interviewing suspects of crime: the impact of peace training, supervision and the presence of a...

Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender ProfilingJ. Investig. Psych. Offender Profil. 8: 149–162 (2011)Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/jip.144

Interviewing Suspects of Crime: The Impact of PEACETraining, Supervision and the Presence of a Legal Advisor

COLIN CLARKE1,*, REBECCA MILNE2 and RAY BULL3

1School of Health Sciences and Social Work, University of Portsmouth, United Kingdom2Institute of Criminal Justice Studies, University of Portsmouth, United Kingdom

3School of Psychology, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

Abstract

In 1992, the police service of England and Wales adopted PEACE as a framework forinterviewing suspects. This study was to evaluate the impact of PEACE interview training,workplace supervision and the presence of a legal advisor on the performance of policeofficers’ interviewing suspects. One hundred seventy-four real-life interviews with suspectswere obtained from six police forces in England and Wales. Officers trained and untrainedin PEACE, and from police forces that did or did not have an interview supervision policyconducted the interviews. Interviews in this sample were generally of average standard.Whilst PEACE-trained officers conducted longer interviews, there were no other statisticaldifferences dependent on training. Nor were there any statistical differences dependent onthe presence of a legal advisor. A workplace supervision policy was found to be related toperformance, particularly during the engage and explain phases of the interview.Supervision also appeared to provide some safeguards for suspects who did not have alegal advisor. Because the performance of PEACE-trained officers did not differ fromthose who had not received this training, further improvement in training is needed,especially regarding a number of communication skills. It is argued that suchimprovement would be facilitated by a more consistent approach to interviewer trainingand to the effective supervision of interviews. Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key words: suspect interviewing; police interviewing; PEACE interview

INTRODUCTION

Police interview training in the UK has undergone major transformation over the pasttwenty years (see Williamson, Milne & Savage, 2009 for a comparative analysis). Fuelledby a number of infamous miscarriage of justice cases (e.g. Guildford Four) the policeservice in the UK adopted a more ethical approach to interviewing persons suspected of

*Correspondence to: Colin Clarke, School of Health Sciences and Social Work, University of Portsmouth, 2 KingRichard 1st Road, Portsmouth, PO1 2FR, UK.E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

150 C. Clarke et al.

committing crime1 in 1993. This new approach was built upon research examining goodcommunication skills, human memory, and the management of conversation. Its inceptionsignalled a move from interrogation to investigative interviewing, which heralded a shift infocus from obtaining a confession to acquiring full and accurate information. Central tothese changes was the development and adoption of a new framework for conductinginterviews, based on the acronym, PEACE (see Milne, Shaw & Bull, 2007, for a fulldescription). Briefly the acronym PEACE stands for the phases of the interview; Planningand preparation, engaging with the interviewee and explaining the interview process,gaining an account, closure of the interview and Evaluation after. An integral part of thenew interviewing approach was the development of a week long course to train officerswith 6–10years service (i.e. primarily officers who interview people in relation to volumecrime e.g. public order offences (see in the succeeding texts)) in this new method.The training focussed on developing officers’ ability to utilise a number of specific skills

including engaging a suspect in conversation by introducing all persons present andexplaining the purpose and format of the interview. Otherwise described as ‘feed forward’(De Vito, 2008), ‘set induction’ (Hargie & Dickson, 2004), and agenda setting (Silverman,Kurtz & Draper, 2008). The purpose of these being to develop a shared understanding ofthe conversation that follows. Appropriate use of questions (i.e. improved use of openrather than closed questions), and the avoidance of leading and misleading questions(Wright & Powell, 2006), was another of the taught skills. Question use was supported bythe idea of Conversation Management (CM) (see Milne & Bull, 1999 for a fulldescription), in particular the need to obtain an initial account for subsequent explorationin a structured manner. Officers were also taught the importance of closing the interview tofacilitate a shared understanding of the interview, also known as feedback (Shepherd,1988; De Vito, 2008), and to provide information about what will happen after theinterview. Post interview, officers were taught the importance of evaluating informationobtained during the interview in relation to other sources, and their performance as areflective practitioner (Schon, 1983).An initial evaluation of PEACE training found improvements in officer’s skills and

knowledge immediately after training and 6months later (McGurk, Carr & McGurk,1993). There has, however, been little examination of PEACE interviewing skills andtraining since. Two studies have examined the impact of the PEACE approach on theconduct of interviews with suspects, where one focussed on police officers who hadundergone extensive advanced interview training (Griffiths & Milne, 2006), and the otherrelated to fraud investigators, who were not police officers (Walsh & Milne, 2008).Griffiths and Milne (2006) found improvement in the interviewers level of skill afterthree weeks training and upon return to the workplace, although complex (e.g.communication) skills were found to dissipate over time (about a year). Walsh and Milne(2008) found that on the positive side trained investigators were significantly more likelyto be rated as skilled or highly skilled interviewers, whilst untrained investigators failedto obtain comprehensive accounts. Nevertheless, they acknowledge that another view oftheir data was that 75% of trained investigators fared no better that their untrainedcounterparts, which was borne out by the limited number of significant differencesbetween the two groups. Therefore, despite the positive finding of McGurk et al. (1993),subsequent research suggests that PEACE training alone may not improve interviewingskills.

