Rapport-Based Investigative Interviewing: Evidence and Practice
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 11, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Rapport-based investigative interviewing is an evidence-informed approach to obtaining an interviewee's account through respectful communication, attentive listening, transparency, appropriate autonomy, and sustained professional engagement. The objective is to gather information that can be evaluated against independent evidence. Rapport matters because a person's willingness and ability to describe events are influenced by the interpersonal conditions in which questions are asked.
In criminal investigations, intelligence interviews, and witness interviews, successful rapport can support cooperation and more complete accounts. Its presence is not proof that a statement is true, and its absence is not proof of guilt or deception. The most defensible standard is a combination of accurate information, voluntary participation where applicable, transparent procedures, and a complete record of how the account was obtained.
What Is Rapport-Based Investigative Interviewing?
In investigative interviewing, rapport describes a professional relationship characterized by attention, an approachable manner, an effort to understand the interviewee's perspective, and sufficiently constructive interaction to support communication. The systematic review of rapport measures by Brouillard, Gabbert, and Scott (2024) found substantial disagreement about how rapport is defined and measured. These disagreements matter: researchers sometimes label different interviewer behaviors, perceptions, or interaction outcomes as rapport.
The word relationship should be understood in a functional, professional sense. An interviewer can respect someone's dignity without agreeing with their account, promising a favorable outcome, or pretending to share their beliefs. Effective rapport is compatible with skepticism, lawful challenge, and rigorous verification. The interviewee remains free to correct the interviewer, decline assumptions, or explain uncertainty.
A rapport-based interview usually occurs within a larger information-gathering process. Preparation, open-ended questioning, strategic disclosure of evidence, clarification, accurate recording, and post-interview verification all contribute to the result. Rapport is one interacting component of that process. The 2024 Campbell systematic review compares broader interrogation approaches; its estimated effects must not be presented as the isolated causal effect of rapport.
The investigation may involve a suspect, witness, victim, cooperating source, or person with potentially exculpatory information. Their procedural rights, incentives, vulnerabilities, memories, and reasons for speaking differ. A method that increases cooperation in one population may perform differently in another.
The Psychological Mechanisms: Why Rapport Can Affect Disclosure
Perceived fairness, autonomy, and cooperation
Being listened to, receiving a truthful explanation of the process, and having an opportunity to narrate events can reduce unnecessary interpersonal resistance. A person who experiences the interviewer as fair may be more willing to supply details, clarify apparent contradictions, or say when a question cannot be answered. In the ORBIT field study, rapport-related interpersonal behaviors were examined in actual counterterrorism interviews, providing observational evidence about engagement and information yield.
Autonomy is particularly important. A suspect's legal right to remain silent or consult counsel is a legal safeguard, not an interviewing obstacle to overcome. Respect for lawful choice is also a plausible basis for credible professional interaction. A person may remain silent despite good rapport, and that exercise of a right must not be read as evidence of wrongdoing.
Cognitive opportunity to recall and explain
Open prompts, an uninterrupted initial account, patient pacing, and clarification questions can give memory retrieval more room than rapid closed questioning. Interviewers may obtain richer descriptions of sequence, sensory context, and uncertainty when people can organize their responses themselves. Because rapport is commonly accompanied by improved question design, studies of full protocols cannot establish which portion of any benefit comes from rapport alone.
More information is useful only insofar as it is accurate, relevant, and independently testable. A detailed but suggested or contaminated account may create more investigative work and more legal risk. Interviewers should preserve the distinction between what the person spontaneously recalled, what the interviewer introduced, and what was later reconstructed.
Interpersonal adaptation without manipulation
An interviewer may adjust pace, vocabulary, physical setting, the use of an interpreter, and the amount of explanation to the person's needs. This adaptation supports comprehension and expressive opportunity. It should not involve false claims of friendship, fabricated shared experiences, deceptive promises, or emotional leverage over vulnerability.
The 2019 experiment by Brimbal and colleagues used a simulated wrongdoing scenario involving 116 participants. An affiliation-oriented approach increased perceived rapport, while an approach designed to distance participants from an alleged wrongdoer reduced information yield. These results illuminate possible mechanisms but do not give a universal script for actual criminal investigations.
