This paper aims to explore motivations to resist (or not) during an investigative interview when being asked to provide information about another person’s transgressions.
In this paper, the authors present an analysis of decisions to admit or deny guilty-knowledge regarding the transgressions of another, as well as self-reported motivations for those decisions, from a large data set of 743 participants.
This analysis revealed that accusatorial-style interviews produce fewer admissions of guilty-knowledge and more denials, while also producing more false admissions from persons who do not possess the sought-after guilty knowledge compared to information-gathering interviews. The underlying motivations for these decisions were found to differ not only based on whether the subject possessed guilty knowledge, but also depending on the investigative interview strategy used.
Results are discussed in terms of human-intelligence collection and witness scenarios where guilty-knowledge about the acts of another are sought.
