Why Trust Matters: Applying Procedural Justice in Evidence-Based Interviews

In my last blog I addressed false evidence and lying during interviews.? There is no greater trust breaker than you getting caught lying during an interview.? I often ask classes if when they catch someone lying to them, how much information do you share with that person in the future.? Undoubtedly, they say very little, so why do we wonder why the interviewee shuts down when we lie.

Consequently, it becomes evident that trust building would have just the opposite effect. Again, a ton of research exists to confirm this premise, despite that many of us have never seen it or been trained on it. This is another example of “that’s the way we have always done it” needs to stop and we must change our approach.

Again, there are a couple of foundational thoughts to consider.? What is our organizational mission? Are we in the interview to get the greatest quantity and quality of truthful information? If the number one reason interviewees tell us the truth is the confidence and credibility of the interviewer, what does neglecting to build trust with the interviewee result in? The result is the antithesis of our organizational mission.

In the realm of investigative interviewing, obtaining reliable and truthful information is paramount. Traditional interrogation methods often relied on coercion or psychological pressure, which not only risk false confessions but also erode trust with the individual and in the justice system. In contrast, applying procedural justice principles to evidence-based investigative interviews offers a more effective and ethical approach, fostering an environment of cooperation and trust between interviewers and interviewees. Quality rapport serves as an ongoing catalyst to accomplish this result.

Understanding Procedural Justice in Investigative Interviews

Procedural justice refers to the fairness of the processes through which decisions are made, and disputes are resolved. When applied to investigative interviews, procedural justice emphasizes four core principles:

1. Voice – Allowing the interviewee to share their perspective without undue pressure.
2. Neutrality – Ensuring the interviewer remains unbiased and follows a structured, evidence-based approach.
3. Respect – Treating the interviewee with dignity and acknowledging their rights.
4. Trustworthiness – Demonstrating honesty, transparency, and ethical conduct in the interview process.

Research has shown that when individuals perceive the process as fair, they are more likely to cooperate, provide accurate information, and view the justice system as legitimate (Tyler, 2006). This is true even when a decision does not go in their favor.

Enhancing Trust Through Evidence-Based Interviewing Techniques

Evidence-based investigative interviewing techniques align closely with procedural justice principles. Unlike coercive approaches, these methods focus on rapport-building, open-ended questioning, strategic empathy, and active listening to elicit reliable information.

These qualities in evidence-based practices are essential to trust building and often result in more openness and a greater amount of quality information.

Potential Examples of Procedural Justice in Action

1. Witness Cooperation in High-Stakes Cases Consider a homicide investigation where a witness is hesitant to come forward due to fear of retaliation. By employing procedural justice principles—such as ensuring confidentiality, listening actively to their concerns, and demonstrating neutrality—law enforcement can encourage the witness to provide that crucial testimony.
2. Suspect Interviews Leading to Reliable Admissions In a fraud investigation, a suspect may initially be defensive. However, if the investigator engages them in a fair, non-coercive manner, acknowledges their right to explain their side, and remains neutral rather than accusatory, the suspect is more likely to provide accurate information. Research on the ORBIT model (Observing Rapport-Based Interpersonal Techniques) supports this approach, demonstrating that rapport-building significantly improves the quality of information obtained (Alison et al., 2014).
3. Victim Testimonies in Sensitive Cases Victims of traumatic events, such as sexual assault, may be reluctant to share details of their experience. By applying procedural justice principles—such as maintaining a calm and empathetic approach, ensuring the interviewee feels heard, and explaining each step of the process—investigators can create a safe environment that encourages full disclosure. This is consistently aligned with Trauma-Informed interviewing principles and the importance of their application.

Building Trust in the Interview Process and with the Interviewee

Applying procedural justice principles in investigative interviews directly builds trust with interviewees by creating an environment of fairness, dignity, and respect. When interviewees feel heard and understood, they are more likely to provide honest and detailed accounts, enhancing the reliability of the investigation.