1Suspects

Copyright # 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Investig. Psych. Offender Profil. 8: 149–162 (2011)

DOI: 10.1002/jip

Interviewing suspects 151

Other research indicate that the police officers generally find it difficult to applyappropriate interview practices in the workplace (e.g. Lamb, Sternberg, Orback, Esplin &Mitchell, 2002b). Indeed, Powell (2002) proposed that training appears to teach peoplehow investigative interviews should be conducted but has limited impact in the workplace.Stockdale (1993) suggested that unless officers’ interview performance was consistentlyand regularly evaluated, the drive to improve investigative interviewing and PEACEtraining would be wasted. Similarly, Lamb, Sternberg, Orbach, Hershkowitz, Horowitz &Esplin (2002a) highlighted the importance of continuing workplace support or supervisionto improve the application of appropriate investigative interviewing skills. In relation tointerviews with child witnesses Lamb et al. (2002b) found substantial differences in thequality of interviews dependent upon the provision or withdrawal of supervision. Theyreported that ‘interviewers’ behaviour changed dramatically when the supervision ended’(Lamb et al., 2002b, p. 38). Similarly, in a clinical setting, Heaven, Clegg and Maguire(2006) found that of those nurses who had undergone communication skills training, onlythose who had received supervision, demonstrated a significant improvement in theworkplace. Currently, there is no literature on the effect of workplace supervision for officerseducated in how best to interview suspects, thus supervision was examined as a dependentvariable in this study.Despite the natural focus on skills development to improve interview practice there are

other factors that can influence an interviewers’ use of good practice. Moston, Stephensonand Williamson (1992) found that the presence or absence of a legal advisor has an impacton the outcome of an interview, and that suspect(s) are less likely to admit guilt with anadvisor present. Furthermore, Baldwin (1993) found that the presence of a legal advisorhad a profound effect on some interviewers, and that they become flustered. Thus presenceof a legal advisor was examined as an independent variable.A national evaluation of the basic PEACE approach with officers who are trained for a

week to conduct interviews of those suspected of volume crime (e.g. public order, theft)had not been undertaken. The research in this paper therefore fills this void (see Clarke &Milne, 2001 for the police report on these data). The overall aim of this study was toextend the literature relating to police officers’ skills when interviewing suspects of crimesthat fall into the category ‘bulk crime’. In particular, the research aimed to examine (a)whether PEACE training had improved police officers’ skills when interviewing suchsuspects; (b) the impact of workplace supervision on officers’ use of good interviewpractice; and (c) whether or not the presence of a legal advisor affected police officers’ability to adhere to good interview practice.

METHOD

Design

A quazi experimental design was employed with between subjects independent variablesbeing (a) training on two levels, PEACE trained or not-PEACE trained; (b) supervision ontwo levels, supervision or no supervision where some officers worked in areas where therewas a written supervision of interviewing policy in place and some did not; and (c) legaladvisor on two levels, the presence or absence of a legal advisor within the interview. Thedependent variables were interviewers’ interview skill measured by a number ofbehaviours examined across the interview phases delineated within the PEACE framework(see coding and scoring section later).


DOI: 10.1002/jip


Participants

Participants were operational police officers, mainly uniformed officers (n=136), with theremainder being detectives (n=36), with two being unknown. The majority of interviewerswere male (n=142, female n=32).

Procedure

A matched sample (e.g. matched for geographical location, percentage of the force PEACEtrained, and size of force) of 174 interviews were collected from six police forces acrossEngland and Wales. PEACE trained officers conducted 119 interviews and officers whowere not so trained conducted 55. Ninety interviews were from forces with a policy forsupervising interviews and the remainder (n=84) were from forces, which did not. Theinterviews were randomly selected and concerned bulk crime (affray, assault, burglary,criminal damage, disorder, fraud, receiving stolen goods, theft, and vehicle interference).2

These are crimes that would be investigated by officers who have had the minimumstandard of interview training.The law in England and Wales provides for suspects to have access to free and

independent legal advice and for their legal representative to be present during theinterview. A legal advisor was present in just over a third of the interviews (n=64, no legaladvisor n=110). When a legal advisor was present he/she explained their role on just 30%of those occasions.