Reduced defensiveness and psychological safety
An interviewee who anticipates humiliation or threats may concentrate on immediate self-protection instead of careful narration. Calm tone, predictable structure, and genuine attention can make correction and disclosure easier. This is an interpretation consistent with available research and professional guidance; the precise pathways from interviewer behavior to information accuracy are still being investigated.
Psychological safety here means sufficient freedom from intimidation to communicate; it does not guarantee agreement, comfort, immunity from legal consequences, or confidentiality. Investigators must avoid suggesting that an interview is therapeutic or legally privileged when it is not.
What Does the Scientific Evidence Actually Show?
A meta-analysis of individual interviewing techniques
Tribbels and Michels' meta-analytic review synthesized 60 studies in intelligence and interrogation-related contexts. Rapport and relationship building, evidence presentation, and cognitive facilitation were among the technique families with support for increasing useful information and/or its accuracy. For several other technique domains the authors judged the evidence insufficient. The review supports systematic study and training of rapport-related behaviors while recognizing that included populations, designs, tasks, and outcomes vary.
A meta-analytic average is not a guarantee for an individual interview. Different investigators may implement techniques with different fidelity, and an effect on willingness to talk is not interchangeable with an effect on verifiable truth. The result is best treated as comparative evidence for promising techniques rather than proof of a universally effective method.
Broader interviewing approaches and false confessions
The 2024 Campbell systematic review by Catlin and colleagues included 29 independent experimental studies drawn from 27 reports, mainly involving U.S. college-student mock suspects. Compared with information-gathering approaches, accusatorial approaches produced higher odds of false confessions in the combined analysis (odds ratio 4.41; 95% confidence interval 1.77–10.97). Information-gathering approaches produced more true confessions than direct questioning (odds ratio 2.43; 95% confidence interval 1.29–4.59).
The comparison between information-gathering and accusatorial methods for true confessions did not reach statistical significance in the review's main three-category model. These are odds ratios from experimental conditions, not probabilities that a real-world suspect will confess, and the evidence does not allow calculation of an individual interviewee's likelihood of truthful disclosure.
The review addresses entire interviewing approaches. Rapport is often part of information gathering, but so are questioning style, interviewer assumptions, evidence handling, and interview structure. Attribution of the entire effect to rapport would be scientifically unsound. The authors also reported heterogeneity and inconsistency in some analyses of specific tactics.
Observational studies of actual high-stakes interviews
Alison and colleagues' ORBIT study (2013) examined the behavior of 58 police interrogators in interviews involving terrorism suspects. Their analysis associated rapport-oriented interpersonal conduct with useful information and examined maladaptive behavior and resistance. This is an important field contribution because real investigations have stakes, strategic goals, and relational dynamics that laboratory simulations cannot fully reproduce.
Its central methodological limit is observational inference. Interviewer behavior may respond to interviewee cooperation, both may change throughout an interview, and case characteristics may influence both. Associations and coded interaction patterns cannot by themselves prove that one interpersonal action caused a specific disclosure.
The Oxford University Press volume on ORBIT provides a practitioner-oriented account of the model and its development. It is useful as an academic handbook for understanding implementation, while original studies remain the appropriate foundation for claims about effectiveness.
Training and implementation research
In a 2021 law-enforcement training study, Brimbal and colleagues evaluated training in a rapport-based approach to investigative interviews. Such studies extend the evidence beyond whether a technique can work under tightly controlled conditions to the question of whether practitioners can be trained to use it. Training effects, however, do not automatically establish sustained improvements in conviction accuracy, fairness, case resolution, or avoidance of wrongful convictions across police systems.
The FBI High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group describes a science-informed, lawful interviewing program that integrates research, advanced training, and operational feedback. This demonstrates institutional translation of research. Institutional adoption should be distinguished from independent evidence that every component works equally well across settings.
The problem of measuring rapport
Brouillard and colleagues (2024) identified 111 research articles and 126 measures of professional rapport. Their assessment found limited consistency and validity in the measures. Some measures code observable interviewer behaviors; others ask interviewees how they felt; still others infer rapport from conversational outcomes. These are related but distinct variables.
