Meta-Psychology, 2022, vol 6, MP.2021.2808 https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2021.2808 Article type: Original Article Published under the CC-BY4.0 license Open data: Yes Open materials: Yes Open and reproducible analysis: Yes Open reviews and editorial process: Yes Preregistration: Yes Edited by: Rickard Carlsson Reviewed by: Streamlined peer-review Analysis reproduced by: Lucija Batinović All supplementary files can be accessed at OSF: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GX3BK The Use of the Term Rapport in the Investigative Interviewing Literature: A Critical Examination of Definitions David A. Neequaye University of Gothenburg Erik Mac Giolla University of Gothenburg Abstract Researchers typically note that there is much divergence about how rapport is defined in the investigative inter- viewing literature. We examined the scope of this divergence, the commonalities of extant definitions, and how the current state of affairs impacts the scientific investigation of rapport. We obtained 228 publications that discussed rapport in an investigative interviewing context. Only Thirty-two publications (14 %) explicitly defined rapport. Twenty-two of those definitions were unique. All of the definitions implied that rapport centers on the quality of the interviewer-interviewee interaction. However, the definitions ascribed different attributes when describing more specifically how rapport relates to the quality of interpersonal interactions. A thematic analysis revealed six major attributes by which rapport could be characterized. The attributes were communication, mutuality, positivity, respect, successful outcomes, and trust. These attributes were disparately distributed across the definitions. Based on the considerable disparity in its definitions, we question the theoretical and practical value of the term rapport. The current situation creates ambiguity about the meaning of rapport and impedes its objective assessment. To avoid further ambiguity, we believe the field must collectively determine a finite set of attributes to denote the term rapport. Until those attributes are determined, stakeholders should stop indiscriminately using the word rapport to describe any collection of attributes of the interviewer-interviewee interaction. Keywords: definitions, rapport, investigative interviewing, source, suspect, victim, witness A critical examination of rapport “Before we inquire into origins and functional rela- tions, it is necessary to know the thing we are trying to explain (Asch, 1952, reprinted in 1987)" This work examines the use of the term rapport in the extant investigative interviewing literature. Here, an investigative interview refers to a social interaction in which human interviewers solicit information from human sources (i.e., interviewees) for security reasons or legal purposes. It is generally accepted that rap- port is important for conducting successful—that is, eth- ical and effective—1interviews (e.g.,Vrij et al., 2017). However, existing literature reviews note that there is much divergence about how rapport is defined (Abbe & Brandon, 2013, 2014; Gabbert et al., 2020 2; Val- 1Effective denotes the interviewer achieving the goals of the interview. https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2021.2808 https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GX3BK 2 lano, Schreiber Compo, 2015; Vanderhallen & Ver- vaeke, 2014). Our aim is to systematically explore the extent of such variance, the commonalities shared by extant definitions, and how this state of affairs may in- fluence the scientific investigation of rapport. The Value of Rapport The extant investigative interviewing literature uni- vocally suggests that rapport is a critical component of successful interviewing. For example, the impor- tance of rapport has been described in the following ways: “a necessary condition for a successful interview” (Abbe & Brandon, 2013, p. 241); “the cornerstone of any attempt to elicit information from an uncooperative source” (Kelly et al., 2013, p.169); and “the heart of a good interview” (St-Yves, 2006, p. 92). Moreover, re- searchers credit the successful inclusion of rapport in an interview with benefits such as the following: children’s plentiful and accurate disclosures of details about sex- ual abuse (e.g., Hershkowitz et al., 2015; Sternberg et al., 1997); adult witnesses’ improved recall and cooper- ativeness (e.g., Collins et al., 2002; Kieckhaefer et al., 2014; Nash et al., 2016; Duke et al., 2018 ); and crime suspects’ tendency to engage with interviewers and dis- close information (e.g., Alison et al., 2014; Alison et al., 2013; Kelly et al., 2016; Walsh & Bull, 2012). In light of these advantages, the excellence of in- vestigative interviews in the field (as opposed to lab- oratory experiments) are often judged, in part, by the extent to which interviewers are able to establish rap- port in an interview (see, e.g., Clarke & Milne, 2001; Schreiber Compo et al., 2012). Major interviewing reg- ulations recommend that interviewers build and main- tain rapport with interviewees throughout interviews. These regulations include the PEACE model2 (see, e.g., Bull & Milne, 2004; College of policing, 2013), and the Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) guidelines (Home Office, 2011)—commonly implemented in the United Kingdom; The Cognitive Interview (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992); the National Institute of Child Health and Hu- man Development protocol (NICHD; Lamb et al., 2007), and the Army Field Manual (AFM 2-22.3; Department of the Army, 2006)—commonly applied in the United States. Problems in Defining Rapport Although stakeholders endorse rapport univocally, there seems to be uncertainty about what rapport en- tails or should entail. For example, Abbe and Brandon (2014, p. 207) note that the extent to which rapport has a similar meaning across different countries and in- terviewing contexts is unclear. Vallano and Schreiber Compo (2015, p. 86) mention that the existing work is unable to provide a clear and consistent definition of rapport. Vanderhallen and Vervaeke (2014, p.77) note that the term rapport is conceptually weak in the litera- ture. Saywitz et al., 2015, p. 383) found that research has not defined the critical elements of rapport clearly. Sauerland and colleagues (2018, p. 269) write that def- initions (and operationalizations) of rapport are vague and varying. Typically, defining a construct is a pre-requisite to its operationalizing and analysis. Inadequate defini- tions and operationalizations obstruct the measurement of a construct, obscuring the inferences one can draw (Shadish et al., 2002). In any body of work, a reference point that defines the fundamental aspects of a con- struct is central to measuring the construct coherently and comprehensibly. Kripke’s (1972) work on reference-fixing in stipula- tive definitions further highlights the importance of es- tablishing definitions with a common reference point. Kripke describes a peculiar type of stipulative definition whereby one introduces a term (e.g., a name) using a description that tells the audience what the speaker is referring to by the term. For example, Joanne Rowling (i.e., the term) is the author of the Harry Potter nov- els (i.e., the description). In the current example, the speaker’s description is not synonymous with Joanne Rowling. The description fixes a reference indicating what the speaker means when saying, Joanne Rowling. The reference, in the pertinent aspects, is now univocal and clarifies what the speaker is saying. However, such reference-fixing, according to Kripke, is also contingent, pending further insight that may lead to revising the reference. For example, Joanne Rowling is the author of the Harry Potter and Fantastic Beasts novels. A term like Joanne Rowling is rigid; the name Joanne Rowling is always the name Joanne Rowling. Con- versely, fixing the term’s (i.e., the name’s) reference can be non-rigid. One can describe Joanne Rowling in many different ways (see also Gupta, 2015 on Kripke, 1972). Problems with reference-fixing arise when users of the same rigid designator, use the term without sufficiently explaining how their use builds on or relates to previous uses. Such an explanation is required so that Joanne Rowling, author of the Harry Potter and Fantastic Beasts novels, is not confused with another, identically named Joanne Rowling—who happens to work at a chocolate factory. In order for two people to have an unambigu- 2PEACE is an acronym representing the following five in- terview stages. Planning and preparation; Engaging and ex- plaining; asking an interviewees’ Account of events; Closure; and Evaluation. Walsh and Bull (WALSH2015) mention that Australia, Canada, and New Zealand also adopt the PEACE model. 