Received: 8 April 2018 Revised: 15 October 2018 Accepted: 1 November 2018

DOI: 10.1002/acp.3488

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Social influence in investigative interviews: The effects of

authority on informational elements produced in interviews
and written statements
David Matsumoto1,2 | Hyisung C. Hwang1,2

1
Department of Psychology, San Francisco
State University, San Francisco, California Summary
2
Humintell, El Cerrito, CA 94530 This study examined the effect of a principle of social influence—authority—on the
Correspondence informational elements in an investigative interview. Community participants told
David Matsumoto, Department of Psychology,
San Francisco State University, 1600
the truth or lied about a mock crime in a high or low authority context. Informational
Holloway Avenue, San Francisco CA 94132. elements were coded from their oral responses in the interviews and written responses
Email: dm@sfsu.edu
in a statement prior to the interviews. Rapport was rated by the interviewers and
Funding information
High‐Value Detainee Interrogation Group, participants. The authority condition produced effects on the informational elements
Grant/Award Number: DJF‐15‐1200‐V‐ in both the interviews and written statements but mainly for truth tellers. Rapport also
0009510
had direct effects on the informational elements but authority did not affect rapport
and rapport did not mediate the effect of authority on the informational elements.
These findings had theoretical, empirical, and practical implications.

KEY W ORDS

authority, deception, informational elements, investigative interviews, social influence

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N of social influence, consciously or unconsciously, through trial, error,

The positive effects of principles of persuasion and influence (hereaf-
ter referred to as social influence) in facilitating initially uncooperative
individuals to become cooperative and compliant are well documented
in the literature (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004b; Schultz, Nolan, Cialdini,
Goldstein, & Griskevicius, 2007). The most influential work in the area
is by Cialdini, who described six principles: reciprocity, consistency,
consensus, authority, liking, and scarcity (Cialdini, 2009; Cialdini &
Goldstein, 2004a). Each is the basis of many specific forms of both
explicit and implicit pressures that can be applied subtly, or not so
subtly, to influence individuals to give information, purchase goods,
or agree with ideas.
Although these principles have received considerable research
attention in applied areas such as business and marketing, they
also have potential import in investigative interviewing. Many inter-
views and interrogations involve a process of guiding uncooperative
individuals to recall and report information, confess to acts, admit to
facts, or share previously undisclosed sources; thus, such interactions
are ripe with opportunities to leverage principles of social influence.
Many investigators already engage in various strategies and tactics
and/or experience.
Despite the potential import of social influence in investigative
interviewing, research is still in its infancy in testing and documenting
their effects in that context. One study involving interviews of
123 intelligence and investigative interviewers reported that social
influence principles of liking and reciprocity were most often used in
establishing rapport with interviewees (Goodman‐Delahunty &
Howes, 2016). This study provided indirect evidence for the efficacy
of social influence principles and tactics.
Another recent study provided direct, causal evidence for their
efficacy by examining how one principle—reciprocity—affected the
informational elements produced by interviewees and rapport
between the interviewer and interviewee in an investigative interview
(Matsumoto & Hwang, in press). In that study, a community sample
received either a bottle of water or not (operationalizing reciprocity)
prior to an interview in which they either told the truth or lied about
having committed a mock crime. Three informational elements (rele-
vant and irrelevant details and plausibility) were coded from their
responses and rapport in the interaction was coded from video. Offer-
ing water facilitated greater rapport and influenced the informational

