A comment on methodological concerns: A rejoinder

This rejoinder to Professor Cohen's Comment is intended to elaborate on approaches we utilized in our original paper. Some of our specification was necessitated by data availability (e.g., the specification of the sanction process). We attempt to clarify our approach in regard to the intervention process. We provide an explanation of the modeling that could underly a test of the hypothesis that the control effect is a product of the arrest process—a test that we had regarded as informative but peripheral to our main points. As noted, a significant part of that test utilizes the full range of control variables available to us. Finally, we enumerate what we felt to be the main points of our paper—points we are afraid might otherwise be lost in this discussion of methodology.     

One Way or Another? Criminal Investigators’ Beliefs Regarding the Disclosure of Evidence in Interviews with Suspects in England and Wales

The research base concerning interviews with suspects remains to be comprehensively developed. For example, the extant literature provides differing views regarding how best to undertake the important interview task of disclosing evidence. In the current study, using a self-report questionnaire, 224 investigators based in England and Wales were asked as to their own preferred methods. Most respondents advocated a gradual method of disclosing evidence, stating that this approach would better reveal inconsistencies and obtain a complete version of events (similar to the reasoning of those who preferred disclosing evidence later). Those who advocated revealing evidence early stated this approach would more likely elicit confessions. Several respondents would not commit to one single method, arguing that their chosen strategy was contextually dependent. The study’s findings suggest that it remains arguable as to whether there is one best approach to evidence disclosure and/or whether particular circumstances should influence interviewing strategies.