A critical factor in building trust is transparency. When interviewers clearly explain the process, the purpose of the interview, and how the information will be used, it reduces uncertainty and anxiety for the interviewee. This openness reassures them that they are being treated fairly and that their rights are being respected. This can be extremely beneficial in getting the conversation going and initiating rapport.

Moreover, a neutral and unbiased approach signals to the interviewee that the process is about uncovering the truth rather than coercion or manipulation. Demonstrating genuine concern for the interviewee’s well-being through respectful communication further solidifies trust. In cases involving vulnerable individuals, such as trauma survivors, an empathetic and patient approach fosters a sense of safety, making them more willing to share their experiences in detail.

Ultimately, the application of procedural justice principles not only enhances the quality of investigative outcomes but also strengthens the legitimacy of law enforcement institutions. Trust built during investigative interviews can translate into broader community cooperation, ensuring that justice is served more effectively and ethically.

The Broader Impact on Justice and Society

When procedural justice is prioritized in investigative interviews, it enhances not only case outcomes but also public trust in the justice system. Individuals who experience fair treatment during interactions with law enforcement are more likely to view authorities as legitimate and cooperate in future encounters (Mazerolle et al., 2013). This increased trust extends beyond the immediate case, fostering a more positive perception of law enforcement agencies as a whole. As public confidence in investigative procedures rises, community engagement with law enforcement also improves, making crime prevention and resolution more effective.?

Additionally, when investigative processes are perceived as fair, people are more likely to comply with legal directives and participate in the justice system without fear of mistreatment. This is particularly important in communities that have historically experienced distrust toward law enforcement. Procedural justice helps bridge the gap between law enforcement and the public, reducing tensions and promoting a sense of shared responsibility for safety and justice. This can only be accomplished with widespread and consistent application of the principles, again demonstrating the importance of credibility and consistency to this process.

Conclusion

The application of procedural justice principles in evidence-based investigative interviews is not just a theoretical framework—it is a practical necessity for ethical and effective law enforcement. By fostering trust, improving the quality of information obtained, and reinforcing legitimacy, procedural justice transforms investigative interviews into a tool for both truth-seeking and justice.

Evidence-based practices must be at the center of our interviewing approach. If you aren’t employing them, ask yourself what proof do you have that your legacy techniques are producing the desired outcome? Is your approach maximizing the quality and quantity of truthful information obtained? The changes that are needed are fundamental and can be easily accomplished. Training is essential, it is what moved me beyond my blind spots. I can provide it or recommend providers teaching evidence-based techniques.? Do your research, find the right provider, maximize your training dollar investment. Don’t get the same old legacy-based methods that have no empirical evidence supporting them. If you are in leadership you have the same responsibility to apply these standards and find that content that maximizes your staffs abilities.

Anderson Investigative Associates is positioned to custom-tailor training to your specific needs.? If you have any questions or would like to discuss the issue of trust and its inextricable connection to procedural justice, or any training need, please reach out.? Additional issues pertaining to interviewing, auditing, and investigations can be found in other blogs and videos that I have produced and are contained in most blocks of instruction that our company presents.

If you have additional questions, comments, or have an interview topic you would like me to address, give me a shout.? In the meantime, be well, stay safe out there, and focus on building foundational trust in your interviews. This mindset will improve your interviewing and communication skills, and not just in interviews but throughout your life. If you need help getting ready, I know who could help.

References

• Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why People Obey the Law. Princeton University Press.
• Alison, L. J., Alison, E., Elntib, S., & Noone, G. (2014). ORBIT: Observing Rapport-Based Interpersonal Techniques. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling.
• Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Davis, J., Sargeant, E., & Manning, M. (2013). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A systematic review of the research evidence. Journal of Experimental Criminology.

Mark A. Anderson

Director of Training and Development

Anderson Investigative Associates, llc

114 Loucks Avenue

Scottdale, PA 15683

[email protected]

tel:912-571-6686

www.AndersonInvestigative.com

https://www.dhirubhai.net/in/mark-a-anderson-a46a1658