Method of assessment

Assessment was conducted using a specially constructed rating scale, which wasdeveloped in order to examine the behaviours underpinning the PEACE model,communication skills, and items that are required to be given by law (e.g. the caution).A wide range of literature informed construction of the scale, together with a review ofpreviously developed scales from both published (e.g. Bull & Cherryman, 1995; McGurket al., 1993) and unpublished studies (e.g. Hall, 1997; Stevens, 1998). A composite scalewas then compiled and disseminated to police officers and academics for comment. Theresulting scale contained 61 separate items together with a list of definitions.3

The scale was divided into six primary dimensions/phases that reflected the PEACEmodel, these included (i) background information (e.g. interviewer/interviewee gender,interviewer rank, presence of a legal advisor); (ii) planning and preparation; (iii) engage andexplain (e.g. giving the caution, explaining right to legal advice, introductions, explainingthe purpose of the interview); (iv) account and interviewer characteristics (e.g. encouraginginterviewee to give an account, exploring the account, challenging, self confidence,flexibility); (v) questioning skills (e.g. the frequency of various question types); and (vi)closure (e.g. summary of interview, opportunity to add, alter, correct information). The 61items were evaluated either as (i) dichotomous (e.g. present–not present); or (ii) on a 5-pointLikert scale for quality of behaviour (e.g. where 1=Unsuitable, 3=Fit for purpose and

2Whilst it is probable that there were variations across the interviewees, the types of crime being investigated inthis sample were bulk/everyday crimes and NOT what could be termed as ‘serious crimes’. It is unlikelytherefore, that crime type per se in this sample could have masked effects for training or supervision. Indeed,analysis examining crime type within these data found no differences across training, supervision or the presenceof a legal advisor.3A copy of the scale and definitions can be obtained from the first author upon request.


DOI: 10.1002/jip


5=Clearly given); or (iii) as a ‘total’ in relation to question types. Finally, two assessmentsrelating to unreliable confessions and oppression were made before an overall assessment ofthe interview quality was given.

Raters

The relevant experience of the raters was an important issue. Most of the publishedresearch on investigative interviewing has involved academics rating police interviews.Though the ecological validity of this method may not be high, the inter-rater agreementusually is (Bull & Cherryman, 1995), whereas using police officers as raters can increaseecological validity but it has been found that inter-rater agreement can be reduced (seeCherryman, 2000—for details). Nevertheless ecological validity was an important issue inthe current research, hence experienced police officers were used as raters. To maximiseinter-rater agreement, all raters had to have experience of (i) teaching PEACE; (ii) usingPEACE; and (iii) conducting research/evaluating PEACE interviews. This resulted in apool of 15 raters from different forces across England and Wales. Each rater assessedapproximately eight interviews from two different locations (four from each). All ratingwas conducted blind in that raters did not know whether trained or untrained officersconducted the interviews or where the interviews came from. Raters were not providedwith interviews from their own force. A sub set of 10% (n=18) of the interviews was ratedindependently by two raters to enable inter-rater reliability to be calculated. This wascalculated as the percentage rater agreement. Agreement occurred when raters were inaccordance for dichotomous variables, or provided a response that was �1 for Likert Scalevariables and those representing a total. The number of concordant items were expressedas a percentage. The mean for the dual-rated interviews or overall percentage rateragreement was found to be 79%.

RESULTS

The results are presented by first providing general analysis of the data, followed by anexamination of each element of the PEACE model, including the use of questions andinterviewer characteristics. This is followed by a closer look at the factors that determinedperceived level of skill within this sample.4

The sample—general data

The sample consisted of 174 field interviews with suspects. Interviewees were mainlyadults (male n=128, female n=29), juveniles made up just 10% (n=17) of the sample(male n=12, female n=5). Interview length ranged from 3minutes to 85minutes (M=21minutes, Mdn=18minutes, SD=14.6minutes). A three-way ANOVA found a significantdifference F1,165=7.786, p< .001 between interviews conducted by trained officers (M=23minutes, SD=15.7minutes) and untrained officers (M=17minutes, SD=11.5minutes),however the effect size was small (Zp

2=0.045). There was also a statistically significant effectfor legal advisor F2,165=3.174, p< .001 where interviews conducted with a legal advisor

4No between police force comparisons were conducted upon these data because this was a condition upon whichthe data were provided.


DOI: 10.1002/jip


present were longer (M=24.4minutes, SD=18.0minutes) than those where no legal advisorwas present (M=19.5minutes, SD=12.3minutes), though, again, the effect size was small(Zp

2=0.037). Interview length was not associated with the provision of a supervision policy(supervision, M=21.9minutes, no supervision M=20.6minutes), nor was there anyinteraction effects.

