Last week I posted about the issue of trust and procedural justice. As I researched that topic it became clear of the inextricable connection between empathy and the procedural justice model. If you examine empathy, we again return to trust and credibility. So many of these concepts are imperative to be competent and ethical in our interviewing pursuits.
As in the last several articles, there are a couple of foundational thoughts to consider. What is our organizational mission? Are we in the interview to get the greatest quantity and quality of truthful information? If the number one reason interviewees tell us the truth is the confidence and credibility of the interviewer, what does neglecting to demonstrate empathy with the interviewee result in? The result is the antithesis of our organizational mission and goals.
Investigative interviews play a critical role in extracting accurate and reliable information from interviewees, whether in law enforcement, intelligence, or forensic investigations. A growing body of research suggests that applying procedural justice principles in these settings fosters strategic empathy, ultimately leading to enhanced cooperation, trust, and disclosure of information. By integrating procedural justice into science-based interviewing techniques, investigators can create an environment conducive to honest and open communication. The benefits clearly demonstrate the necessity of understanding and applying these principles.
Procedural Justice in Investigative Interviews
Procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of processes used to make decisions or take actions. In the context of investigative interviews, it encompasses four primary principles:
- Voice – Allowing the interviewee to express their perspective.
- Neutrality – Demonstrating unbiased decision-making and an impartial approach. Get those biases in check.
- Respect – Treating the interviewee with dignity and recognizing their rights.
- Trustworthiness – Ensuring transparency and sincerity in the process.
Applying these principles in interviews fosters an environment where the interviewee feels respected and understood, which can significantly impact their willingness to share information. There are so many things that can be done and said that would foster improved and more comprehensive results.
Strategic Empathy: A Psychological Advantage
Strategic empathy is the deliberate and genuine effort to understand and acknowledge the emotions, motivations, and perspectives of an interviewee to foster cooperation and encourage disclosure. Unlike mere emotional empathy, which focuses solely on feeling another person’s emotions, strategic empathy is purposeful and goal-driven, used to enhance the quality and reliability of the information gathered.
Strategic empathy is inextricably linked to procedural justice. When interviewees perceive fairness in the investigative process, they are more likely to feel psychologically safe and engage more openly. By demonstrating respect, neutrality, and transparency, an investigator builds trust and reduces resistance. This, in turn, aligns with science-based interviewing methods, such as the Cognitive Interview and rapport-based interrogation approaches, which emphasize non-coercive techniques to elicit reliable and complete information.
Research in psychology and behavioral science supports the effectiveness of strategic empathy. When an investigator validates an interviewee’s emotions and perspectives without necessarily agreeing with them, it lowers psychological barriers and increases cognitive ease—leading to a higher likelihood of truthful disclosure. This principle is observed in law enforcement, intelligence gathering, and even diplomatic negotiations, where understanding an individual’s perspective can serve as a crucial tool for obtaining cooperation and greater information sharing.
For example, when an investigator actively listens (voice) and refrains from judgment (neutrality), the interviewee may perceive the interaction as fair and feel more inclined to share useful information. This contrasts with coercive methods that often result in resistance, misleading, or even false statements.
The Science Behind Procedural Justice in Interviews
Recent research underscores the effectiveness of procedural justice in investigative settings. Studies have shown that suspects and witnesses who perceive an interview as fair are more likely to provide accurate information (Madsen, 2020). Additionally, using procedural justice techniques aligns with and supports the Cognitive Interview method, which encourages free recall and minimizes interviewer bias (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992).
In intelligence gathering, the Scharff Technique—a method based on building trust and allowing the subject to underestimate how much they are revealing—mirrors procedural justice principles by emphasizing respect and transparency (Granhag et al., 2016). By avoiding confrontational tactics, this technique helps extract reliable intelligence without creating resistance.
Real-World Applications
Consider a scenario where a law enforcement officer interviews a potential witness in a fraud investigation. Instead of pressing aggressively for details, the officer acknowledges the witness’s concerns (respect), explains why their cooperation is valuable (trustworthiness), and allows them to narrate events in their own words (voice). This approach often leads to more detailed and accurate testimonies compared to traditional accusatory methods which often shut down information sharing.
Similarly, in counterterrorism investigations, applying procedural justice principles helps build rapport with informants from different cultural backgrounds. By demonstrating neutrality and trustworthiness, investigators can overcome initial reluctance and obtain critical intelligence that might otherwise remain undisclosed.
Incorporating procedural justice principles in science-based investigative interviews enhances strategic empathy, leading to greater cooperation and more reliable information retrieval. As research continues to support the benefits of fair and respectful interview techniques, law enforcement and intelligence agencies should establish these methods over any use of coercive tactics. By fostering an atmosphere of fairness, investigators not only improve their chances of obtaining truthful disclosures but also uphold ethical standards in the justice system.
Science-based practices must be at the center of our interviewing approach. If you aren’t employing them, you should be. Ask yourself what proof do you have that supports your legacy techniques and the outcomes they produce? Is your approach maximizing the quality and quantity of truthful information obtained? The changes that are needed are fundamental and can be accomplished easily.
Training is essential, it is what moved me beyond my blind spots. (Still have some dots that I am working to rid myself of.) I can provide it or recommend providers teaching science-based techniques. Do your research, find the right provider, maximize your training dollar investment. Don’t get the same old legacy-based methods that have no empirical evidence supporting them. If you are in leadership, you have the same responsibility to apply these standards and find that content that maximizes your staff’s abilities.
Anderson Investigative Associates is positioned to custom-tailor training to your specific needs. If you have any questions or would like to discuss the issue of strategic empathy and its inextricable connection to procedural justice, 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, just let me know. In the meantime, be well, stay safe out there, and focus on building strategic empathy into all of your interviews. This mindset will improve your interviewing and communication skills, and not just in interviews but throughout your life. If you need help getting ready, I know who could help.
References
- Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
- Granhag, P. A., Vrij, A., & Verschuere, B. (2016). Detecting deception: Current challenges and cognitive approaches. Wiley.
- Madsen, J. (2020). “The Role of Procedural Justice in Investigative Interviews.” Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 17(2), 150-165.
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