3 ous conversation about Joanne Rowling, they must be referring to the same person. Applying Kripke’s musings to rapport definitions, we can infer that across the investigative interviewing liter- ature, the term rapport is a rigid designator. However, as mentioned, there is great uncertainty about how the reference for the term rapport is fixed. This reference- fixing issue creates ambiguity about the meaning of rap- port across the literature. For two people to have an in- telligible conversation about Joanne Rowling, they need to know that they are referring to the same person. Sim- ilarly, to systematically research the construct rapport, researchers need to know that they are referring to the same construct. Ideally, this would require some univo- cal baseline description, or reference point, of rapport in investigative interviewing contexts. By reviewing the extant definitions of rapport, we hoped to identify such a reference point. Method Search Strategy. We aimed to gather a comprehen- sive list of definitions of the term rapport within the aca- demic literature (in English) on investigative interview- ing. A literature search was carried out on the PsycINFO database. The primary search word was Rapport, which was combined with terms specifying the field of inves- tigative interviewing. We searched full texts, not just abstracts or keywords, to allow us flag any literature that fits the scope of the review. That is, literatures that examine rapport as a main and/or secondary investiga- tion within the investigative interviewing context. The formal search strategy was: “Rapport” AND “Investigative interview*” OR “Suspect*” OR “Eyewit- ness*” OR “Police” OR “Interrogation” OR “Cognitive interview” OR “PEACE model” OR “Intelligence gather- ing” OR “NICHD” We complemented the formal search strategy with an informal search of relevant review articles, official doc- uments, and publication lists of key researchers in the field. We preregistered the parameters of our review here: https://osf.io/5zha3/ Identification of Definitions. We reviewed the se- lected literature to identify the extant unique defini- tions of rapport by examining each publication’s entire text. The first criterion for determining definitions was the authors’ explicit, or sufficiently clear, indication that by a certain sentence, or parts of the sentence, they are bringing a reader to know the meaning they (i.e., the authors) have assigned to the term rapport. Using this rule, we extracted as definitions the predicates of sentences whose subjects resemble the following forms. Rapport is defined as, refers to, indicates, regarded as, conceptualized as, described as something—and some- thing is the predicate. In some cases, the word rap- port was not necessarily the subject of a sentence from which we identified a potential definition. Here, we de- termined the authors’ intention to provide such a rap- port definition from the immediately surrounding dis- cussion. The second criterion for identifying definitions was the possibility to fully decipher the meaning of rap- port the authors intend from the text provided. Thus, we disregarded potential definitions whereby authors describe the nature of rapport by referring to anecdotes about a particular investigative interview whose content cannot be verified thoroughly or objectively. Thematic Analysis We thematically analyzed the definitions following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) recommendations. We be- gan by familiarizing ourselves with the definitions and followed this with an initial coding phase where codes closely represented the data. Based on these initial codes, we created broader and more interpretative at- tributes of the definitions. These broader attributes were then compared to the initial codes for fit and al- tered accordingly. Figure 1 illustrates the attributes in the specific definitions. For a detailed explanation of how each code relates to each definition, see the sup- plemental figure (https://osf.io/qxw2r/). We strongly encourage a reading of the supplemental figure as it demonstrates the intricacies of the thematic analysis. Overview. The search obtained 228 relevant pub- lications, and we analyzed all the articles; none were excluded. Approximately 86 % of these publications did not provide a definition of rapport. That is, authors in- voked the term without any clear definition or without explaining in detail how the current invocation is con- sistent or different from prior uses of rapport. An in- evitable consequence of this finding is that this article’s reference list does not contain publications that did not define rapport. One can find a comprehensive reference list at the following link: https://osf.io/5zha3/ Of the 32 publications that defined rapport, we iden- tified 22 unique definitions. Six of the definitions were proxied by the authors from other sources but met our inclusion criteria. Thematic analysis of the 22 defini- tions uncovered one overarching reference point and six subordinate attributes of rapport. The overarch- ing reference point was that all definitions referred in some way to the quality of the interviewer-interviewee interpersonal interaction. However, the six subordinate attributes showed considerable variance across defini- tions. No single attribute was common to all the def- initions. Table 1 includes a detailed list of all the def- initions and a chart of the corresponding attributes. The table provides a quick snapshot of the variance in https://osf.io/5zha3/ https://osf.io/qxw2r/ https://osf.io/5zha3/ 4 attributes. The most common attribute was “positiv- ity”—that rapport implies a positive interaction—was mentioned in approximately 68 % of definitions. The remaining attributes were mentioned in less than 40 % of definitions. This finding suggests that there is con- siderable variance in how rapport is defined in the in- vestigative interviewing literature, with the caveat that most propose that rapport in part refers to a positively valenced interaction. The subsequent paragraphs de- scribe each main attribute in turn. Positivity. This attribute captured definitions, which held that rapport implied a positive interpersonal inter- action. That is, an interaction, which an interviewer or interviewee might consider desirable. This categoriza- tion included definitions that invoked concepts such as a working relationship, warmth, and harmony. Addition- ally, the positivity attribute captured definitions advo- cating that to induce rapport an interviewer should dis- play behaviors that would increase an interviewee’s pos- itive perceptions of the interaction. These behaviors in- clude expressing sympathy, interest in the interviewee’s welfare, and acceptance of the interviewee. Fifteen of the twenty-two definitions included positivity. Mutuality. This attribute captured definitions con- taining a focus on the shared characteristics between the interviewer and interviewee. This designation, thus, includes mentions such as shared understanding, shared attention, common ground, and communicative alliance. Mutuality was a component of nine of the twenty-two definitions. Communication. This attribute captures definitions that emphasize the role of communication in facilitat- ing rapport. Furthermore, we assigned this attribute to definitions, indicating that interviewers should be gen- uine in their dealings with an interviewee. Seven of the twenty-two definitions included the attribute of commu- nication. Successful Outcomes. This attribute captures defi- nitions where rapport comprises a successful interview. Such success stipulations include increasing the inter- viewee’s cooperation, willingness to talk, as well as the productivity or amount of intelligence (viz., informa- tion) obtained from the interaction. Successful out- comes were included in seven of twenty-two definitions. Trust. This attribute captures definitions that explic- itly mention that trust is a component of rapport. Ad- ditionally, we assigned this attribute to definitions that emphasize that rapport should increase an interviewee’s confidence in an interviewer. Trust was a component of five of the twenty-two definitions. Respect. This attribute captures definitions, which explicitly mention that respect is a component of rap- port. Also, we include definitions mentioning that in- ducing rapport consists of emphasizing an interviewees’ autonomy through an unforced interaction. Two of the twenty-two definitions included the attribute of respect. Reliability Analysis. We subjected the thematic analysis to a reliability check. A coder was assigned to independently replicate our thematic analysis using the descriptions of the six attributes. Specifically, the coder, who was blind to the research question, rated the presence or absence of the six attributes in each of the 22 definitions. We subsequently examined the con- sistency between the coder’s ratings and the results of our thematic analysis. There was a 91.7 % agreement between the coder’s rating and our own, k = .81, SE = .06, 95 % CI [.70, .92]. The most consistent minor disagreement arose when some attributes of a definition appeared in an adjective qualifying a noun. An exam- ple is a definition including the phrase mutual respect. Here, the coder designated the attribute denoted by the noun only (i.e., respect). But we assigned the attribute denoted by both the adjective and the noun (i.e., mutu- ality and respect). The reliability analysis coding can be accessed here: https://osf.io/5zha3/ Influential Descriptions of Rapport Without Ex- plicit Definitions. There were some noteworthy de- scriptions of the meaning of rapport