The interviews—overall outcomes

Interview outcomes were rated as either being (i) a comprehensive account—where therewas a confession and a good detailed account of what happened; (ii) a confession—just theconfession without further detail; (iii) a partial admission—partially admitted the offences;(iv) a denial—consistently denied the offence in question; or (v) no comment—refused toanswer questions, remained silent or gave replies such as ‘no comment’. As can be seen inFigure 1, 65% of the interviews in this study resulted in some form of admission by theinterviewee (17% providing a comprehensive account, 23% a confession, and 25% apartial admission). Only 5.6% (n=10) of the interviewees made no comment, whereas29% (n=50) of interviewees denied the offence.Logistic regression was used to determine what factors had an impact on the interview

outcome. Three independent variables were included in the model; training, supervision,and presence of a solicitor. Only presence of a solicitor had a significant relationship withinterview outcome w2 (8, N=174)=31.847 p< .001, in that suspects were less likely toprovide information when a solicitor was present. Indeed, all of the ‘No comment’interviews occurred when a solicitor was present. As would be expected, there was asignificant relationship between interview length and interview outcome F4,169=6.015,p< .001 (Zp

2=0.125), where interviews containing comprehensive accounts (M=23minutes) and partial admissions (M=20minutes) were longer than other outcomes. Nocomment interviews were generally short (M=12minutes).The use of PEACE and appropriate communication skills are worthless if an interview is

not lawful. In England and Wales, this means complying with the Police and CriminalEvidence Act 1984 (PACE). 10% (n=17) of the interviews in this sample were flagged as

Figure 1. Interview outcome dependent up the presence or absence of a legal advisor (as a percentage).


DOI: 10.1002/jip


possibly being in breach of PACE. These interviews came from every force participatingin the study. The reasons for these breaches included, oppression, the mental health of theinterviewee not being taken into account, failing to comply with legal requirements (e.g.not giving the caution), and excessive background noise (affecting the recording). We willnow examine each element of PEACE in turn.

Planning and preparation

A 5-point scale was used to assess ‘Planning and preparation’ ranging from, ‘No apparentplanning’ (1) to ‘A good understanding of the case’ (5). The sample demonstrated anearly normal distribution for this variable (M=3.2, Skewness=�0.094, e.g. fit forpurpose). An ANOVA was conducted, which was found not to be significant for training(trainedM=3.2, untrainedM=3.3; F1,162=0.056, p> .05), supervision (supervisionM=3.2,no supervision M=3.4; F1,162=0.062, p> .05), or legal advisor (legal advisor M=3.1, nolegal advisor M=3.2; F2,162=0.480, p> .05). The raters indicated in their comments thatinterviewers were often unaware: 1) of the full circumstances of the incident; 2) the points toprove an offence, and in a number of cases could be heard searching or reading fromstatements during the interview. (However, it should be noted that it is not easy to assess‘Planning and preparation’ from a recording of an interview).

Engage and explain

For the ‘engage and explain’ phase nine areas relating to legal requirements andcommunication skills were assessed on a 5-point scale. The mean scores for the ‘Engageand Explain’ dimension are displayed in Table 1, where it can be seen that the initialintroduction and caution were clearly given. Explanations of a suspect’s right to free legaladvice and the grounds for their arrest were fit for purpose, as was checking the interviewee’sunderstanding of the caution. All of these behaviours are typically provided for interviewerson an aide memoir card and, therefore, should be presented in a professional manner. Theremaining four items related to communication skills and the development of rapport. This iswhere the interviewer should (i) explain the purpose of the interview, the routines and structureof the interview; (ii) explain that it is an opportunity for suspects to give their account; and (iii)

Table 1. Mean scores for ‘engage and explain’ behaviours as a function of the presence or absenceof supervision

Behaviours Supervision No Supervision M SD

Introduction 4.08 (0.75) 3.93 (0.99) 4.01 (0.87)Giving caution 4.17 (0.76) 3.85 (0.95) 4.03 (0.87)Understanding caution 3.19 (1.61) 2.36 (1.34) 2.82 (1.54)Legal advice 3.35 (1.30) 3.53 (1.16) 3.43 (1.24)Grounds for arrest 3.20 (1.40) 3.25 (1.31) 3.22 (1.35)Interview purpose 1.99 (1.29) 1.42 (0.96) 1.73 (1.19)Routines and route map 1.73* (1.16) 1.10 (0.39) 1.45 (0.95)Explain account 1.77* (1.12) 1.33 (0.93) 1.57 (1.06)Rapport 2.02 (1.03) 1.80 (0.94) 1.92 (0.99)

*Significant effect p< .05.M, mean; SD, standard deviation.


