The techniques used to interrogate individuals suspected of a crime can profoundly impact their decisions to confess, cooperate, or disclose information. Research using different methods suggests that two prevailing interrogation approaches—accusatorial and information-gathering—differentially impact interrogation outcomes. However, confession, cooperation, and information disclosure are ultimately the suspected person’s decision, yet few studies directly examine their perspectives about how interrogation techniques affect their decisions, and none examine a U.S. sample. This study assessed how interrogation strategies characterized by humanity, rapport, confrontation, and dominance/control predicted interrogation outcomes in a sample of 249 individuals incarcerated in two U.S. jails. Respondents who reported experiencing humane strategies were more likely to confess, cooperate completely, and disclose incriminating information. Dominance/control-oriented strategies predicted partial confession (but not cooperation or disclosure), and rapport-based and confrontational techniques did not predict outcomes. Findings highlight humane interrogation strategies as likely the most productive strategies to adopt in criminal interrogations.

中文翻译：

---

人道审讯策略与认罪、合作和披露相​​关：来自美国被监禁者实地研究的证据

用于讯问犯罪嫌疑人的技术可以深刻影响他们坦白、合作或披露信息的决定。使用不同方法的研究表明，两种流行的审讯方法——指控和信息收集——对审讯结果的影响不同。然而，认罪、合作和信息披露最终是嫌疑人的决定，但很少有研究直接考察他们对审讯技术如何影响他们的决定的看法，也没有研究过美国的样本。本研究以美国两所监狱中被监禁的 249 名个人为样本，评估了以人性、融洽、对抗和支配/控制为特征的审讯策略如何预测审讯结果。报告经历过人道策略的受访者更有可能坦白、完全合作并披露有罪信息。以支配/控制为导向的策略预测部分坦白（但不能预测合作或披露），而基于融洽和对抗的策略则不能预测结果。调查结果强调，人道审讯策略可能是刑事审讯中最有效的策略。