that featured in the literature but did not necessarily fit our inclusion criteria. This section, thus, focuses on describing influ- ential lines of rapport research that do not provide an explicit definition of the term. Unlike the examinations that hardly offered definitions, these expositions explain what rapport means in various ways, but we could not delineate the exact definitions of rapport the authors intended. The Observing Rapport-Based Interpersonal Tech- niques (ORBIT) framework is a notable example (see, e.g., Alison et al., 2013; Alison et al., 2014; Christiansen et al., 2018). Here, the researchers suggest that Moti- vational Interviewing is a useful tool to evoke rapport. Miller and Rollnick (2009), for example, define Moti- vational Interviewing (MI) as a collaborative, person- centered form of guiding to elicit and strengthen mo- tivation for change. Exponents of the ORBIT frame- work seem to interpret the MI definition as one sug- gesting that rapport means ‘creating a collaborative at- mosphere’. That is, an interaction conducive to open communication between an interviewer and intervie- wee (see Alison et al., 2013, p. 413; Alison et al., 2014, p. 2). Nonetheless, it was unclear whether the OR- BIT framework implements the interpretation of MI, just described, as a rapport definition. Or the framework adopts the exact MI definition; namely, the definition by Miller and Rollnick (2009). Other research has implemented the concept—the https://osf.io/5zha3/ 5 T ab le 1 D ef in it io ns o f r ap po rt in t he in ve st ig at iv e in te rv ie w in g lit er at ur e an d th ei r co rr es po nd in g at tr ib ut es A tt ri bu te s D ef in iti on So ur ce Pr ox ie d so ur ce Po si tiv ity M ut ua lit y C om m un ic at io n Su cc es sf ul O ut co m es Tr us t Re sp ec t A w or ki ng re la tio ns hi p be tw ee n op er at or [a n in te rv ie w er ] a nd so ur ce [a n in te rv ie w ee ] b as ed o n a m ut ua lly sh ar ed u nd er st an di ng o f e ac h ot he r’s g oa ls an d ne ed s t ha t c an le ad to su cc es sf ul a ct io na bl e in te lli ge nc e or in fo rm at io n. Ke lly , M ill er , R ed lic h, & K le in m an (2 01 3) ; R ed lic h, K el ly , & M ill er (2 01 4) ; M ei ss ne r, Su rm on -B öh r, O le sz ki ew ic z, & A lis on , 2 01 7 N o X X X A sh ar ed u nd er st an di ng a nd c om m un ic at io n be tw ee n th e in te rv ie w er a nd in te rv ie w ee . Ri sa n, B in de r, & M iln e (2 01 6) N o X X A w or ki ng re la tio ns hi p in w hi ch p ro gr es s i s m ad e, th e in te rv ie w ee si m pl y be in g w ill in g to ta lk , t he de ve lo pm en t o f t ru st , a nd m ut ua l r es pe ct . Ru ss an o, N ar ch et , K le in m an , & M ei ss ne r ( 20 14 ) D er iv ed fr om a sy nt he si s o f pr ac tit io ne rs ' d ef in iti on s X X X X X Th e re la tio ns hi p be tw ee n [a n] in te rv ie w er a nd in te rv ie w ee . Va lla no & S ch re ib er C om po (2 01 5) N o A p os iti ve o r n eg at iv e re la tio ns hi p in vo lv in g tr us t an d co m m un ic at io n. Va lla no , E va ns , S ch re ib er C om po , & K ie ck ha ef er (2 01 5) D er iv ed fr om a sy nt he si s o f pr ac tit io ne rs ' d ef in iti on s X X X Th e bo nd o r c on ne ct io n be tw ee n an in ve st ig at iv e in te rv ie w er a nd in te rv ie w ee . Va lla no , E va ns , S ch re ib er C om po , & K ie ck ha ef er (2 01 5) N o X A re la tio ns hi p th at re su lts fr om in te ra ct io n be tw ee n pe op le a nd p ro vi de s p ar tic ip an ts w ith a w ar m fe el in g, is h ar m on io us a nd n at ur al (u nf or ce d) , o ffe rs tr us t, an d st im ul at es c oo pe ra tio n. Va nd er ha lle n, V er va ek e, & H ol m be rg (2 01 1) N o X X X X A p os iti ve a nd p ro du ct iv e af fe ct b et w ee n pe op le th at fa ci lit at es m ut ua lit y of a tte nt io n an d ha rm on y. Vr ij et a l. (2 01 7) ; W al sh & B ul l ( 20 12 ) Be rn ie ri & G ill is (2 00 1) , w ho so ur ce d th ei r d ef in iti on fr om th e Co nc is e O xf or d D ic tio na ry (1 99 5) X X X En su rin g a w or ki ng re la tio ns hi p an d ef fe ct iv e co m m un ic at io n th ro ug ho ut a n in te rv ie w . W al sh & B ul l ( 20 15 ) N o X X D ev el op in g a ha rm on io us re la tio ns hi p w ith a no th er pe rs on a nd c on ve yi ng u nd er st an di ng a nd ac ce pt an ce to w ar ds th at p er so n. W rig ht , N as h, & W ad e (2 01 5) N o X X A h ar m on io us , s ym pa th et ic c on ne ct io n to a no th er . Ch ild s & W al sh (2 01 7) ; C ol lin s, Li nc ol n & F ra nk (2 00 2) ; K ie ck ha ef er & W rig ht (2 01 5) ; K ie ck ha ef er , V al la no , & S ch re ib er C om po (2 01 4) ; V al la no & Sc hr ei be r C om po (2 01 1) ; V ill al ba (2 01 4) ; N as h, N as h, M or ris , & S m ith (2 01 6) N ew be rr y & S tu bb s ( 19 90 ) X D ev el op in g a po si tiv e re la tio ns hi p w ith o th er s u si ng an in vi tin g ap pr oa ch . Kl ei n, K le in , L an de , B or de rs , & W hi ta cr e (2 01 5) N o X 6 Th e pr oc es s o f e st ab lis hi ng a h ar m on io us a nd pr od uc tiv e w or ki ng re la tio ns hi p be tw ee n an in te rv ie w er a nd in te rv ie w ee . M ac D on al d, K ee pi ng , S no ok , & L ut he r ( 20 17 ) N o X X Th e qu al ity o f a n in te ra ct io n th at a llo w s i nd iv id ua ls to c om m un ic at e ef fe ct iv el y. M at su m ot o & H w an g (2 01 8) N o X A sm oo th a nd p os iti ve in te rp er so na l i nt er ac tio n. A bb e & B ra nd on (2 01 4) N o X X A st at e of c om m un ic at iv e al lia nc e. A bb e & B ra nd on (2 01 3) N o X X Th e in te rp er so na l r el at io ns hi p or c on ne ct io n be tw ee n [a n] in te rv ie w er a nd in te rv ie w ee es ta bl is he d ov er th e co ur se o f t he ir in te ra ct io n. A lis on & A lis on (2 01 7) N o X Th e es ta bl is hm en t o f a re la tio ns hi p in w hi ch th e pe op le in vo lv ed in th e in te ra ct io n un de rs ta nd e ac h ot he r a nd h av e go od c om m un ic at io n. Co lli ns , D oh er ty -S ne dd on , & D oh er ty (2 01 4) Th e au th or s c re di t B er ni er i ( 20 05 ). N on et he le ss , w e co ul d no t a sc er ta in th e ex ac t d ef in iti on fr om th e pa pe r b y Be rn ie ri (2 00 5) . T hu s, w e ha ve in cl ud ed it as a u ni qu e de fin iti on . X X A p sy ch ol og ic al st at e in w hi ch so ci al d is ta nc e is re du ce d an d tr us t i nc re as ed [t hr ou gh th e es ta bl is hm en t o f s ha re d to pi cs , i nt er es t, ba ck gr ou nd , an d ot he r f ac to rs ]. D av id , R aw ls, & T ra in um (2 01 8) N o X X A h ar m on io us , p os iti ve , a nd p ro du ct iv e re la tio ns hi p be tw ee n an in te rv ie w er a nd in te rv ie w ee . Ew en s e t a l., (2 01 6) Th e au th or s c re di t t he fo llo w in g so ur ce s (E va ns , H ou st on , & M ei ss ne r, 20 12 ; W al sh & B ul l, 20 12 ). Th e de fin iti on is n ot e xa ct ly id en tic al to th at m en tio ne d in W al sh & B ul l ( 20 12 ). Ev an s e t a l. (2 01 2) d o no t p ro vi de a ra pp or t d ef in iti on . X X Be in g ge nu in el y op en , i nt er es te d, a nd a pp ro ac ha bl e, as w el l a s b ei ng in te re st ed in th e in te rv ie w ee ’s fe el in gs o r w el fa re . Co lle ge o f p ol ic in g, U ni te d Ki ng do m (2 01 9) N o X X A c on di tio n es ta bl is he d by th e H U M IN T co lle ct or [i. e. , i nt er vi ew er ] t ha t i s c ha ra ct er iz ed b y so ur ce [i. e. , i nt er vi ew ee ] c on fid en ce in th e H U M IN T co lle ct or a nd a w ill in gn es s t o co op er at e w ith h im . A FM 2 -2 2. 3, D ep ar tm en t o f t he A rm y, U ni te d St at es (2 00 6) N o X X 7 Figure 1. Overview of attributes inherent in the rapport definitions working alliance3—to proxy rapport. Similar to MI, the concept originates in the counseling and therapy liter- ature (see, e.g., Bordin, 1979; Martin et al., 2000). We could not trace a specified definition of the work- ing alliance in the investigative interviewing literature drawing on the concept (viz., Vanderhallen, Vervaeke, & Holmberg, 2011; Vanderhallen & Vervaeke, 2014). Bordin (1979)—whose work has informed the current adaptions of the notion—describes the nature of the working alliance as including three features: ‘An agree- ment on goals, an assignment of a task or a series of tasks, and the development of bonds.’ Vanderhallen et al. (2011, p. 114) argue that Bordin’s (1979) description emphasizes agreement and an emotional bond between an interviewer and interviewee (i.e., interactants). The authors do not explicate the role task assignment plays to evoke rapport in investigative interviewing contexts. Thus, we could not ascertain precisely how Bordin’s (1979) stipulations map onto the meaning of rapport, as advocated by Vanderhallen et al. (2011) and Vander- hallen & Vervaeke (2014). That is, are certain aspects of the working alliance enough to evoke rapport? Or must an interaction include all the three features of the working alliance to sufficiently induce rapport. Another popularly implemented description of ele- ments that constitute rapport is one offered by Tickle- Degnen and Rosenthal (1990). The work examines the nonverbal correlates of rapport. Here, the au- thors do not explicitly offer a rapport definition but de- scribe its nature as consisting of three dynamic compo- nents—mutual attentiveness, positivity, and coordina- tion (Tickle-Degnen & Rosenthal, 1990). It is noted that the influence of the three components may vary in evok- ing an instance of rapport due to rapport’s dynamism in interpersonal interaction. Tickle-Degnen and Rosen- thal (1990) propose that the temporal stage of interac- tion significantly contributes to a constituent’s import. Specifically, early interactions rely more on positivity and mutual attentiveness. Coordination and mutual at- tentiveness come to bear on late interactions. It is thus unclear whether—at a minimum—the three elements are required to instantiate rapport. Or the influence of a component entirely depends on the stage of interaction. Investigative interviewing research drawing on Tickle-Degnen and Rosenthal’s (1990) theorizing sim- ilarly do not explicitly define rapport (see, e.g., Collins & Carthy, 2018; Driskell et al., 2013; Holmberg & Mad- sen, 2014). Moreover, such work provides little a pri- ori specifications about whether the three elements are required at a minimum or whether the significance of rapport’s elements is solely derived from the temporal stage of an interview. Duke et al. (2018) have developed scales to mea- sure interviewees’ perceptions of rapport (RS3i). The RS3i examines the extent to which an interviewee ex- periences rapport in an interview by measuring specific perceptions of an interviewer. That is, the interviewer’s attentiveness, trustworthiness and respectfulness, pro- fessional competence, cultural similarity (to the inter- viewee), and connected flow. Here, connected flow in- dicates the ease with which the interviewee perceived their interaction with the interviewer. These percep- tions were drawn from a literature review that sought to identify the components of rapport (see Duke, 2013; Duke et al., 2018, p. 65). In the exposition, Duke et al. (2018) allude to two prior descriptions of rap- 3We have maintained the phrasing—the working al- liance—throughout this paper because exponents of the con- cept describe it as such. 8 port (viz, Kleinman, 2006; Neuman & Salinas-Serrano, 2006). However, the authors do not offer a working definition nor explain how the prior descriptions they mentioned, encapsulate the dimensions of the RS3i. For instance, it is not entirely clear whether inducing a sin- gle dimension of the RS3i (e.g., attentiveness) is suffi- cient to create an instance of rapport—or whether all the elements must be present to evoke rapport Discussion We examined the existing definitions of rapport in the investigative interviewing literature. A formal search obtained 228 publications that discussed rapport in an investigative interviewing context. Only Thirty-two publications (14 %) explicitly defined rapport. Twenty- two of those definitions were unique. A thematic anal- ysis of the definitions revealed six major attributes. The attributes were communication, mutuality, positiv- ity, respect, successful outcomes, and trust. However, these attributes were disparately distributed across def- initions, demonstrating considerable differences in how rapport is defined. This pattern has created a literature replete with different definitions of a term univocally seen as a fundamental part of an effective interview. Consider the following examples. It is not apparent whether the “mutually shared understanding of goals and needs” on which Kelly et al. (2013) base their defi- nition is equivalent to “effective communication” as pro- posed by Matsumoto and Hwang (2018). Additionally, it is not clear if “the relationship” Vallano and Schreiber Compo (2015) refer to is one where actors can under- stand each other’s goals (Kelly et al., 2013), communi- cate effectively (Matsumoto & Hwang, 2018), or both (Kelly et al., 2013; Matsumoto & Hwang, 2018). More- over, it remains unknown the extent to which “a state of communicative alliance” (Abbe & Brandon, 2013) equals a “smooth, positive interpersonal interaction” (Abbe & Brandon, 2014). And it is unclear whether such a positive interpersonal interaction must include trust (e.g., Vallano et al., 2015), respect (e.g., Vander- hallen et al., 2011), or both (e.g., Russano et al., 2014). The ambiguity about the meaning of rapport is also evident when considering definitions posited by the ma- jor investigative interviewing guidelines. We believe that discussing the variance between those guidelines is warranted for practical reasons. Furthermore, re- searchers often invoke the importance of rapport by not- ing that at least one of the major interviewing guide- lines endorses it. Researchers do not necessarily exam- ine whether potential differences in the meanings of rapport impact the generalizability of research across jurisdictions using the different regulations (see, e.g., Meissner et al., 2015; Walsh & Bull, 2012, Vallano & Schreiber Compo, 2015). In our opinion, the reasons outlined suggest that even when research works high- light subtle definitional differences, rapport is still as- sumed to be identical across the major interviewing guidelines. Significant variations, however, exist. According to the AFM, rapport is a condition estab- lished by an interviewer that is characterized by an interviewee’s confidence in the interviewer and will- ingness to cooperate (AFM 2-22.3; Department of the Army, 2006, p. 141). The definition includes the themes trust and successful outcomes as delineated in this re- search. This AFM definition is markedly different from the one posited in the PEACE model. PEACE describes rapport as a property of the interviewer being ‘genuinely open, interested, and approachable, as well as being in- terested in the interviewee’s feelings or welfare’ (Col- lege of policing, 2013). The PEACE model definition centers on the themes of positivity and communication. From the AFM perspective, rapport does not necessarily derive from congeniality (viz., positivity) as suggested by the PEACE model. In fact, the AFM indicates that rapport could be based on friendliness, mutual gain, or even fear (p. 141). To our knowledge, the Cognitive Interview, the NICHD Protocol, and the ABE guidelines do not provide specific rapport definitions but recom- mend behaviors by which interviewers can create rap- port. Without specified definitions, it is not possible to examine the meanings and value of rapport for these guidelines. It is not possible to ascertain whether one behavior is sufficient to induce rapport. Or whether an interviewer has to enact several behaviors to induce rap- port. How Did We Get Here? Definitional issues plague the systematic research of the term rapport. We believe these definitional issues have arisen because researchers have attempted to de- fine rapport at the wrong level of analysis. The extant definitions have defined rapport by its potential con- stituent parts—such as trust, friendliness, or respect. In contrast, we argue that rapport is a higher order concept, and as such requires a higher order defini- tion. A proposal for this higher order definition can be gleaned from the common reference point we identified on which all extant rapport definitions build. Specifi- cally, that rapport refers to the quality of the interviewer- interviewee interaction. This reference point suggests that the term rapport is axiomatic: since all interviews require interpersonal interaction, rapport refers to a necessary and self-evident aspect of any investigative interview. Confusion on the definition of rapport has arisen because when defining the term researchers have focused on different aspects of the quality of this inter- 9 action. A comparison can be made with the term “person- ality” within trait psychology. Like rapport, personal- ity is a higher order term: It refers to one’s relatively stable pattern of behaviors, cognitions, and emotions (Cloninger, 2009). How many traits there are and how they relate to each other is an empirical question. Im- portantly, whether one believes there are three (Eyesnck & Eysenck, 1984), five (Goldberg, 1990), or six traits (Ashton et al. 2004), does not change the definition of personality as one’s relatively stable pattern of behav- iors, cognitions, and emotions. Similarly, whether one believes the important attributes of rapport are friendli- ness, trust, or respect, does not change the higher order definition of rapport as the quality of the interviewer- interviewee interaction. As with personality, what con- stitutes the attributes of rapport, is an empirical ques- tion. It may be that the attributes of rapport are the six subordinate attributes we identified. It may be that there is only one overarching good-bad dimension of rapport. We do not know. An answer to this question will require rigorous empirical analysis. This distinction between the higher order axiomatic definition of rapport and the lower order attributes of rapport has important consequences for how we re- search and discuss the term. For instance, by defining rapport as the quality of the interviewer-interviewee in- teraction, many catchall statements invoking the impor- tance of rapport become tautological or vacuous. Con- sider the statement “rapport is important for the out- come of an interview”. This amounts to little more than saying, “the quality of the interaction between inter- viewer and interviewee is important for the outcome