A self-report rating may reflect how pleasant the encounter felt. A behavior coding score may reflect the frequency of open questions or attentive responses. Neither directly establishes the truthfulness of disclosed facts. Evaluation therefore needs measures of rapport and independent measures of interview quality, rather than treating one as a proxy for the other.
Evidence in child and adolescent interviews
Research with children suggests that supportive, developmentally suitable interactions and question types affect how children disclose information. A 2021 meta-analysis of 35 studies assessed rapport practices and question type in children's reporting of sensitive information. The findings should be interpreted in the context of the specific populations and procedures included.
A 2024 systematic review focused on adolescents found only one eligible experiment since 1990 that directly tested rapport-building techniques with adolescent witnesses. In that study, more extensive rapport was associated with more details in an observed-video task among adolescents, but the intervention also contained supportive behaviors, and accuracy did not differ across conditions. Adult or young-child findings cannot simply be transferred to teenagers.
Rapport-Based Interviewing in Practice: An Evidence-Aligned Workflow
1. Define the investigative question before the conversation
The interviewer should specify what must be established, what facts are already independently known, what alternative explanations remain plausible, and what new information could genuinely change the inquiry. Preparation includes identifying both incriminating and exculpatory possibilities. This reduces the danger that rapport becomes a sophisticated method for confirming a preferred narrative.
A case plan should also distinguish the interviewee's legal status and entitlements. A voluntary witness meeting, a formal suspect interview, and a custodial interrogation carry different procedural requirements. Consult the relevant jurisdiction's governing law and agency policy before interviewing.
2. Prepare a setting that supports comprehension and dignity
Explain the investigator's identity, role, purpose, approximate process, and any lawful recording arrangements. Consider language access, disability accommodations, rest, medical needs, and whether a support person or legal representative is required. The interview setting should permit clear communication without unnecessary stressors.
A quiet room and an unhurried tone are useful conditions, but decor and superficial friendliness cannot substitute for procedural fairness. False reassurance that nothing serious can follow an interview would undermine informed communication.
3. Establish professional contact and ground rules
Begin with an accurate explanation of why the meeting is occurring and how questions will be handled. Invite the interviewee to say when a question is misunderstood, correct an inaccurate summary, and identify when a detail is uncertain or not remembered. These instructions help prevent the appearance of agreement being mistaken for genuine knowledge.
Rapport may start with brief neutral conversation when appropriate. It becomes meaningful through how the interviewer responds to the person's actual answers: allowing completion, acknowledging difficulty without endorsing facts, listening attentively, and being honest about the limits of the investigator's role.
4. Invite a free narrative before narrowing the inquiry
For an interviewee who is willing and legally able to provide an account, broad, non-leading prompts can invite a description in the person's own words. One example is: 'Please tell me what happened, starting wherever makes the most sense to you.' The interviewer can then request chronology, people present, actions, and the source of the person's knowledge.
The primary purpose of the first account is to preserve the person's own organization of events. Repeated interruption, premature challenge, or introduction of disputed facts can influence what is recalled and reported. Note spontaneous statements separately from answers to specific prompts.
5. Follow the person's account with clarification
After the initial narrative, ask about ambiguous expressions, missing time periods, apparent inconsistencies, and potential corroboration. Favor questions such as 'What did you mean by that?' or 'What happened next?' where the information can be gathered without supplying a proposed answer.
Closed questions have a legitimate role when precise confirmation is needed. Their role should follow rather than replace adequate opportunities for unrestricted reporting. Avoid compound questions and provide adequate time for a response.
6. Handle evidence and discrepancies transparently
Investigators may need to test a statement against documents, messages, timelines, forensic findings, or independent testimony. Challenge concerns the consistency of propositions and evidence, not an assumed defect in the interviewee's character. Present discrepancies accurately, invite an explanation, and record the response in context.
Timing of evidence disclosure is a separate research domain from rapport. A choice to withhold known evidence temporarily or disclose it strategically requires independent legal and evidentiary justification. Invented evidence, misleading claims about the strength of proof, and implied promises about criminal consequences are especially hazardous where confession reliability is at stake. See the American Psychological Association's 2022 resolution.