DOI: 10.1002/jip


start developing rapport—all of which were generally not performed well and below theacceptable standard of 3. Little evidence was found of rapport being developed at this time (orthroughout the interview) (see Table 1), and rapport was rated as professionally conducted inonly 7% of interviews, whilst 47% of interviewers were deemed not to have demonstratedrapport building at all.A MANOVA for training, supervision, and legal advisor was conducted on the nine

items relating to the ‘engage and explain’ phase of the interview, which was significant forsupervision Wilks’ Lambda=0.87, F9,135=2.259, p< .05, Zp

2=0.131 and there was aninteraction between training and legal advisor Wilks’ Lambda=0.86, F9,135=2.404,p< .05, Zp

2=0.138. There were no main effects for training F9,135=0.408, p>0.05 or legaladvisor F18,270=1.201, p> .05, and no other interactions. When the results for thedependent variables were inspected separately in relation to supervision, only ‘routines androute map’ F1,143=9.749, p< .05, Z2=0.064, and ‘explain account’ F1,143=6.043, p< .05,Zp2=0.41 were significant in that officers at locations with a supervision policy were rated

as being better than those at locations without a policy. However, irrespective of whether asupervision policy was in place or not, ratings on these dimensions where below three andtherefore not fit for purpose (see Table 1). An examination of the dependent variables forthe interaction effect between legal advisor and training found that only explaining the‘interview purpose’ was significant F1,143=5.816, p< .05, Zp

2=0.39 and that trainedofficers explained this better when ‘no legal advisor’ was present (M=1.91, SD=1.34),whereas untrained officers provided a better explanation when a legal advisor was present(M=2.06, SD=1.35), again neither can be viewed as of a good enough standard.

Account

In the account phase 14, separate behaviours were assessed. A MANOVA for training,supervision and legal advisor was conducted on the behaviours in the account phase andwas found not to be significant for training, F14,134=1.180, p> .05, supervision, F14,134=1.311, p> .05, and legal advisor, F28,268=1.272, p> .05. There were no interactioneffects.Examination of the mean scores (see Figure 2) found that only ‘keep to relevant topic’,

‘deals with difficulty’, ‘encouraging an account’ and ‘structure and sequence’were rated at orabove the median for the scale, that is, the level deemed fit for purpose. Whereas, ‘exploringaccount’, ‘topic development’, using ‘summaries/links’, ‘conversation management’, etc.were below the median for the scale and, therefore, not fit for purpose.

Use of questions

Figure 2 also shows that the overall assessment of ‘question use’ (M=2.77, SD=1.12) wasbelow an acceptable standard. However, question use was also examined by counting thenumbers of different types of question that were used in each interview (see Figure 3). AMANOVA for question types found no main effect for training, F9,72=0.794, p> .05,supervision, F9,72=1.238, p> .05 or legal advisor, F9,72=0.765, p> .05, and nointeractions.Despite the poor overall assessment for use of questions, Figure 3 shows that few

‘leading questions’ were asked in these interviews and that there were few examples of‘multiple’ or ‘complex questions’ or other inappropriate question types. In fact, althoughthe main question type used was the ‘closed question’, many of these were deemed to be


DOI: 10.1002/jip

Figure 2. Mean scores for the behaviours assessed in the ‘account’ phase of the interview.

Figure 3. Mean scores for the use of different question types.


appropriate (e.g. used after open questions to obtain a fuller picture). Indeed, openquestions constituted the next most commonly used question type.

Interviewer characteristics

Interviewer characteristics were assessed on five dimensions. A MANOVA on thesedata resulted in no significant effects for training, F5,160=0.964, p> .05, supervision,


DOI: 10.1002/jip


F5,160=0.201, p> .05 or legal advisor, F10,320=0.650, p> .05. Interaction effects werefound for supervision and legal advisor Wilks’ Lambda=.012, F5,160=3.060, p< .05,Zp2=0.087, and for training and supervision and legal advisor Wilks’ Lambda=.038,

F5,160=2.414, p< .05, Zp2=0.070. However, when examined separately not one of the

dependent variables on its own achieved statistical significance. Table 2 shows that themean scores clustered around the median for the scale thus indicating that thesecharacteristics were, in the main, of the appropriate standard.

Closure

Two behaviours (‘Summarises interview’ and ‘Overview of closure’) were examinedwithin this final phase. ‘Summarises interview’ was not carried out in 56% of theinterviews and comprehensive summaries were provided in only 18.7% of the interviews.Overall, only 15.4% of interviewers were rated as providing a clear closure to theinterview. A MANOVA found a significant effect of legal advisor Wilks’ Lambda=.047,F4,328=2.441, p< .05, Zp

2=0.029, but no effect for training, F2,164=1.005, p> .05 orsupervision, F2,164=0.830, p> .05. There were no interaction effects. An examination ofthe dependent variables found that only for ‘closure overview’ was there is a significanteffect F2,164=3.075, p< .05, Zp

2=0.036. As can be seen in Table 3, closure of interviewswas improved when a legal advisor was present, although the mean did not achieve three,that is, the fit for purpose level.Finally, to examine whether the raters had a confession bias, a t-test was conducted for

confession or no confession by rated level of overall skill, which demonstrated a largeeffect (t(173)=�21.395 p< .001, Zp

2=0.73). However, the direction of effect was towardsno confession, the opposite of that found by Cherryman (2000).

