officers: an evaluation. Police Research Series: 4324/9780203838020 Paper No. 4. Home Office: London Freedman JL, Edwards DR (1988) Time pressure, task performance, and Milne R, Bull R (1999) Investigative interviewing, psychology and prac- enjoyment. In: McGrath JE (ed) The social psychology of time. tice. Wiley, Chichester Sage, Newbury Park, pp 113–133 Mortimer A, Shepherd E (1999) Frames of mind: schemata guiding cog- Gefen D, Straub D (2005) A practical guide to factorial validity using nition and conduct in the interviewing of suspected offenders. In: PLS-graph: tutorial and annotated example. Commun Assoc Inf Memon A, Bull R (eds) Handbook of the psychology of Syst 16:91–109 interviewing. Wiley, Chichester, pp 293–315 Gottschalk P (2007) Organizational culture as determinant of enterprise Mortimer, A. (1994) Cognitive processes underlying police investigative information systems use in police investigations. Enterp Inf Syst interviewing behaviour. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of 1(4):443–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/17517570701630412 Portsmouth Griffiths A (2008)An examination into the efficacy of police advanced National Crime Faculty (1996) Investigative interviewing: a practical investigative interview training. Unpublished PhD thesis. University guide. Training & Development Unit, Bramshill of Portsmouth O’Neill M (2011) What makes a successful volume crime investigator? Griffiths A, Walsh D (submitted) Qualitative analysis of qualitative eval- Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Portsmouth uation: an exploratory examination of investigative interviewers’ Pajares F, Kranzler J (1995) Self-efficacy beliefs and general mental abil- reflections on their performance. Psychol Crime Law ity in mathematical problem-solving. Contemp Educ Psychol 20(4): Hartwig M, Granhag PA, Vrij A (2005a) Police interrogation from a 26–443. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1995.1029 social psychology perspective. Polic Soc 15(4):379–399. https:// Pajares F, Schunk DH (2001) Self-beliefs and school success: self-effica- doi.org/10.1080/10439460500309956 cy, self-concept, and school achievement. In: Riding R, Rayner S Hartwig M, Granhag PA, Strömwall LA, Vrij A (2005b) Detecting de- (eds) Perception. Ablex, London, pp 239–266 ception via strategic disclosure of evidence. Law Hum Behav 29(4): Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP (2003) Common 469–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-5521-x method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the litera- Hartwig M, Granhag PA, Strömwall LA, Kronkvist O (2006) Strategic ture and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 88(5):879–903. use of evidence during police interrogations: when training to detect https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 deception works. Law Hum Behav 30(5):603–619. https://doi.org/ Rassin E, Eerland A, Kuijpers I (2010) Let’s find the evidence: an ana- 10.1007/s10979-006-9053-9 logue study of confirmation bias in criminal investigations. J Hartwig M, Granhag PA, Strömwall LA (2007) Guilty and innocent Investig Psychol Offender Profiling 7(3):231–246. https://doi.org/ suspects’ strategies during a police interrogation. Psychol Crime 10.1002/jip.126 Law 13(2):213–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160600750264 Roets A, Van Hiel A (2011) Item selection and validation of a brief, 15- Hill C, Memon A, McGeorge P (2008) The role of confirmation bias in item version of the need for closure scale. Personal Individ Differ suspect interviews: a systematic evaluation. Leg Criminol Psychol 50(1):90–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.004 13(2):357–371. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532507x238682 Janis IL, Mann L (1977) Decision making: a psychological analysis of Rossmo K (2009) Criminal investigation failures. CRC, Boca Raton. conflict, choice, and commitment. Free, New York https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420047523 Janssen O (2001) Fairness perceptions as a moderator in the curvilinear S chollum M (2005) Investigative interviewing: the literature. New relationships between job demands, and job performance and job Zealand Police, Wellington 174 J Police Crim Psych (2018) 33:158–174 Schollum M (2006) Investigative interviewing: the current situation. New Walsh D, Bull R (2011) Benefit fraud investigative interviewing: a self- report study of investigation professionals’ beliefs concerning prac- Zealand Police, Wellington Scott A, Tudor-Owen J, Pedretti P, Bull R (2015) How intuitive is tice. J Investig Psychol Offender Profiling 8(2):131–148. https://doi. PEACE? Newly recruited police officers’ plans, interviews and org/10.1002/jip.137 self-evaluations. Psychiatry Psychol Law 22(3):355–367. https:// Walsh D, Bull R (2012) How do interviewers attempt to overcome sus- doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2014.949397 pects’ denials? Psychiatry Psychol Law 19:151–168. https://doi.org/ Shepherd E, Griffiths A (2013) Investigative interviewing. Oxford 10.1080/13218719.2010.543756 University Press Walsh D, Bull R (2015) The association between evidence disclosure Soukara S, Bull R, Vrij A (2002) Police detectives’ aims regarding their strategies, questioning strategies, and interview outcomes. Psychol interviews with suspects: any change at the turn of the millennium? Crime Law 21(7):661–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316x. Int J Police Sci Manag 4(2):101–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2015.1028544 146135570200400202 Walsh D, Milne R (2007) Perceptions of benefit fraud staff in the UK: Stephenson GM, Moston S (2008) Police interrogation. Psychol Crime giving PEACE a chance? Public Adm 85(2):525–540. https://doi. Law 1:151–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683169408411948 org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00645.x Teng CI, Hsiao FJ, Chou TA (2010) Nurse-perceived time pressure and Walsh D, Milne R (2008) Keeping the PEACE? A study of investigative patient-perceived care quality. J Nurs Manag 18(3):275–284. https:// interviewing practices in the public sector. Leg Criminol Psychol doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01073.x 13(1):39–57. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532506x157179 Tong S, Bryant RP, Horvath MA (2009) Understanding criminal investi- Walsh D, King M, Neville A (2012) A formulation of agendas for future gation. Wiley, Chichester. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470682388 collaboration between practitioners and academics. Investigative van der Sleen J (2009) A structure model for investigative interviewing of interviewing: Research and. Practice 4:58–69 suspects. In: Bull R, Valentine T, Williamson T (eds) Handbook of Walsh D, Oxburgh G, Redlich A, Myklebust T (eds) (2016) International psychology of investigative interviewing: current developments and developments and practices in investigative interviewing and inter- future directions. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp 35–52 rogation, vol 2. Routledge, London Walsh D, Bull R (2010) What really is effective in interviews with sus- Walsh D, King M, Griffiths A (2017) Evaluating interviews which search pects? A study comparing interviewing skills against interviewing for the truth with suspects: but are investigators’ self-assessments of outcomes. Leg Criminol Psychol 15(2):305–321. https://doi.org/10. their own skills truthful ones? Psychol Crime Law 23(7):647–665. 1348/135532509x463356 https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2017.1296149
Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology – Springer Journals
Published: Nov 16, 2017
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.
Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Hi guys, I cannot tell you how much I love this resource. Incredible. I really believe you've hit the nail on the head with this site in regards to solving the research-purchase issue.”Daniel C.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud
“I must say, @deepdyve is a fabulous solution to the independent researcher's problem of #access to #information.”@deepthiw
“My last article couldn't be possible without the platform @deepdyve that makes journal papers cheaper.”@JoseServera