Table 1. Description of relational... | Emerald Publishing

Table 1.

Description of relational qualities relevant to commercial forensic interviews

Index	Relational quality	Description
1.	Empathy	Accurate cognitive (taking the perspective of the other) or affective (emotions) understanding of an interviewee’s situation, feelings or circumstances, which FPs express accurately with verbal and nonverbal cues (Meyer et al., 1997; Roos and Wheeler, 2016)
2.	Congruence	The FPs’ verbal or nonverbal messages support each other, are aligned and communicate no trace of false pretence (Vorster, 2011)
3.	Unconditional positive regard (UPR)	The FPs’ total and unconditional acceptance of the interviewee, as well as the interviewee’s experiences and who they are, drawing on Rogers (1987)
4.	Context	The FP creates an interpersonal space as a conceptual boundary in which a CFI takes place, and which determines the meaning of the interaction (Vorster, 2011). The context within which an interview is taking place directly influences the meaning of what is being said to the interviewer (Watzlawick et al., 2011)
5.	Defining the relationship between the interviewer and interviewee	Three types of relational definitions are distinguished: a complementary relationship, with one person taking a one-up and the other adopting a one-down position; a parallel-defined relationship, in which two people alternate in taking control (e.g. between friends); and a symmetrically defined relationship, in which there is a continuous struggle for control between the two individuals interacting. In a CFI, the context determines that the FP should control the interview, with the interviewee conforming to the relational definition and providing answers/information (Jackson, 1965)
6.	Clarity of self-presentation	The FP’s verbal and nonverbal cues are clear, coherent and understandable (Vorster, 2011)
7.	Confirmation	An FP conveys the message to the interviewee that what is being said matters and is important to the investigation (Vorster et al., 2013)
8.	Circular or linear approach to the CFI	The FP adopts the position that there are different viewpoints (not only their own) and that they are also informing the relational dynamics by their interactions in the interview, by adopting a circular approach (Vorster et al., 2013)
9.	Degree of interpersonal flexibility/rigidity	The extent to which someone can alternate behaviour flexibly depending on the interviewee’s reaction or the context in which the CFI takes place (Vorster, 2011)
10.	Distance	Emotional distance or closeness may vary according to the interpersonal context and can be too distant or too close (Du Plooy, 2014)
11.	The potential for rejection (hostility) or acceptance from the interviewee	An FP’s interpersonal style (combination of various relational qualities) can elicit rejection or acceptance. For example, FPs who display incongruence or are hostile or disapproving of the actions of an interviewee tend to elicit rejection. FPs who demonstrate transparency, flexibility and active listening are more likely to elicit acceptance from the interviewee (Vorster, 2011)
12.	Adequacy of problem solving	FPs who are able to solve interpersonal problems in the interview (e.g. when the interviewee takes control, by manoeuvring control back and keeping the focus of the CFI in mind) are more effective (Vorster et al., 2013)

Index	Relational quality	Description
1.	Empathy	Accurate cognitive (taking the perspective of the other) or affective (emotions) understanding of an interviewee’s situation, feelings or circumstances, which FPs express accurately with verbal and nonverbal cues (Meyer et al., 1997; Roos and Wheeler, 2016)
2.	Congruence	The FPs’ verbal or nonverbal messages support each other, are aligned and communicate no trace of false pretence (Vorster, 2011)
3.	Unconditional positive regard (UPR)	The FPs’ total and unconditional acceptance of the interviewee, as well as the interviewee’s experiences and who they are, drawing on Rogers (1987)
4.	Context	The FP creates an interpersonal space as a conceptual boundary in which a CFI takes place, and which determines the meaning of the interaction (Vorster, 2011). The context within which an interview is taking place directly influences the meaning of what is being said to the interviewer (Watzlawick et al., 2011)
5.	Defining the relationship between the interviewer and interviewee	Three types of relational definitions are distinguished: a complementary relationship, with one person taking a one-up and the other adopting a one-down position; a parallel-defined relationship, in which two people alternate in taking control (e.g. between friends); and a symmetrically defined relationship, in which there is a continuous struggle for control between the two individuals interacting. In a CFI, the context determines that the FP should control the interview, with the interviewee conforming to the relational definition and providing answers/information (Jackson, 1965)
6.	Clarity of self-presentation	The FP’s verbal and nonverbal cues are clear, coherent and understandable (Vorster, 2011)
7.	Confirmation	An FP conveys the message to the interviewee that what is being said matters and is important to the investigation (Vorster et al., 2013)
8.	Circular or linear approach to the CFI	The FP adopts the position that there are different viewpoints (not only their own) and that they are also informing the relational dynamics by their interactions in the interview, by adopting a circular approach (Vorster et al., 2013)
9.	Degree of interpersonal flexibility/rigidity	The extent to which someone can alternate behaviour flexibly depending on the interviewee’s reaction or the context in which the CFI takes place (Vorster, 2011)
10.	Distance	Emotional distance or closeness may vary according to the interpersonal context and can be too distant or too close (Du Plooy, 2014)
11.	The potential for rejection (hostility) or acceptance from the interviewee	An FP’s interpersonal style (combination of various relational qualities) can elicit rejection or acceptance. For example, FPs who display incongruence or are hostile or disapproving of the actions of an interviewee tend to elicit rejection. FPs who demonstrate transparency, flexibility and active listening are more likely to elicit acceptance from the interviewee (Vorster, 2011)
12.	Adequacy of problem solving	FPs who are able to solve interpersonal problems in the interview (e.g. when the interviewee takes control, by manoeuvring control back and keeping the focus of the CFI in mind) are more effective (Vorster et al., 2013)

Source: Table created by authors