Table 2. Mean scores for interviewer characteristics for the whole sample

M SD

Self confidence 3.85 (1.02)Open mind 3.09 (1.18)Flexibility 2.93 (1.09)Communication skills 3.61 (0.97)Active listening 3.16 (1.08)

M, mean; SD, standard deviation.

Table 3. Mean scores for ‘closure’ dependent upon the presence of training, supervision or legal advisor

Training Supervision Solicitor

Yes No Yes No Yes No

Summarises interview 1.95 (1.37) 2.18 (1.22) 2.14 (1.36) 1.91 (1.29) 2.04 (1.29) 1.96 (1.34)Closure overview 2.43 (0.96) 2.71 (1.05) 2.44 (0.89) 2.60 (1.09) 2.66 (1.04)* 2.46 (1.03)

*Significant effect p< .05.


DOI: 10.1002/jip


DISCUSSION

The results suggest that a week-long PEACE training course has had little effect on theinterviewing practices of police officers when interviewing suspects. Indeed, the onlysignificant difference between PEACE trained officers and those not PEACE trained wasthat the former took longer to conduct their interviews. This, it can be argued,demonstrates that police interviewers are taking more time to examine the suspects’account; a view that is confirmed by examination of the outcome data (i.e. comprehensiveaccounts and partial admissions took longer to give in an interview).Albeit there was a minimal difference between PEACE trained and non-PEACE trained

interviewers, the general standard of police interviewing appears to be better since beforethe introduction of PEACE training. The improvement of non-PEACE trained officerspossibly happening by a process of ‘osmosis’. Prior to the introduction of PEACE, policeinterviewers were viewed as inept using poor interviewing techniques, assuming guilt,being unduly repetitive in their questioning, and failing to establish relevant facts (e.g.Baldwin, 1992; Moston et al., 1992), most of which could be attributed to a lack ofpreparation. Despite the difficulties of comparing studies using different methodologies, itis felt that the behaviours discussed here are sufficiently similar to justify the observationthat the current data reveal an overall improvement in interviewing performance acrosstime. Whether this is due solely to the PEACE training approach is difficult to tell.Nevertheless, officers in the current sample were seen as having conducted reasonableplanning and preparation, and to be self confident with good communication skills(cf. Moston et al., 1992). At the start of the interview they provided a good introductionand a clear presentation of the caution before setting out the interviewees’ right to legaladvice and explaining the grounds for their arrest. During the account phase officersencouraged interviewees to provide an account using a logical structure/sequence, whilstkeeping them to relevant topics. To achieve this they demonstrated active listening skillsand openmindedness together with the ability to deal with difficulties. Good use ofquestions was also apparent with minimal interruptions and overtalking being observed,and few leading or complex questions being used.Consequently, interviewers in this sample were more likely to obtain comprehensive

accounts or confessions from their suspects than denials or ‘no comment’. Indeed, theadmission rate was higher than found in previous studies (e.g. Softley, 1980; Pearse &Gudjonsson, 1996; or Phillips, Brown, James & Goodrich, 1996). Despite these improvedoutcomes, officers in this study continued to explain the interview purpose and thestructure, and develop rapport at a standard assessed as not being fit for purpose. Oneexplanation for officer’s reluctance to provide the interview purpose and structure is as anartefact of previous police interviewing styles when suspects were given as littleinformation as possible in to keep them at a psychological disadvantage (Gudjonsson,2003). Additionally, encouraging the provision of an account did not extend to thedevelopment and exploration of that account. Indeed, there was little evidence of CM orthe interviewees’ account being challenged with evidence. Finally, the closure phasecontinues to be poorly conducted, even though it is the part of an interview that theinterviewee is likely to remember most (Hargie & Dickson, 2004). One explanation forpoor closure is that most training focuses on the introduction and account phases, whilstclosure is usually not practiced or assessed during training.From these data, we would argue, therefore, that the implementation of PEACE has had

a positive effect on police interviewing practice. However, the impact appears to be