of an interview”. All things being equal, surely this must be the case. Such statements are of little interest to either the researcher or practitioner. Instead, researchers should focus on the specific at- tributes of the interviewer-interviewee interaction. Con- sider for instance the hypothetical finding that a more trustful and respectful interaction increases an intervie- wee’s disclosure. This finding is of both theoretical and applied value. However, the value of this finding is lost if the terms trust and respect are replaced by the umbrella term rapport. This is because the field has no agreed upon finite set of attributes of what rapport encapsulates. As long as researchers continue to de- fine the attributes of rapport in different ways, claim- ing that “rapport increases an interviewee’s disclosure” could mean any number of things. Until the field can agree upon such a finite set of attributes, we strongly recommend that stakeholders stop indiscriminately us- ing the word rapport to describe any collection of at- tributes of the interviewer-interviewee interaction. Moving Forward If the field wishes to continue using the term rapport without the ambiguity and associated problems we cur- rently see, the field must collectively determine this fi- nite set of attributes. Here the field can draw inspiration from other areas of inquiry that have dealt with similar concerns. Again, we can draw inspiration from trait psy- chology. Early assessments of personality traits included scales that all nominally measured personality—but, in fact, measured different attributes of personality (John & Srivastava, 1999). Personality researchers eventually reached a consensus by centering their pursuit on their common ground—the lexical hypothesis. That is, the idea that descriptions of significant entities, such as per- sonality, eventually become part of people’s language (Ashton & Lee, 2005). In brief, by scouring dictionaries, personality re- searchers identified comprehensive lists of adjectives describing traits. Insofar as only significant entities will enter our language, they argued that these lists should comprise all meaningful ways in which personality can be described. For over five decades, these lists were sub- jected to rigorous analysis by the research community (Allport & Odbert, 1936; Goldberg, 1990). In broad strokes, they had people rate themselves and others on these trait adjectives. Goldberg (1990), for example, had people make ratings on a list of over 1400 adjec- tives. By subjecting these ratings to exploratory factor analyses, the underlying structure of personality could be uncovered. These efforts ultimately yielded the Big Five personality structure (McCrae, 1989). An adapted lexical approach may also be applicable in investigating the attributes of rapport as defined as the quality of the interaction between an interviewer and interviewee. In this work, we have provided an ex- haustive list of the extant rapport definitions. This list can serve as a point of departure. That is, researchers can complement the current list of definitions with ad- ditional descriptors of the quality of interpersonal inter- actions. The ultimate goal of the compilation being to identify all meaningful ways in which such interactions can be described. Similar to research on the structure of personality, these lists can then be used to rate the quality of interpersonal interactions in investigative in- terviews. Such ratings can be conducted by the inter- viewer, the interviewee, or even by external observers. Researchers can then use factor analyses to empirically determine the constituent components and underlying structure of what the field wants to call rapport. A project of this scale will likely require collaboration at the level of the research community—for example, a multi-lab study. The collaboration must involve practi- tioners and experts in the field. The potential rewards 10 are vast, as the field will take a large stride toward an- swering the question, “what is rapport in investigative interviewing?”. Metascientific Discussion: Comments and Responses Since our first submission, we have received eight independent reviews, from two different journals, on this text. Some were positive of the paper; others were highly critical of its value and conclusions. All of the reviews can be read at https://osf.io/5zha3/. In the fol- lowing sections we summarize and respond to what we see as the most substantive criticisms of the paper. A Sermon to the Choir? Several reviewers dis- missed this work, arguing that it simply rehashes a well-known issue—namely that rapport is ill defined in the investigative interviewing literature. Consequently, this research is merely convincing the convinced. We partly agree, in that many do acknowledge significant problems in defining rapport (e.g., Vallano & Schreiber Compo, 2015). However, we believe these observa- tions only emphasize the importance of the present re- search. By systematically reviewing all extant rapport definitions in investigative interviewing, we quantify, and clearly highlight, the extent of the issue. We believe this is a necessary first step to initiate a public discussion by the research community on how the term rapport is defined, should be defined, and used as a psychologi- cal concept. Making the issue an open discussion will prevent us from glossing over definitional issues, as is typically the case in the literature. Indeed, in 86% of the articles we reviewed, the term rapport was used, but was not explicitly defined at all. Defining Psychological Concepts is Challeng- ing—Why Pick on Rapport? Some reviewers high- lighted that psychological constructs are generally dif- ficult to define concisely. They argued that our def- initional gripe with rapport could be raised with any number of psychological constructs including “anxiety”, “love” or “depression”. We agree that many psychologi- cal constructs are difficult to define. We struggle, how- ever, to see why this should prevent us from addressing definitional issues in our own field of inquiry. This argu- ment amounts to little more than saying, “My backyard is messy, but this is OK because yours is messy too”. In- stead, the investigative interviewing research commu- nity must attempt to discuss the problem and strive to arrive at a unified working definition of rapport. Other areas of psychology do take definitional issues seriously. Indeed, for each of the constructs “anxiety” (Akiskal, 1998; Nyatanga & de Vocht, 2006; Cambre, & Cook, 1985), “love” (Beall & Sternberg, 1995; Fehr, 1988; Fehr & Russell, 1991) and “depression” (Blatt et al., 1982; Haaga et al., 1991), researchers have written ex- tensively about defining these difficult concepts. Others are trying to tidy up their backyards. We must begin tidying too. Different Strokes for Different Folks? Other re- viewers suggested that rapport must have different def- initions, since rapport will vary depending on the in- terview context. Suppose an interviewer questions an innocent and cooperative eyewitness willing to provide information about a crime under investigation. Rapport in this context, it is argued, may differ from rapport when the same interviewer tries to elicit information from an uncooperative suspect accused of committing a crime. As with problems in the definitions of rapport more generally, we believe this criticism confuses the level of analysis. When researchers argue that rapport will vary from context to context, we believe they in fact mean that the importance of rapport’s lower-level attributes will vary. For example, effective communica- tion may be of utmost importance when interviewing a cooperative witness. In contrast, trust may be more important when interviewing an uncooperative suspect. In both situations, however, the higher order definition of rapport still refers to the quality of the interviewer- interviewee interaction. By conflating the higher or- der definition with its lower-level attributes, we worry that researchers will erroneously draw the conclusion that the term rapport will require context-specific defi- nitions. Even if one grants the view that different contexts require different rapport definitions, in ways, this argu- mentation only exacerbates the issue. This is because researchers would then be required to outline: (1) their specific definition; (2) the specific context in which their definition of rapport refers to, such as ‘cooperative eye witness rapport’ or ‘uncooperative suspect rapport’; and (3) how their definition differs from other definitions of rapport. This may be a viable way of dealing with defini- tional issues in rapport. However, by our reading of the literature, it is not the typical way in which researchers use the term. Definitional Issues, So What? A final critique from some reviewers was that the disparity in rapport defini- tions in investigative interviewing may be a non-issue. It was questioned whether the disparity is harmful to science if studies consistently find that inducing rapport leads interviewees to disclose more information than no rapport—irrespective of what rapport means. We agree that extant studies may be finding similar results de- spite definitional disparities. However, if