
Last week we talked about evidence-based practices to conduct more effective interviews, and I asked you to do a New Year’s self-assessment to identify changes necessary to your repertoire. Did you, do it??? Hmmm? Well, guess what? More self-assessment today on our use of persuasion vs influence and what that looks like.
And just to be clear. I write these blogs and find myself standing in front of a mirror (not a pretty sight). It is so important to look in before we look out. It is so important to listen before we speak to offer advice. Consequently, I frequently reflect on my training, history, conduct, motives, etc. asking if they are where they need to be. The past several months has been inundated with soul searching. So, as my partners in this, I am only asking you to do what I have already done. (Of note, working on an article on accountability which will be coming soon.)
In the field of investigative interviewing, adopting evidence-based techniques is essential for obtaining accurate, complete, and reliable information. At its core, the process is about understanding and leveraging human psychology—a practice deeply intertwined with the concepts of influence and persuasion. While these terms are often used interchangeably, they differ significantly in their methods and effectiveness, particularly when the goal is to inspire cooperation and uncover the truth.
Influence vs. Persuasion in Interviewing
When I first moved into a full-time training role in the arena of interviewing, one the first books I read was the classic “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion” by Robert B. Cialdini. Totally not what I had read or used in law enforcement, yet so applicable. I think that began my fascination with the psychology of human interaction. Let’s explore that.
Influence is a subtle, trust-based approach that focuses on building rapport and fostering a sense of connection. It inspires individuals to share information willingly, driven by internal motivation and a belief in the interviewer’s authenticity. For instance, an investigator who listens actively, acknowledges the interviewee’s perspective, and demonstrates empathy creates an environment of mutual respect. This strategy encourages truthful and open communication, as the interviewee feels valued and less defensive.
Persuasion, on the other hand, relies on more direct techniques like argumentation or pressure to elicit responses. While it might yield immediate results, these responses are often driven by external factors such as fear or obligation, which can lead to inaccuracies or resistance. In investigative settings, such an approach risks jeopardizing the credibility of the information, the complete story, and the trust between parties.
The Science Behind Influence
Research underscores the power of influence in investigative contexts. For example, studies on rapport-building highlight its critical role in reducing anxiety and increasing cooperation. Techniques such as active listening, open-ended questioning, and displaying genuine curiosity foster an atmosphere where individuals are more likely to provide honest and detailed accounts. A 2010 study by Alison et al. on investigative interviewing emphasized that rapport-based approaches significantly enhance memory recall and information accuracy.
The role of nonverbal communication is another critical aspect of influence. According to research, nonverbal cues, such as facial expressions and body language, can have an impact on communication. Interviewers who maintain open and non-threatening body language create a sense of safety, encouraging interviewees to speak more freely.
Cognitive Interviewing (CI), an evidence-based method developed by Fisher and Geiselman in 1992, exemplifies the science of influence in practice. CI techniques, such as context reinstatement and focused retrieval, align with how memory works, making it easier for individuals to recall accurate details without feeling pressured. This method has been widely adopted in law enforcement and has been shown to yield up to 30% more accurate information than standard interviewing techniques.
Moreover, empathy and emotional intelligence play pivotal roles in the process of influence. A study published in the “Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology” in 2018 highlighted that empathetic approaches not only build trust but also lower resistance. Interviewees who perceive the interviewer as understanding and nonjudgmental are more likely to cooperate and provide truthful responses.
Similarly, the concept of shared values is a cornerstone of influence. When interviewers align their approach with the interviewee’s motivations or beliefs, they create a sense of partnership rather than opposition. This alignment not only enhances the quality of information gathered but also reduces the likelihood of adversarial interactions. If you believe that you can’t find shared values with the person you interview, you are likely in the wrong business.
Why Influence Outperforms Persuasion
One of the key advantages of influence is its potential for sustainable outcomes. When individuals feel internally motivated to share information, they are less likely to retract or alter their statements under external scrutiny. Conversely, persuasion can lead to temporary compliance, where individuals provide information to appease the interviewer but later challenge its validity.
For example, in law enforcement, an interviewer employing influence might build rapport by acknowledging the emotional toll of a situation and encouraging the interviewee to share their perspective. This approach fosters genuine dialogue, leading to accurate and reliable disclosures. In contrast, an overly persuasive approach might involve pressuring the interviewee, which could result in coerced or false statements.
Practical Applications in Investigative Interviewing
To integrate evidence-based techniques effectively, interviewers should:
- Prioritize Rapport-Building: Establish trust and a sense of safety to encourage open communication. If not invested or genuine, don’t even bother.
- Use Open-Ended Questions: Invite detailed narratives rather than yes-or-no responses, allowing for richer insights. Be curious, get the whole story.
- Demonstrate Empathy: Show genuine understanding and concern, which reduces defensiveness and builds connection. Again, don’t fake it until you make it.
- Leverage Shared Goals: Highlight common objectives to align motivations and foster collaboration. Be creative, we should be able to do this with anyone.
Adopting influence-based strategies in investigative interviewing aligns with evidence-based practices that prioritize trust, respect, and internal motivation. By focusing on building connections and fostering genuine dialogue, interviewers can achieve more reliable outcomes and create a foundation for sustainable truth-telling. Ultimately, this approach not only enhances the quality of the information gathered but also reinforces ethical standards in investigative work.
These evidence-based practices need to be incorporated in our interviewing approach. If you aren’t doing them, ask yourself what evidence do you have that your technique produces the desired effect? If your answer is “that’s the way I have always done it” that is a clue it might need to change. These changes are minor and can be accomplished by all, if you are willing. Training is essential. I can provide it or recommend providers teaching evidence-based techniques. Do your research, find the right provider, maximize your training dollar investment.
Anderson Investigative Associates is positioned to custom-tailor training to your specific needs. If you have any questions or would like to discuss the subject of influence vs. persuasion or any evidence-based techniques, or any training need, please reach out. Additional issues pertaining to interviewing, auditing, and investigations can be found in other blogs and videos that I have produced and are contained in most blocks of instruction that our company presents.
If you have additional questions, comments, or have an interview topic you would like me to address, give me a shout. In the meantime, be well, stay safe out there, and get to work on a self-assessment on what needs to change to optimize your interviewing approach. This work will improve your interviewing and communication skills, and not just in interviews but throughout your life. And I know who could help.
Mark A. Anderson
Director of Training and Development
Anderson Investigative Associates, llc
114 Loucks Avenue
Scottdale, PA 15683
manderson@andersoninvestigative.com
tel:912-571-6686