Social Engineering Blogs

An Aggregator for Blogs About Social Engineering and Related Fields

Rapport in Investigative Interviews

Humintell Director Dr. David Matsumoto recently conducted a webinar on “Understanding Rapport and its Possible Components” for the International Association of Interviewers (IAI).

Please enjoy this recording of the recent webinar as well as the outline he wrote that preceded it.

 

Anyone and everyone who expounds an ethical, non-confrontational, empirically-based approach to interviewing acknowledges the importance of rapport. And for good reason: Rapport has been documented in basic social psychological research for decades as a crucial element in any successful human interaction involving coordination and cooperation among interactants. Recent empirical studies have increasingly demonstrated it is also critical to investigative interviewing. Anyone who does investigative interviewing can attest to its importance.

Of course, I am preaching to the choir. As I write this I am reading the IAI February 2020 Featured Blog entitled “Successful interviews: Why rapport is crucial to policing.” It, along with IAI’s recent webinar on rapport, are excellent examples of the importance of rapport in investigative interviewing.

As I have been researching, thinking about, and struggling with this important topic, I have come to realize that we still don’t have good answers to some really fundamental questions about rapport. These include what exactly is rapport? And what is it not? Is it necessary or sufficient for successful investigative interviews? Are there other equally if not more important concepts that are crucial to successful interviews?

Answers to these very basic, but very important, questions are not found in the scientific literature, either.

Still, it seems to me that we should seek answers or clarity to these questions because how we land on them can influence many things, including our understanding about the nature and function of rapport in interviews; how to establish, maintain, and repair it; and whether there are other concepts that we should also keep in mind when conducting interviews.

In this webinar, I will raise these questions, bringing examples from the scientific literature as well as practical applications. I won’t provide a recipe for how to establish and maintain rapport in investigative interviews, because there are so many extremely competent interviewers, especially those certified in the CFI/IAI method! But I would like to raise awareness of some important questions, and possible limitations, of the concept of rapport, and bring to bear whatever scientific evidence there is to address these issues.

The overall goal of the webinar will be to raise awareness about and critical thinking related to this incredibly important concept to investigative interviews.

Why is that Funny?

Psychology often tries to unravel emotional mysteries, but some resist investigation more than others.

One of these long-standing mysteries is the reality of humor. What exactly makes a joke funny or not? And to whom? It is this question which has long puzzled psychologists and philosophers, and Scientific American’s Giovanni Sabato attempts to trace the history of theory and research on humor in a recent article.

Sabato delves into a long philosophical tradition, including the likes of Plato and Sigmund Freud, which has sought to model how humor works. While Plato and other ancient Greeks theorized that humor resulted from a sense of superiority over the failings of others, Freud made a great deal about the tendency for humor to thrive on the violation of taboos.

Another theory has focused on the idea of “incongruity.” Humor is derived from the subversion of expectations or the incompatibility of various concepts or situations. This helps explain the presence of double meanings and puns in humor, and it showcases the frequency with which humor deals with unexpected punchlines or resolutions to tricky situations.

The latter should be pretty intuitive to anyone who has watched a sitcom!

One more modern attempt to develop a unified theory of humor has built on that idea of incongruity. Drs. Peter McGraw and Caleb Warren, of the University of Colorado, Boulder, have introduced the idea of “benign violation.”

This theory focuses on humor being derived from violations of expectations surrounding norms. When somebody acts in a way that they are not supposed to, if it does not result in indignation or scandal, the situation will often be perceived as humorous.

There is also a role here for being distant from that particular, often awkward, violation. By hearing these stories second-hand from a comedian or friend, we have enough distance to find these situations funny.

However, this theory of distance and violation is not the only popular theory. Some psychologists and evolutionary biologists simply see humor as an evolutionary mechanism. Spontaneous and genuine laughter is deeply ingrained in our biology, while contrived and forced laughter developed as a way of smoothing social situations.

One way that humor can be derived from our hard-wired evolutionary experiences is related to the subversion of expectations. A group of philosophers, including Matthew Hurley of Indiana University Bloomington, saw humor as related to mistakes, or at least to their detection.

Our mind naturally assumes that it knows what will happen, relying on heuristics to predict likely events, but when things don’t happen as they should, for instance when another person acts erratically, we interpret that as humor.

None of these are necessarily perfect explanations for such a complex phenomenon. However, they help situate the question of humor into our cognitive and evolutionary history. From past blogs, we already know that emotional expressions are deeply rooted in evolution, and we know that properly reading people often depends on situating our experiences into these cognitive roots.

Nonverbal Expression of Dominance

Fig. 2. Stimuli used in Study 1 (top row) and Study 2 (middle and bottom rows). From left to right, the poses illustrate downward head tilts, neutral head angles, and upward head tilts. In all images, targets posed with neutral facial expressions (i.e., no facial-muscle movement).(University of British Columbia)

While we often talk about prominent examples of nonverbal behavior, like the triumphant pose, many are actually quite subtle.

A fascinating new study out of the University of British Columbia looked at the marked impact of something as simple as head position in evaluations of a person’s inclination towards dominance. This study found that a slight downward tilt of the head, while still maintaining eye contact, is often perceived as a dominant and intimidating signal.

In their first experiment, study authors Zachary Witkower and Jessica Tracy recruited subjects online to view a series of computer-generated images of faces. After being shown each image, the participants were asked to rate the person based on perceptions of dominance. This involved answering questions like whether that person “would enjoy having control over others” or “would be willing to use aggressive tactics.”

Consistently, they found that the faces slightly tilted downwards, while still maintaining a level gaze, were rated higher in dominance than the control. While an upward head tilt was also generally significant, its effect was greatly dwarfed by the downward tilt.

Of course, the attentive reader would notice that there could be something wrong with asking participants to look at computer-generated images. In order to address this, the study authors went further and conducted additional studies.

The first of these simply sought to replicate the previous study using actual images of people’s faces, maintaining the same control as well as an upward and downward tilt for comparison. This generally replicated the findings of the first study.

But what about the downwardly tilted face has this impact? Is it knowing that the head is tilted? Or does tilting the head downward have certain impacts on facial muscles that create this impression?

In addressing this final question, Drs. Witkower and Tracy conducted a third study which, instead of exposing participants to images of faces, instead exposed participants to narrow bands of those same faces, this time just showing the eyes.

Noting that these bands still showed marked differences, such a model helped evaluate whether it was a change in eye position or the actual head tilt that promoted a sense of dominance. They also showed participants images of faces, tilted and otherwise, with the eyes missing.

This final study found that the dominance-inducing effect of head tilt was only present when the eyes were, and it did not seem to require the entire face. This indicates that something about the eyes and the related muscles convey that image of power.

Questions of dominance are incredibly important in many of the same contexts that microexpressions are. In conducting an interview or interrogation, it behooves the investigator to show a sense of authority and power. Similarly, recognizing this tactic in other people might greatly benefit your ability to read them effectively.