DOI: 10.1002/jip


focused on legal and procedural issues (e.g. providing details of an interviewees legalrights) during the ‘introduction’ (often provided on an aide memoir card) together with alimited improvement in self-confidence and communication skills. These behaviours havebeen described by Griffiths and Milne (2006) as simple skills. The more complexcommunication skills and the skills of manipulating and exploring incoming informationin relation to existing knowledge appear difficult for officers to apply. Officers’encouraged the provision of an account in a structured/sequential manner, but were notsufficiently flexible to explore an account by developing topics based on new informationand linking them together. This is in accordance with the findings of Griffiths and Milne(2006) regarding interviewers in complex interviews of suspects (e.g. suspects of murder).The process of acquiring complex communication skills in applied settings would benefitfrom future research.It was postulated that the provision of a workplace supervision policy and the presence

of a legal advisor would improve the manner in which officers conducted their interviews.In the current sample, workplace supervision was associated with some enhancedperformance during the engage and explain phase of the interview, whereas the presenceor absence of a legal advisor had no significant effect for any of the interviewingbehaviours. Albeit (in this sample) the presence of a solicitor did reduce the willingness ofsuspects to talk to the police. This gives weight to the view of some police officers thatsuspects are more likely to remain silent if a solicitor is present. The term ‘provision of asupervision policy’ was used in the present study because there was no informationavailable concerning the actual frequency and quality of supervision being provided withinthe forces that provided the sample. Indeed, Stockdale (1993) suggested that the policeservice would have difficulty implementing a National supervision of interviewing policy.Her fears have been borne out by subsequent research, which has shown that even when apolicy is in place, its actual application varies considerably (Elliston, 1995; Paisley, 1998;Rigg, 1999). The current data demonstrate that even with a supervision policy thatmay not be diligently applied, some improvement of skills can be found. Perhaps,forces that choose to have in place a supervision policy are those in which performance(e.g. interviewing) is better. However, supervision remains to be an ongoing problem forthe police in England and Wales (e.g. in relation to Professionalising the InvestigationProcess (PIP), Stelfox, 2007).A number of methodological criticisms can be levelled at this study. When these

interviews were conducted (5years after the introduction of PEACE) few police officers inEngland and Wales were totally unaware of PEACE. By that time, large numbers ofofficers had been trained to use PEACE, and PEACE literature had been widely distributedwithin police forces (CPTU, 1992a; CPTU, 1992b; NCF, 1996; NCF, 1998). Thus evenuntrained officers were knowledgeable, to a degree, about PEACE. As the sample wasmade up of operational interviews from the ‘real world’ it was not possible to find a trainedsample that underwent exactly the same training as each other. Similarly, it was notpossible to identify a supervision sample that received similar and consistent supervision.The method of data collection also resulted in the limited availability of backgroundinformation concerning the interviewers. In particular, details were not available reqardingtheir length of service and interviewing experience (i.e. numbers of interviews conducted,frequency of interviewing), which may have had an impact on the quality of interviewing.When conducting an examination of real life interviews it is not always possible to controlfor everything. Nevertheless, these data provide a valuable insight into the real world ofinvestigative interviewing.


DOI: 10.1002/jip


CONCLUSION

In conclusion, whilst there were few significant differences between officers who had orhad not been trained in PEACE, the data suggest that officers’ skills when interviewingsuspects have improved since prior to the implementation of PEACE. Such improvements,however, focus on simple or procedural aspects of the interview. The more complex socialand communication skills needed to process information ‘on the fly’ remain an elusivequality that police interviewers find difficult to maintain after training (Lamb et al., 2002a;Lamb et al., 2002b; Griffiths & Milne 2006). Further investigation into the acquisitionprocess for complex social and communication skills would provide an insight into thisdifficulty.

REFERENCES

Baldwin, J. (1992). Video taping police interviews with suspects - an evaluation (Police ResearchSeries Paper 1). London: Home Office.

Baldwin, J. (1993). Police interview techniques: Establishing truth or proof? British Journal ofCriminology, 33, 325 – 352.

Bull, R. & Cherryman, J. (1995). Helping to identify skills gaps in specialist investigativeinterviewing: Enhancement of professional skills. Literature review. London: Home Office.

Cherryman, J. (2000). Police investigative interviewing: Skills analysis and concordance ofevaluations. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Portsmouth.

Clarke, C., & Milne, R. (2001). National evaluation of PEACE investigative interviewing course(Report No. PRAS/149). London: Home Office.

CPTU. (1992a). A guide to interviewing. Harrogate: CPTUCPTU. (1992b). Interviewer’s rule book. Harrogate: CPTU.De Vito, J. A. (2008). Messages: Building Interpersonal Communication Skills. Boston: Allyn &

Bacon.Elliston, J. (1995). Investigative interviewing training Bedfordshire Police. Unpublished internal

document, Bedfordshire Police.Griffiths, A., & Milne, R. (2006). Will it all end in tiers? Police interviews with suspects in Britain.

In T. Williamson (Ed.), Investigative Interviewing: Rights, Research, Regulation (pp. 167–189).Cullompton: Willan.

Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The Psychology Interrogations And Confession: A Handbook.Chichester: Wiley.

Hall, S. (1997). Investigative interviewing training - milestone or millstone? Unpublishedundergraduate dissertation, University of Portsmouth.