these defini- tional disparities mean the studies have examined dif- ferent constructs, any conclusion or understanding one can draw from the studies will be constrained. As an analogy consider the finding that two completely dif- https://osf.io/5zha3/ 11 ferent medications both lead to a reduction in depres- sion. If these different medications were classified, or ‘defined’, as the same drug, conclusions concerning the utility of the two drugs may still stand, but the science and understanding surrounding them would be signif- icantly flawed. We cannot see a world in where def- initional issues with rapport would not undermine its scientific inquiry in a similar way. Additionally, definitional disparities bring method- ological concerns. Without a yardstick to flag what constitutes rapport, it becomes challenging, if not im- possible, to objectively assess the extent a given inves- tigation has examined something called rapport. One could measure several attributes of the interviewer- interviewee interaction and arbitrarily decide that some of those attributes (or none) concern rapport, depend- ing on the hypothesis one has predetermined to support. As Flake and Fried (2020) note, ambiguity about a con- cept’s definition presents opportunities for researchers to knowingly or accidentally exploit the ambiguity to engage in questionable measurement practices like the one just described. Concluding Remarks We are not claiming that a construct called rapport does not exist or that it has limited utility in improving investigative interviewing. Rather, we have drawn at- tention to the commonality and the scope of variance in rapport definitions. All the extant definitions imply that rapport centers on the quality of the interviewer- interviewee interaction. Nonetheless, the definitions vary considerably with what they regard as the under- lying attributes of rapport. This disparity creates am- biguity about the meaning of rapport and impedes its objective assessment. In the short term, stakeholders should avoid using the word rapport as a cover term to encapsulate disparate collections of attributes relating to the interviewer-interviewee interaction. In the long term, the field should collectively determine a finite set of attributes to denote what we mean by rapport. We believe these suggestions are tractable pathways to re- duce ambiguity about the meaning of the word rapport in investigative interviewing, thereby improving both the theoretical and applied value of the term. Author Contact David A. Neequaye, 0000-0002-7355-2784 Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden Erik Mac Giolla, 0000-0002-5285-5321 Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. For their assistance with data collection, we thank Simon Karlsson, Katarina Radonakova, and Madison Turner (listed alphabetically by surname). Correspondence to: David A. Neequaye, De- partment of Psychology, University of Gothenburg. Box 500, 405 30 Gothenburg, Sweden; Email: david.neequaye@psy.gu.se Conflict of Interest and Funding We have no conflict of interest to declare. We received no specific funding for this research. Author Contributions David A. Neequaye: Original Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing Erik Mac Giolla: Refining Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing Open Science Practices The editorial process for this article relied on stream- lined peer review where peer reviews obtained from previous journal(s) were moved forward and used as the basis for the editorial decision. These reviews are shared in the supplementary files. The identities of the reviewers are shown or hidden in accordance with the policy of the journal that originally obtained them. This article earned the Preregistration, Open Data and the Open Materials badge for preregistering the hy- pothesis before data collection, and for making the data and materials openly available. It has been verified that the analysis reproduced the results presented in the ar- ticle. The entire editorial process is published in the online supplement. References Abbe, A., & Brandon, S. E. (2013). The role of rapport in investigative interviewing a review the role of rapport in investigative interviewing. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 10(3), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip. 1386 https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1386 https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1386 12 Abbe, A., & Brandon, S. E. (2014). Building and maintaining rapport in investigative interviews. Police Practice and Research, 15(3), 207–220. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1080 / 15614263 . 2013 . 827835 Akiskal, H. S. (1998). Toward a definition of general- ized anxiety disorder as an anxious tempera- ment type. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 98, 66–73. https://doi.org/https\://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1600-0447.1998.tb05969.x Alison, L., Alison, E., Noone, G., Elntib, S., War- ing, S., & Christiansen, P. (2014). The ef- ficacy of rapport-based techniques for mini- mizing counter-interrogation tactics amongst a field sample of terrorists. Psychology, Public Pol- icy, and Law, 20(4), 421–430. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/law0000021 Alison, L. J., Alison, E., Noone, G., Elntib, S., & Chris- tiansen, P. (2013). Why tough tactics fail and rapport gets results observing rapport-based interpersonal techniques (ORBIT) to generate useful information from terrorists. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(4), 411–431. https : //doi.org/10.1037/a0034564 Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names a psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs, 47(1), i–171. https://doi.org/http\://dx.doi. org.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/10.1037/h0093360 Asch, S. E. (1987). Social psychology (original work published 1952). New York Oxford University Press. Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2005). A defence of the lex- ical approach to the study of personality struc- ture. European Journal of Personality, 19(1), 5– 24. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.541 Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., de Vries, R. E., Di Blas, L., Boies, K., & De Raad, B. (2004). A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages [Num Pages 356-366 Place Washington, US Publisher American Psychological Association (US)]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 86(2), 356–366. https : / / doi . org / http\ : //dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.356 Beall, A. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1995). The social con- struction of love [Publisher SAGE Publications Ltd]. Journal of Social and Personal Relation- ships, 12(3), 417–438. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1177/0265407595123006 Blatt, S. J., Quinlan, D. M., Chevron, E. S., McDonald, C., & Zuroff, D. (1982). Dependency and self- criticism psychological dimensions of depres- sion [Place US Publisher American Psychologi- cal Association]. Journal of Consulting and Clin- ical Psychology, 50(1), 113–124. https : / / doi . org/10.1037/0022-006X.50.1.113 Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psycho- analytic concept of the working alliance. Psy- chotherapy Theory, Research & Practice, 16(3), 252–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0085885 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychol- ogy, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/ 1478088706qp063oa Bull, R., & Milne, B. (2004). Attempts to improve the police interviewing of suspects. In G. D. Las- siter (Ed.), Interrogations, confessions, and en- trapment (pp. 181–196). Springer US. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-38598-3_8 Cambre, M. A., & Cook, D. L. (1985). Computer anx- iety definition, measurement, and correlates [Publisher SAGE Publications Inc]. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1(1), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.2190/FK5L- 092H- T6YB - PYBA Christiansen, P., Alison, L., & Alison, E. (2018). Well begun is half done interpersonal behaviours in distinct field interrogations with high-value detainees. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 23(1), 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp. 12111 Clarke, C., & Milne, R. (2001). National evaluation of investigative interviewing PEACE course. Home Office, London. College of policing. (2013). Investigative interviewing. Retrieved June 26, 2019, from https % 5C : / / www . app . college . police . uk / app - content / investigations / investigative - interviewing / #peace-framework Collins, K., & Carthy, N. (2018). No rapport, no com- ment the relationship between rapport and communication during investigative interviews with suspects. Journal of Investigative Psychol- ogy and Offender Profiling. https://doi.org/10. 