516 © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/acp Appl Cognit Psychol. 2019;33:516–526.
MATSUMOTO AND HWANG
elements and this effect was moderated by veracity condition:
Offering water produced more relevant details and greater plausibility
in the statements for liars but not truth tellers, and this effect was
mediated by rapport.
These recent studies not only have contributed to notions about
the potential efficacy of social influence to information elicitation in
an investigative interview but also have added to a growing literature
demonstrating the importance of rapport in those interviews.
Rapport has been a central concept to all kinds of interactions
pertaining to relationship building and formation, information elicita-
tion, and therapeutic alliances for years. In the domain of investigative
interviewing, recent studies have documented the effects of rapport
on the disclosure of meaningful and complete information earlier in
an interview (Goodman‐Delahunty, Martschuk, & Dhami, 2014) and
more accurate information in eyewitness testimony (Kieckhaefer,
Vallano, & Schreiber Compo, 2013; Vallano & Compo, 2011). Reviews
of the literature (see Meissner, Kelly, & Woestehoff, 2015) have also
reported positive albeit indirect effects of rapport in the interviewing
and interrogation context. Thus, rapport is an important concept in
investigative interviewing; we contend that it mediates the relation
between social influence tactics and interview outcomes.
In this study, we examine another principle of social influence—
authority (Cialdini, 2009; Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004b). Basic research
has long demonstrated the effect of authority on behavior (Blass,
1999; Milgram, 1963). Cialdini (2009) argued that authority is effec-
tive because individuals have a deep‐seated sense of duty or obedi-
ence to authority, are trained from birth to obey others, and learn
that obedience to authority is right and disobedience is wrong. He also
argued that individuals are just as susceptible to the symbols of
authority as they are to the content or substance of requests or
commands from authority figures. These symbols are the “trappings”
of authority that include titles, clothes, awards, or images that confer
associations with known authority figures.
Relevant to the current study is the fact that authority is a central
concept in many applied settings in which investigative interviewing
occurs. Law enforcement officers conduct such interviews and such
contexts abound with symbols and manifestations of authority, from
the setting to the understood powers of authority granted to law
enforcement by the state. The same is true for interrogations con-
ducted within military confines. The concept of authority permeates
the private sector as well, as interviews by loss prevention and secu-
rity officers in private institutions or by human resource professionals
(e.g., job interviews) are infused with authority.
1.1 | Possible mechanisms underlying the effects of
authority on information elicitation
Delineating possible cognitive mechanisms underlying any effects
of authority on information elicitation begins with explicating the
concept of authority, which can be conceptualized and operational-
ized in different ways. Broadly speaking, one way involves direct,
overt actions by an individual that manifests authority, is explicit,
and sometimes even confrontational, aggressive, or coercive (or
at least perceived that way). For example, an authority figure may
517
issue commands, use bold language and tone of voice, or even
stand over another while talking. These direct, overt actions may
enforce one's authority, status, dominance, power, control, or legit-
imacy and can be explicit and conscious (Blass, 1999; Milgram,
1963; Tyler, 1998).
Another way to conceptualize and operationalize authority
involves subtle, indirect manipulations of cues in the environment
or context that give hints about authority with no direct actions
by an individual. Cialdini's (Cialdini, 2009; Cialdini & Goldstein,
2004b) concept of the “trappings of authority”—involving symbols
of authority such as titles, clothes, awards, and images that confer
associations with authority—is better understood as this type of indi-
rect, contextual authority manipulation. Unlike direct ways described
above, subtle, indirect methods of expressing authority are more
implicit and unconscious.
Although no study to our knowledge has directly tested the
effects of authority in an investigative interview context, a few studies
have provided suggestive evidence. For example, two studies have
reported that directly authoritative and confrontational interview tac-
tics negatively affect memory retrievals of accurate, verifiable details
(Meissner, Hartwig, & Russano, 2010; Vrij et al., 2017). And a previous
study demonstrated that subtle, indirect perceptions of authority,
combined with guided imagery, encouraged the generation of poten-
tially false details and increased the likelihood that individuals would
believe an event occurred to them even if that event was not true
(Paddock & Terranova, 2001).
In this study, we directly tested the causal effects of an author-
ity manipulation on information elicitation in an investigative
interview context. Specifically, we operationalized authority in a
subtle, indirect way by manipulating the trappings of authority in
the environment and context of the interviews. These trappings
included cues about the credibility, credentials, experience, eligibility,
or qualifications of the interviewers but did not involve any direct,
verbal, or behavioral differences in the manner, style, or words used
in the interviews. We opted for a subtle, indirect manipulation of
authority to avoid direct, explicit demands on the interviewees to
the authority manipulation.
The use of subtle, indirect manipulations of authority has implica-
tions for the cognitive mechanisms underlying their potential effects.
One cognitive account of high stakes lying (Walczyk, Harris, Duck, &
Mulay, 2014; Walczyk, Roper, Seemann, & Humphrey, 2003) offers a
possible framework for understanding such cognitive mechanisms.
This framework posits four components (activation, decision, con-
struction, and action), of which the first, activation, is most relevant
to this study. In this component, social context is encoded into work-
ing memory. Contextual cues include the setting, the individuals
involved, and the nature of the conversation or interaction. These
contextual cues may be primed by explicit or implicit signals. “Implicit
signals include the sight of a police officer approaching the driver side
window of the car of an intoxicated driver who was pulled over after
leaving a bar. An explicit signal can be a question asked in a serious
tone during a job interview” (Walczyk et al., 2014, pp. 25–26). The
encoding of contextual cues in this first, activation, component allows
for information about the social environment to frame the nature and
quality of the impending interaction.
518 MATSUMOTO AND HWANG