7. Monitor engagement without treating demeanor as a lie detector
An interviewee may become quiet, angry, restless, emotional, or evasive for reasons including fatigue, fear, confusion, trauma-related distress, cultural communication differences, or strategic decision-making. These behaviors do not independently identify deception. Continue to assess what is said against reliable external material.
Interviewers should not use eye contact, fidgeting, nervousness, or apparent friendliness as diagnostic markers of truthfulness. Rapport supports communication; it is not a psychometric test, legal finding, forensic diagnosis, or prediction of guilt.
8. Close fairly and preserve the complete record
Before ending, invite corrections, further detail, or identification of overlooked evidence. Explain permissible next steps without promising an outcome. Record what was said, the questions that elicited it, and any interruptions, accommodations, breaks, or challenges.
Full audio-video documentation is particularly valuable when voluntariness, wording, or the source of case details may later be contested. The APA resolution recommends complete recording of custodial interviews of felony suspects, including a neutral camera perspective, and calls for heightened protection of vulnerable interviewees.
9. Verify before drawing conclusions
After the interview, investigators should map statements to corroborating evidence and identify both inconsistencies and new leads. They should note which details were known to the person before interview exposure and whether the investigator supplied critical information.
A cooperative interview is not necessarily an accurate interview. A confession is evidence that requires evaluation; a denial may be accurate; an allegation may be sincere and mistaken. The quality of an interview is measured partly by how effectively it supports independent testing of alternative accounts.
Which Behaviors Help Build Rapport?
Attentive listening creates opportunities for detail and correction. It includes allowing a complete answer, using neutral acknowledgments, and accurately reflecting the person's words without inserting information. An interviewer can communicate understanding of a feeling without validating an allegation as true.
Respectful explanation reduces procedural ambiguity. Giving realistic information about the purpose, interview structure, recording, rights, and possible next steps helps the interviewee interpret the setting. Candor is especially important because an attempt to create false trust can generate later resentment and undermine reliability.
Adaptation involves meeting communication needs. This may include an interpreter, appropriate pace, rest breaks, accessible questions, clear chronological aids, and accommodations for developmental or cognitive differences. These interventions need professional judgment and may have effects independent of rapport.
Nonjudgmental language lowers the social cost of describing embarrassing, stigmatized, or disputed material. It remains possible to examine inconsistencies firmly and fairly. Respect for personhood never requires abandoning verification or evidentiary standards.
Consistency maintains the relationship across difficult sections. A warm beginning followed by intimidation is inconsistent with ethical rapport-based practice. When a person disagrees or asserts a right, the interviewer should remain professional.
How Rapport Differs From the PEACE Model, Cognitive Interview, and Interrogation
Rapport is an interpersonal dimension or group of behaviors. The PEACE model is a broader structured framework for preparing, engaging, obtaining an account, closing, and evaluating an investigative interview. Rapport supports the engagement and account phases but does not itself supply every procedural component. The College of Policing's current investigative interviewing guidance provides a professional framework in the United Kingdom; its requirements should be interpreted within the applicable UK legal context.
The Cognitive Interview is a memory-oriented interviewing protocol with particular retrieval-support techniques. Its scientific rationale concerns recall and reporting under structured conditions. Rapport may facilitate its implementation but must not be treated as identical to its memory procedures.
ORBIT is a specialized observational and training framework emphasizing adaptive interpersonal behavior and rapport, developed in part from high-stakes interviewing research. It is neither a legal standard nor a license to infer guilt from resistance.
The terms investigative interview and interrogation are used differently by agencies and legal systems. In many information-gathering frameworks, the focus is the reliable account; in accusatorial interrogation, the practice may be oriented toward obtaining admissions. A suspect can be questioned respectfully without changing that person's legal status or rights. These differences belong to distinct procedural and scientific questions and should be analyzed separately.
Special Populations and Contexts
Suspects and people in custody
Custody changes the stakes of every interpersonal technique. A respectful encounter cannot substitute for a legally valid rights warning, access to counsel where required, voluntariness protections, or lawful detention conditions. Investigators must distinguish cooperation from compliance under pressure.
Research based on mock suspects is valuable because researchers can manipulate guilt status and identify false-confession outcomes. It does not fully reproduce the incentives, fear, consequences, or adversarial features of real criminal proceedings. The Campbell review makes this generalization limit particularly important.