1002/jip.1517 Collins, R., Lincoln, R., & Frank, M. G. (2002). The ef- fect of rapport in forensic interviewing. Psychi- atry, Psychology and Law, 9(1), 69–78. https : //doi.org/10.1375/pplt.2002.9.1.69 de Vocht, H., & Nyatanga, B. (2006). Towards a def- inition of death anxiety [Number 9 Publisher Mark Allen Publishing]. International Journal of Palliative Nursing, 12(9), 410–413. https://doi. org/10.12968/ijpn.2006.12.9.21868 https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2013.827835 https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2013.827835 https://doi.org/https\://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1998.tb05969.x https://doi.org/https\://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1998.tb05969.x https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000021 https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000021 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034564 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034564 https://doi.org/http\://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/10.1037/h0093360 https://doi.org/http\://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/10.1037/h0093360 https://doi.org/10.1002/per.541 https://doi.org/http\://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.356 https://doi.org/http\://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.356 https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407595123006 https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407595123006 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.50.1.113 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.50.1.113 https://doi.org/10.1037/h0085885 https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-38598-3_8 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-38598-3_8 https://doi.org/10.2190/FK5L-092H-T6YB-PYBA https://doi.org/10.2190/FK5L-092H-T6YB-PYBA https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12111 https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12111 https%5C://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/investigative-interviewing/#peace-framework https%5C://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/investigative-interviewing/#peace-framework https%5C://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/investigative-interviewing/#peace-framework https%5C://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/investigative-interviewing/#peace-framework https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1517 https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1517 https://doi.org/10.1375/pplt.2002.9.1.69 https://doi.org/10.1375/pplt.2002.9.1.69 https://doi.org/10.12968/ijpn.2006.12.9.21868 https://doi.org/10.12968/ijpn.2006.12.9.21868 13 Driskell, T., Blickensderfer, E. L., & Salas, E. (2013). Is three a crowd? examining rapport in inves- tigative interviews. Group Dynamics Theory, Re- search, and Practice, 17(1), 1–13. https://doi. org/10.1037/a0029686 Duke, M. C. (2013). The development of the rap- port scales for investigative interviews and interrogations (Doctoral dissertation) [ISBN 9781303164224 Publication Title ProQuest Dissertations and Theses]. The University of Texas at El Paso. United States - Texas. Re- trieved February 28, 2022, from http % 5C : / / www. proquest . com / docview / 1418015989 / abstract/8C36CB36043047DEPQ/1 Duke, M. C., Wood, J. M., Magee, J., & Escobar, H. (2018). The effectiveness of army field manual interrogation approaches for educing informa- tion and building rapport. Law and Human Be- havior, 42(5), 442–457. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1037/lhb0000299 Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1984). Eysenck per- sonality questionnaire-revised. Sevanoaks, Kent, UK Hodder & Staughton. Fehr, B. (1988). Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment [Place US Publisher American Psychological Association]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(4), 557– 579. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.55. 4.557 Fehr, B., & Russell, J. A. (1991). The concept of love viewed from a prototype perspective [Place US Publisher American Psychological Association]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(3), 425–438. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1037 / 0022-3514.60.3.425 Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory enhanc- ing techniques for investigative interviewing the cognitive interview. Charles C Thomas Publisher. Flake, J. K., & Fried, E. I. (2020). Measurement schmea- surement questionable measurement practices and how to avoid them [Publisher SAGE Publi- cations Inc]. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 3(4), 456–465. https : //doi.org/10.1177/2515245920952393 Gabbert, F., Hope, L., Luther, K., Wright, G., Ng, M., & Oxburgh, G. (2020). Exploring the use of rap- port in professional information-gathering con- texts by systematically mapping the evidence base. Applied Cognitive Psychology, n/a. https : //doi.org/https\://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3762 Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality" the big-five factor structure [Num Pages 1216-1229 Place Washington, US Publisher American Psychological Association (US)]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 59(6), 1216–1229. https://doi.org/http\: //dx.doi.org.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/10.1037/0022- 3514.59.6.1216 Gupta, A. (2015). Defintions. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2015, p. 23). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https%5C:// plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/ definitions/ Haaga, D. A., Dyck, M. J., & Ernst, D. (1991). Empirical status of cognitive theory of depression [Place US Publisher American Psychological Associa- tion]. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 215–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033- 2909.110.2. 215 Hershkowitz, I., Lamb, M. E., Katz, C., & Malloy, L. C. (2015). Does enhanced rapport-building alter the dynamics of investigative interviews with suspected victims of intra-familial abuse? Jour- nal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 30(1), 6– 14. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1007 / s11896 - 013 - 9136-8 Holmberg, U., & Madsen, K. (2014). Rapport opera- tionalized as a humanitarian interview in inves- tigative interview settings. Psychiatry, Psychol- ogy and Law, 21(4), 591–610. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13218719.2013.873975 John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy history, measurement, and theoreti- cal perspectives. Handbook of personality The- ory and research, 2(1999), 102–138. Kelly, C. E., Miller, J. C., & Redlich, A. D. (2016). The dy- namic nature of interrogation. Law and Human Behavior, 40(3), 295–309. https://doi.org/10. 1037/lhb0000172 Kelly, C. E., Miller, J. C., Redlich, A. D., & Klein- man, S. M. (2013). A taxonomy of interro- gation methods. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(2), 165–178. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1037/a0030310 Kieckhaefer, J. M., Vallano, J. P., & Compo, N. S. (2014). Examining the positive effects of rapport build- ing when and why does rapport building bene- fit adult eyewitness memory? Memory, 22(8), 1010–1023. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1080 / 09658211.2013.864313 Kleinman, S. M. (2006). KUBARK counterintelligence interrogation review observations of an inter- rogator [Publisher Citeseer]. In I. S. Board (Ed.), Educing information. interrogation sci- ence and art. foundations for the future (p. 95). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029686 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029686 http%5C://www.proquest.com/docview/1418015989/abstract/8C36CB36043047DEPQ/1 http%5C://www.proquest.com/docview/1418015989/abstract/8C36CB36043047DEPQ/1 http%5C://www.proquest.com/docview/1418015989/abstract/8C36CB36043047DEPQ/1 https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000299 https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000299 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.4.557 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.4.557 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.425 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.425 https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920952393 https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245920952393 https://doi.org/https\://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3762 https://doi.org/https\://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3762 https://doi.org/http\://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216 https://doi.org/http\://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216 https://doi.org/http\://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216 https%5C://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/definitions/ https%5C://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/definitions/ https%5C://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/definitions/ https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.2.215 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.2.215 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-013-9136-8 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-013-9136-8 https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2013.873975 https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2013.873975 https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000172 https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000172 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030310 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030310 https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2013.864313 https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2013.864313 14 Washington, DC National Defense Intelligence College Press. Kripke, S. A. (1972). Naming and necessity. In D. David- son & G. Harman (Eds.), Semantics of natural language (pp. 253–355). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 94- 010- 2557- 7_9 Lamb, M. E., Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Esplin, P. W., & Horowitz, D. (2007). A structured forensic interview protocol improves the quality and in- formativeness of investigative interviews with children a review of research using the NICHD investigative interview protocol. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(11), 1201–1231. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.03.021 Martin, D. J., Garske, J. P., & Davis, M. K. (2000). Relation of the therapeutic alliance with out- come and other variables a meta-analytic re- view. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol- ogy, 68(3), 438–450. https : / / doi . org / http\ : //dx.doi.org.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/10.1037/0022- 006X.68.3.438 Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. C. (2018). Social influ- ence in investigative interviews the effects of reciprocity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(2), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3390 McCrae, R. R. (1989). Why i advocate the five-factor model joint factor analyses of the NEO-PI with other instruments. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 237–245). Springer US. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1007 / 978 - 1 - 4684 - 0634-4_18 Meissner, C. A., Kelly, C. E., & Woestehoff, S. A. (2015). Improving the effectiveness of suspect interro- gations. Annual Review of Law and Social Sci- ence, 11(1), 211–233. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120814-121657 Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2009). Ten things that mo- tivational interviewing is not. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 37(2), 129–140. https: //doi.org/10.1017/S1352465809005128 Nash, R. A., Nash, A., Morris, A., & Smith, S. L. (2016). Does rapport-building boost the eye- witness eyeclosure effect in closed question- ing? Legal and Criminological Psychology, 21(2), 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12073 Neuman, A., & Salinas-Serrano, D. (2006). Custodial in- terrogations what we know, what we do, and what we can learn from law enforcement ex- periences. In I. S. Board (Ed.), Educing infor- mation. interrogation science and art. founda- tions for the future (p. 141). Washington, DC National Defense Intelligence College Press. of the Army, D. (2006). FM 2-22.3 (FM 34-52) - human intelligence collector operations. Office, H. (2011). Achieving best evidence in criminal pro- ceedings. London. Russano, M. B., Narchet, F. M., Kleinman, S. M., & Meissner, C. A. (2014). Structured interviews of experienced HUMINT interrogators interviews of HUMINT interrogators. Applied Cognitive Psy- chology, 28(6), 847–859. https://doi.org/10. 1002/acp.3069 Sauerland, M., Brackmann, N., & Otgaar, H. (2018). Rapport little effect on children’s, adolescents’, and adults’ statement quantity, accuracy, and suggestibility. Journal of Child Custody, 15(4), 268–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418. 2018.1509759 Saywitz, K. J., Larson, R. P., Hobbs, S. D., & Wells, C. R. (2015). Developing rapport with children in forensic interviews systematic review of ex- perimental research developing rapport with children. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 33(4), 372–389. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2186 Schreiber Compo, N., Hyman Gregory, A., & Fisher, R. (2012). Interviewing behaviors in police inves- tigators a field study of a current US sam- ple. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18(4), 359–375. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1080 / 1068316X . 2010 . 494604 Sternberg, K. J., Lamb, M. E., Hershkowitz, I., Yudile- vitch, L., Orbach, Y., Esplin, P. W., & Hovav, M. (1997). Effects of introductory style on chil- dren’s abilities to describe experiences of sex- ual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 21(11), 1133– 1146. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1016 / S0145 - 2134(97)00071-9 St-Yves, M. (2006). The psychology of rapport five ba- sic rules. Investigative interviewing. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781843926337-15 Tickle-Degnen, L., & Rosenthal, R. (1990). The nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates. Psycho- logical Inquiry, 1(4), 285–293. https://doi.org/ 10.1207/s15327965pli0104_1 Vallano, J. P., Evans, J. R., Schreiber Compo, N., & Kieckhaefer, J. M. (2015). Rapport-building during witness and suspect interviews a survey of law enforcement rapport-building during in- terviews. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(3), 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3115 Vallano, J. P., & Schreiber Compo, N. (2015). Rapport- building with cooperative witnesses and crimi- nal suspects a theoretical and empirical review. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2557-7_9 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2557-7_9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.03.021 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.03.021 https://doi.org/http\://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/10.1037/0022-006X.68.3.438 https://doi.org/http\://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/10.1037/0022-006X.68.3.438 https://doi.org/http\://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/10.1037/0022-006X.68.3.438 https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3390 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-0634-4_18 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-0634-4_18 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120814-121657 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120814-121657 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465809005128 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352465809005128 https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12073 https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3069 https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3069 https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2018.1509759 https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2018.1509759 https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2186 https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2010.494604 https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2010.494604 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(97)00071-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(97)00071-9 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781843926337-15 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781843926337-15 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0104_1 https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0104_1 https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3115 15 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21(1), 85– 99. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000035 Vanderhallen, M., & Vervaeke, G. (2014). Between in- vestigator and suspect the role of the work- ing alliance in investigative interviewing. In R. Bull (Ed.), Investigative interviewing (pp. 63– 90). Springer New York. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1007/978-1-4614-9642-7_4 Vanderhallen, M., Vervaeke, G., & Holmberg, U. (2011). Witness and suspect perceptions of working al- liance and interviewing style what happens in real-life police interviews? Journal of Inves- tigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 8(2), 110–130. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.138 Vrij, A., Meissner, C. A., Fisher, R. P., Kassin, S. M., Mor- gan, C. A., & Kleinman, S. M. (2017). Psycho- logical perspectives on interrogation. Perspec- tives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 927–955. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617706515 Walsh, D., & Bull, R. (2012). Examining rapport in in- vestigative interviews with suspects does its building and maintenance work? Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 27(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-011-9087-x William R. Shadish. (2002). Experimental and quasi- experimental designs for generalized causal infer- ence. Houghton Mifflin. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000035 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9642-7_4 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-9642-7_4 https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.138 https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617706515 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-011-9087-x