Interviewing to Manage Threats: Exploring the Effects of Interview Style on Information Gain and Threateners’ Counter-Interview Strategies

R. Geurts, K. Ask, P. Granhag, A. Vrij
{"title":"Interviewing to Manage Threats: Exploring the Effects of Interview Style on Information Gain and Threateners’ Counter-Interview Strategies","authors":"R. Geurts, K. Ask, P. Granhag, A. Vrij","doi":"10.1037/tam0000107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is consensus about the importance to engage with, and if possible interview, individuals who threaten to cause harm. However, there exists little research on how to conduct such interviews. This article contributes with an experimental approach on threat management interviewing. We explored what types of counter-interview strategies threateners employ, and we tested the efficacy of two common interview styles (direct interviewing vs. rapport-based interviewing). Participants (N = 120) were interviewed about a nonviolent threat they had made (to press charges against their former employer) and reported what strategies they had used during the interview. No differences were found between the interview protocols for threat management outcomes (i.e., information gain, use of counter-interview strategies, and willingness to discuss or enact the threat). However, the study showed how threateners struck a deliberate balance between proving their stand and disguising implementation details. Critically, individuals with more serious intentions to enact the threat were more inclined to hide information from the interviewer. We argue that it is vital for threat management interviewers to (a) understand what behaviors can be expected from the interviewee, and (b) learn about interview methods that can steer these behaviors toward information gain (which is beneficial to threat assessment) and toward de-escalation (which is the purpose of threat management).","PeriodicalId":217565,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Threat Assessment and Management","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Threat Assessment and Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/tam0000107","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

There is consensus about the importance to engage with, and if possible interview, individuals who threaten to cause harm. However, there exists little research on how to conduct such interviews. This article contributes with an experimental approach on threat management interviewing. We explored what types of counter-interview strategies threateners employ, and we tested the efficacy of two common interview styles (direct interviewing vs. rapport-based interviewing). Participants (N = 120) were interviewed about a nonviolent threat they had made (to press charges against their former employer) and reported what strategies they had used during the interview. No differences were found between the interview protocols for threat management outcomes (i.e., information gain, use of counter-interview strategies, and willingness to discuss or enact the threat). However, the study showed how threateners struck a deliberate balance between proving their stand and disguising implementation details. Critically, individuals with more serious intentions to enact the threat were more inclined to hide information from the interviewer. We argue that it is vital for threat management interviewers to (a) understand what behaviors can be expected from the interviewee, and (b) learn about interview methods that can steer these behaviors toward information gain (which is beneficial to threat assessment) and toward de-escalation (which is the purpose of threat management).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
访谈管理威胁:探讨访谈风格对信息获取的影响及威胁者的反访谈策略
对于与可能造成伤害的人接触,如果可能的话,采访他们的重要性,人们达成了共识。然而,关于如何进行此类访谈的研究却很少。本文对威胁管理访谈的实验方法做出了贡献。我们探索了威胁者使用的反面试策略类型,并测试了两种常见面试风格(直接面试和基于关系的面试)的效果。参与者(N = 120)接受了关于他们所做的非暴力威胁(起诉他们的前雇主)的采访,并报告了他们在采访中使用的策略。在威胁管理结果(即信息获取、反访谈策略的使用以及讨论或制定威胁的意愿)方面,访谈协议之间没有发现差异。然而,该研究表明,威胁者如何在证明自己的立场和掩盖实施细节之间取得审慎的平衡。关键的是,那些意图更严肃的人更倾向于向面试官隐瞒信息。我们认为,对于威胁管理采访者来说,至关重要的是(a)了解可以从受访者那里期望哪些行为,以及(b)了解可以引导这些行为走向信息获取(这有利于威胁评估)和降级(这是威胁管理的目的)的访谈方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Risk and threat assessment instruments for violent extremism: A systematic review. Supplemental Material for Risk and Threat Assessment Instruments for Violent Extremism: A Systematic Review Supplemental Material for Differentiating Between Harmless and Harmful Threats: What Factors Increase Risk of Violence Following Threats? Target dispersion as a preapproach indicator in threat assessment and management. Supplemental Material for Risk Assessment Challenges in a Specialized Clinic for Individuals Referred for Violent Extremism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1