Victims and other witnesses
People reporting frightening, humiliating, or confusing experiences may be reluctant to disclose details. Rapport may improve willingness to speak while questions must continue to protect against suggestion and contamination. Accurate memory includes gaps, changes in emphasis, and uncertainty; these characteristics should be explored rather than suppressed.
Interviewers should avoid treating emotional expression as a truth test. They should also distinguish an investigative role from clinical care. When additional support is appropriate, offer pathways consistent with the agency's function without promising secrecy or a particular judicial result.
Children and adolescents
Developmentally appropriate language, opportunities for open recall, and careful avoidance of leading questions are important. Younger children and teenagers have distinct cognitive and social needs. A 2024 adolescent-focused review emphasizes that the direct experimental base for teen rapport methods remains exceptionally narrow.
Specialist forensic interviewing protocols, safeguarding procedures, legal safeguards, and child protection requirements take precedence over a generic adult rapport script. Training, supervision, and fidelity assessment are essential.
Intellectual disability, communication differences, and mental health needs
Capacity to comprehend questions, communicate a response, and understand legal rights must be considered independently of observable friendliness or cooperation. Distress, psychotic symptoms, neurodevelopmental differences, language barriers, and fatigue may require accommodations. A diagnosis does not establish untruthfulness, dangerousness, legal incapacity, or guilt.
The APA interrogation resolution calls for professional protections for particularly vulnerable individuals, including youth and people with developmental or intellectual disabilities or mental health difficulties. Specific legal entitlements depend on jurisdiction and circumstances.
Interpreters and cross-cultural interviewing
Eye contact, conversational pacing, silence, perceived directness, and deference can differ across cultures. Rapport training built on narrow samples should be tested against the populations where it is deployed. Interviewers should use qualified interpreters when required, avoid attributing moral meanings to culturally variable behavior, and document how questions and answers were translated.
The same principle applies to power differences within institutions. A person's polite manner may reflect social hierarchy rather than felt trust. Cultural fairness requires attention to both language and procedural power.
Intelligence and national-security contexts
High-stakes intelligence interviewing may involve strategic resistance, conflicting interests, and highly unusual interview environments. The FBI's HIG research program maintains a substantial research bibliography, updated in August 2026. Its program and ORBIT literature inform evidence-based techniques while retaining population and setting limitations.
A finding from high-value detainee interviews should not be treated as automatically validated for domestic-violence witnesses, child victims, or routine local-police questioning.
Legal Standards, Human Rights, and Professional Ethics
Psychology examines how interviewing conditions affect reporting, cooperation, recall, and the likelihood of errors. Law governs detention, voluntariness, admissibility, access to counsel, warnings, recording duties, procedural exclusion, and evidence evaluation. A psychologically effective exchange may still violate legal requirements. Conversely, a formally admissible statement may remain factually unreliable.
The 2021 Principles on Effective Interviewing for Investigations and Information Gathering, often called the Méndez Principles, offer an international normative framework grounded in science, law, and ethics. They emphasize non-coercive practices, procedural safeguards, training, accountability, and reliable information. They are influential principles rather than a single globally applicable criminal procedure code.
In the United States, constitutional doctrine, state law, federal law, department policy, and the details of an encounter determine whether and when particular protections apply. Requirements differ across jurisdictions; the UK College of Policing's professional practice is not automatically binding on a U.S. agency. Interviewers should obtain jurisdiction-specific legal guidance before applying practices involving custody, rights, recording, and evidence disclosure.
Consent and confidentiality must be described accurately. The interviewer should not promise privacy inconsistent with investigative reporting obligations, privilege, statutory disclosure, or mandatory reporting. Where a participant is a child or another vulnerable person, specialized protections and institutional rules must be integrated into the process.
How Should Investigative Interview Quality Be Evaluated?
A robust assessment separates five outcomes: interpersonal behavior, actual engagement, quantity of information, independently corroborated accuracy, and procedural compliance. These criteria may correlate, but none should be used as a substitute for another. Counting words, admissions, or time spent talking can reward quantity even when the information is unhelpful or contaminated.