This first component, activation, is most relevant to the authority
manipulation utilized in this study in that the encoding of contextual
cues allows for information about the social environment to aid
respondents in understanding that accurate information is about to
be sought, facilitating the retrieval and encoding of that information
to working memory. That is, subtle, indirect contextual cues to author-
ity such as the trappings of authority as operationalized in this study
should implicitly prime the concept of authority during activation. That
priming should engage an existing neural‐cognitive network related to
authority and associated concepts such as obedience, disclosure,
cooperation, or compliance. Coupled with the notion that activation
also causes respondents to realize that accurate information is being
sought by others, truthful facts should enter working memory more
easily, facilitating recall and reporting.
1.2 | Overview and hypotheses
the previous study demonstrated that social influence effects were
moderated by veracity condition, we predicted that veracity condition
will moderate the effects of authority as well.
In sum, we tested the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1. That higher authority will produce higher
rapport ratings, more relevant details and more plausibil-
ity in interviewee responses in both the interviews and
written statements.
Hypothesis 2. That rapport will have direct effects on
the informational elements and will mediate the relation-
ship between authority and the informational elements in
the interviews and written statements.
Hypothesis 3. That veracity condition will moderate the
relationship between authority and the informational ele-
ments in the interviews and written statements.

The goal of this study was to examine the causal influence of subtle, 2 | METHODS1
indirect, contextual operationalizations of authority on rapport and
informational outcomes in investigative interviews. A community
2.1 | Design
sample participated in a mock crime experiment that was the same
used in the previous study described above that tested the effects The experiment tested a moderated mediational model with authority
of reciprocity (Matsumoto & Hwang, in press), allowing a direct (high vs. low) and veracity (truth vs. lie) conditions as factors, three
comparison of different principles of social influence. Participants informational elements coded from interview transcripts and written
were randomly assigned either to steal a check and lie about it or to statements as dependents, and rapport rated by the interviewers
just look at the check and tell the truth. After committing the mock and interviewees as a mediator. We also included gender as a factor
crime or not, they participated in an investigative interview that was in overall analyses to determine if it moderated any findings although
audio‐video recorded. We coded the same three types of informa- we did not have specific hypotheses about it.
tional elements—relevant and irrelevant details and plausibility—from
the responses to the main question in that interview. We also coded
2.2 | Participants
the same informational elements in a written statement provided
by the interviewee prior to the interviews (this written statement
A community sample responded to online ads and posted flyers
was not coded in Matsumoto & Hwang, in press, as it occurred prior
recruiting participants for a study examining cultural differences in
to the reciprocity manipulation). Rapport was independently rated by
how people feel when going through security interviews. A total
interviewers and interviewees.
N = 120 U.S. born‐and‐raised individuals whose first language was
On the basis of the findings of the previous study described above
English participated (n = 63 females, mean age = 42.47; n = 57 males,
(Matsumoto & Hwang, in press) and on the framework described
mean age = 42.59). All were randomly assigned to the authority and
earlier concerning subtle, indirect manipulations of authority and its
veracity conditions.
possible effects on activation, we predicted that higher authority
would produce more relevant details, less irrelevant details, and more
plausibility in the interviewees' responses. With regard to rapport, 2.3 | Measures
different effects were conceptually possible. On one hand, higher
At the beginning of the experiment, participants completed a series of
authority may result in less rapport between the interactants, as the
questionnaires including a brief demographic questionnaire, the Gen-
authority manipulation may produce perceived constraints on the
eral Ethnicity Questionnaire (GEQ; Tsai, Ying, & Lee, 2000), the Brief
interactions, thereby lowering rapport. On the other hand, higher
NEO‐Five Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992), the Social Dom-
authority may produce better rapport if authority is perceived by
inance Orientation Scale (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994),
interviewees as signs of qualifications or eligibility and not as
an adapted version of the Schwartz Value Scale (Schwartz, 2006),
constraints. For the purposes of this study and on the basis of the
the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin,
positive findings from the previous study and the conceptual frame-