Hargie, O., & Dickson, D. (2004). Skilled Interpersonal Communication: Research, Theory andPractice. London: Routledge.

Heaven, C., Clegg, J., & Maguire, P. (2006). Transfer of communication skills training fromworkshop to workplace: The impact of clinical supervision. Patient Education and Counseling,60(3), 313–325. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.08.008

Lamb, M., Sternberg, K., Orbach, Y., Hershkowitz, I., Horowitz, D., & Esplin, P. (2002a). Theeffects of intensive training and ongoing supervision on the quality of investigative interviewswith alleged sex abuse victims. Applied Developmental Science, 6(3), 114–125. DOI: 10.1207/S1532480XADS0603_2.

Lamb, M. E., Sternberg, K. J., Orback, Y., Esplin, P. W., & Mitchell, S. (2002b). Is ongoingfeedback necessary to maintain the quality of investigative interviews with allegedly abusedchildren. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 35 – 41. DOI: 10.1207/S1532480XADS0601_04.

McGurk, B. J., Carr, M. J., & McGurk, D. (1993). Investigative Interviewing Courses for PoliceOfficers: An Evaluation (Police Research Series Paper, No. 4). London: Home Office.

Milne, R., & Bull, R. (1999) Investigative interviewing: Psychology and practice. Chichester: JohnWiley and Sons Ltd.


DOI: 10.1002/jip


Milne, R., Shaw, G., & Bull, R. (2007) Investigative interviewing: The role of research. In Carson,D., Milne, R., Pakes, F., Shalev, K., & Shawyer, A. (Eds.), Applying Psychology to CriminalJustice (pp. 65–80). Chichester: Wiley.

Moston, S., Stephenson, G. M., & Williamson, T. M. (1992). The effects of case characteristics onsuspect behaviour during police questioning. British Journal of Criminology, 32, 2 3–3 9.

NCF. (1996). Investigative interviewing: A practical guide. Hook: Training and Development Unit,Bramshill Police College.

NCF. (1998). A Practical Guide to Investigative Interviewing (2nd Ed.). Hook: Training andDevelopment Unit, Bramshill Police College.

Paisley, E. (1998). An investigation into the effectiveness of the Bedfordshire police investigativeinterview tape monitoring procedure. Unpublished MSc. Thesis, University of Bedford.

Pearse, J., & Gudjonsson, G. (1996). Police interviewing techniques at two south london policestations. Psychology, Crime and Law, 3(1), 63–74. DOI: 10.1080/10683169608409795

Phillips, C., Brown, D., James, Z., & Goodrich, P. (1996). Entry Into the Criminal Justice System: ASurvey of Police Arrests and Their Outcomes. (Home Office Research Study No 185). London:Home Office.

Powell, M. (2002) Specialist training in investigative and evidential iInterviewing: Is it havingany effect on the behaviour of professionals in the field? Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 9(1),44–55). DOI: 10.1375/pplt.2002.9.1.44.

Rigg, K. (1999). An assessment of the use of PEACE in Northumbria police. Unpublished MSc.thesis, University of Portsmouth.

Schon, D. A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London:Temple Smith.

Shepherd, E. (1988) Developing interviewing skills: A career span perspective. In Southgate, P.(Ed). New directions in police training’. London: HMSO.

Silverman, J., Kurtz, S. M., & Draper, J. (2008) Skills for Communicating with Patients (2 Ed.).Abingdon: Radcliffe Publishing Ltd.

Softley, P. (1980). Police Interrogation: An Observational Study at Four Police Stations (HomeOffice Research Study No 61). London: Home Office.

Stelfox, P. (2007). Professionalizing criminal investigation. In T. Newburn, T. Williamson & A.Wright (Eds.), Handbook of Criminal Investigation (pp. 628 – 651). Cullompton: Willan.

Stevens, A. F. (1998). An evaluation of the process of developing interviewing skills for uniformedconstables within Humberside police. Unpublished MEd. Dissertation, University of Hull.

Stockdale, J. (1993). Management and Supervision of Police Interviews (Police Research SeriesPaper 4). London: Home Office.

Walsh, D. W., & Milne, R. (2008). Keeping the PEACE? A study of investigative interviewingpractices in the public sector. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13(1), 39–57. DOI: 10.1348/135532506X157179.

Williamson, T., Milne, R., & Savage, S. P. (2009). International Developments in InvestigativeInterviewing. Cullompton: Willan.

Wright, R., & Powell, M. B. (2006). Investigative interviewers’ perceptions of their difficulty inadhering to open-ended questions with child witnesses. International Journal of Police Scienceand Management 8(4), 316 – 325. DOI: 10.1350/ijps.2006.8.4.316.


DOI: 10.1002/jip

interviewing suspects of crime: the impact of peace training, supervision and the presence of a...

Documents