Coding interviewer behavior can examine uninterrupted narrative invitations, the proportion of open versus leading prompts, accuracy of summaries, respectful responses to corrections, and false-evidence or coercive conduct. Interviewee ratings can help assess perceived fairness and rapport, although they may vary across contexts and populations.
Information quality requires an auditable evidentiary test. Investigators can classify statements as corroborated, contradicted, unresolved, or derived from information introduced during the interview. They should document error rates where a research design permits known ground truth and avoid presenting unvalidated rapport scores as diagnostic instruments.
Claims about prediction require a suitable predictive-validation design, prespecified outcomes, representative populations, and appropriate calibration and error analysis. Ordinary rapport observations are not risk-assessment instruments: they have no established sensitivity, specificity, or false-positive rate for identifying guilt. A person who appears open and cooperative may be inaccurate; a hesitant person may be truthful.
Training evaluation should check whether skills survive beyond the course, generalize to real cases, support reliable information, and respect rights. Supervisors need feedback on recorded interviews rather than a simple checklist of friendly gestures.
What the Evidence Cannot Yet Establish
Studies vary widely in the operational definition of rapport, interview population, level of interviewer experience, source motivation, type of disclosed information, and availability of objective accuracy checks. Some observe actual cases where ground truth is uncertain. Other experiments know ground truth but use modest stakes and artificial scenarios. Both approaches are necessary, and each addresses a different validity question.
Causal effects often cannot be separated when rapport is packaged with open questions, cognitive prompts, supportive behavior, or strategic evidence use. A successful protocol therefore supplies evidence for the protocol as tested, not automatically for every included technique. The 2024 measurement review makes that distinction especially important.
The field also needs replication across languages, communities, age groups, legal systems, disability groups, different offense investigations, and interviewer training levels. Fairness claims require direct subgroup evidence. Without such data, an appealing theoretical rationale remains a hypothesis rather than a demonstrated universal result.
Most studies measure reporting behavior or information yield more readily than downstream outcomes such as factual case resolution or wrongful-conviction reduction. These long-term justice outcomes are affected by many other stages of investigation and prosecution. Accordingly, rapport should be evaluated as a contribution to evidence-gathering quality, not as a stand-alone guarantee of justice.
Common Myths and Misconceptions
Rapport is sometimes mistaken for making the interviewee like the investigator. Pleasantness may help start a conversation, but professional rapport depends on consistent conduct, meaningful listening, fair treatment, and respect for boundaries. It can exist without personal affection.
Another misconception is that a friendly suspect is probably truthful. Apparent openness has no validated status as proof of innocence or truth. Deception, honest error, memory limitations, and strategic silence cannot be identified reliably from how well a conversation feels.
A third claim is that pressure always produces more useful information. The experimental synthesis of interrogation approaches identifies material false-confession costs for accusatorial methods. Because confession outcomes and information accuracy differ, a high confession rate is not an adequate performance standard.
Finally, rapport is not a substitute for recording, corroboration, valid legal procedure, or careful questioning. A warmly conducted interview may still introduce misleading suggestions or overlook exculpatory information. Good interpersonal conduct belongs within an entire evidence-quality system.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the goal of rapport-based investigative interviewing?
The goal is to create professional conditions in which a person can communicate an informative, voluntary, and testable account. Success is evaluated through information quality, procedural fairness, and independent corroboration rather than whether an interviewer secures agreement or a confession.
Does rapport-based interviewing work with suspects?
Research supports rapport-related techniques as promising elements of information-gathering approaches, including field observations and laboratory studies. The size and reliability of a benefit depend on setting, interviewee, outcomes, and implementation. No technique guarantees cooperation or truthful disclosure.
Is rapport-based interviewing the same as the PEACE model?
No. Rapport describes interpersonal dynamics and behaviors, whereas PEACE structures the whole investigative interview from planning to evaluation. The two are compatible, but evidence for one should not be automatically attributed to the other.
Can investigators build rapport without deceiving someone?
Yes. Clear explanations, listening, patience, appropriate empathy, fairness, and responsiveness can support rapport without false promises, fabricated evidence, or an invented personal relationship. Legal entitlements and ethical boundaries remain in force.
Does rapport reduce false confessions?
Information-gathering approaches that commonly incorporate rapport produce fewer false confessions than accusatorial approaches in the 2024 Campbell experimental review. The review did not isolate rapport as the sole causal ingredient. The precise effect of rapport alone on false-confession risk is less clearly established.
Can rapport determine whether someone is lying?
No. Rapport is neither a lie detector nor a valid measure of guilt. The reliability of an account depends on its formation, elicitation, internal specifics, possible contamination, and external verification.
Is rapport useful with children or adolescents?
Developmentally suitable supportive interviewing is an important practice, but age-specific evidence varies. The 2024 review of adolescents found very little direct experimental research on methods for building rapport specifically with teenagers.
What are the biggest risks of poor rapport practice?
Risks include manipulative false trust, suggestive or leading questions, confusing cooperation with accuracy, overlooking rights, inadequate accommodation, and inappropriate confidence in an interviewer-rated rapport score. Recording, supervision, legal safeguards, and corroboration reduce these risks.
What should training and supervision focus on?
Training should teach lawful explanation of the process, listening, open narrative invitations, sensitive clarification, non-coercive challenge, documentation, and self-correction. Supervision should use recorded performance and independently assessed information quality rather than demeanor-based impressions.
Conclusion
Rapport-based investigative interviewing is best understood as a set of professional communication practices that can improve engagement and support evidence gathering when integrated with careful questioning, independent verification, procedural safeguards, and appropriate training. The strongest research supports an information-gathering orientation, while the evidence about individual rapport mechanisms, measurement, and generalization remains uneven.
A reliable interview earns its value from what can be tested, how the information was obtained, and whether the process respected the people and rights involved. Rapport helps create the conditions for that work. The investigation must still do it.
For broader context, see Investigative Interviewing vs. Interrogation: What Is the Difference?.
Related Articles
References
Abbe, A., & Brandon, S. E. (2013). The role of rapport in investigative interviewing: A review. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 10(3), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1386
Alison, L. J., Alison, E. E., Noone, G., Elntib, S., & Christiansen, P. (2013). Why tough tactics fail and rapport gets results: Observing Rapport-Based Interpersonal Techniques (ORBIT) to generate useful information from terrorists. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(4), 411–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034564
American Psychological Association. (2022). Resolution on interrogations of criminal suspects. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/interrogations
Association for the Prevention of Torture, Anti-Torture Initiative, & Norwegian Centre for Human Rights. (2021). Principles on effective interviewing for investigations and information gathering. https://www.apt.ch/our-prioritiesdignity-and-fairness-criminal-justice-system/principles-effective-interviewing
Brimbal, L., Dianiska, R. E., Swanner, J. K., & Meissner, C. A. (2019). Enhancing cooperation and disclosure by manipulating affiliation and developing rapport in investigative interviews. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 25(2), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000193
Brimbal, L., Meissner, C. A., Kleinman, S. M., et al. (2021). Evaluating the benefits of a rapport-based approach to investigative interviews: A training study with law enforcement investigators. Law and Human Behavior, 45(1), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000437
Brouillard, C., Gabbert, F., & Scott, A. J. (2024). Addressing current issues in assessing professional rapport: A systematic review and synthesis of existing measures. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 38(3), e4205. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.4205
Catlin, M., Wilson, D., Redlich, A. D., Bettens, T., Meissner, C. A., Bhatt, S., & Brandon, S. E. (2024). Interview and interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: A systematic review update and extension. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 20(4), e1441. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1441
College of Policing. (Updated 2026). Investigative interviewing. Authorised Professional Practice. https://www.college.police.uk/app/investigation/investigative-interviewing
Dianiska, R. E., Quas, J. A., & Lyon, T. D. (2024). Using rapport building to improve information yield when interviewing adolescents: A systematic review and call for research. Child Abuse & Neglect, 154, 106898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2024.106898
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2026). High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group: Research publications on interviewing and interrogation. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism/research-publications-on-interviewing-and-interrogation
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (n.d.). High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism/high-value-detainee-interrogation-group
Tribbels, S., & Michels, M. (2024). Validity and effectiveness of interrogation techniques: A meta-analytic review. Military Psychology, 37(2), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2024.2324622