1985), and the Self‐Monitoring Scale (Snyder, 1974). Participants also
work above, we predicted that higher authority will produce higher
completed an emotion checklist at the beginning and end of the
rapport ratings.
experiment, which included 15 emotion words (guilt, fear, anger,
If higher authority has an effect on informational elements and
rapport, we further predicted that rapport will mediate the relation 1
Portions of the methodology have been previously described in Hwang,
between authority and the informational elements. And given that Matsumoto, and Sandoval (2016) and Matsumoto and Hwang (in press).
MATSUMOTO AND HWANG
embarrassment, worry, contempt, excitement, disgust, amusement,
nervousness, surprise, interest, sadness, pride, and shame) rated on
9‐point scales (0 = none, 4 = moderate amount, and 8 = extremely
strong). All measures except the emotion checklist were omitted from
this study.
2.4 | Procedure
After consenting, participants completed the pre‐session measures
and then were informed of their assignment to a veracity condition.
The truth condition required participants to look at but not take a
check made out to cash and tell the truth about what they did. The
lie condition required them to take the check and lie about it. Partici-
pants were told that they would be interviewed regarding what they
did, would have to persuade the interviewers about their honesty,
and would earn a minimum of $30 for their participation and bonuses
of anywhere from $0 to $50 depending on their assigned condition
and interviewers' determinations. They were also told that if they
were not believed, they would have to stay an extra hour to complete
a long questionnaire; if they were believed, they could leave early.
Actually, no determinations were made, all participants received a
standard fee of $40, and no one was detained. As a manipulation
check, participants rated the severity of these expected consequences
if they were judged to be lying using a scale from 0, no consequence, to
10, maximum consequence. The mean was 7.03 (SD = 3.13), suggesting
that the participants perceived the stakes on at least a moderate level.
After participants confirmed their understanding, they partici-
pated in an initial screening interview to ascertain their intent to com-
mit a crime. They then went alone to a room where the check was
located, stole the check or not, and then exited to wait for the next
step. An interviewer then escorted the participants to an interview
room and asked them to write a statement about what they did in
the previous room (participants wrote the statement alone). This
statement was included because in many real‐life interviews,
interviewees are often asked to write a statement prior to the
interview and these written statements can serve useful purposes in
the interview. Also, because most previous research focused on the
informational elements generated in an interview, we included
the written statements as an additional source of information to
examine our hypotheses. After completing the written statement,
the interviewer returned and an interview proceeded using a standard
protocol (all interviewees were asked the same questions). Three
male interviewers, blind to the veracity condition, utilized a standard
protocol to conduct the interviews (the first author was one of
the interviewers).
The authority condition was operationalized using subtle, indirect
trappings of authority (Cialdini, 2009; Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004a)
placed in the context of the interview room. In the high authority con-
dition, a wall in the interview room was adorned with two certificates
from a federal law enforcement agency in a fictitious name of the
interviewer, both attesting to the interviewer's competence (one for
exceptional service in the public interest, the other for merit). The
interview room also included a photoshopped image of the inter-
viewer with a well‐known government law enforcement figure and
519
two posters with the name of the same law enforcement agency.
Interviewers also wore a suit and tie with dress shoes and a laminated
photo ID on a lanyard. In the low authority condition, the interview
room contained the same certificates and photograph but they were
scrambled to be unintelligible (controlling for color and size). The inter-
view room also contained two posters from the neutral images of the
Interactional Affective Picture System (IAPS; Lang, Bradley, &
Cuthbert, 1997); the interviewers wore a plain white shirt with slacks
and walking shoes and no photo ID.
The authority condition was operationalized, therefore, using sub-
tle, indirect cues in the context and environment. Importantly, the
interview protocols themselves did not differ according to condition:
The high authority condition did not include more confrontational or
aggressive interview questions or tone than the low authority condi-
tion. The only differences between the conditions were the subtle
trappings of authority placed in context. The interviews were checked
twice—in real time and later—by two research assistants blind to the
hypotheses to confirm that the same questions were administered in
all sessions.
After the interview was completed, participants went back to the
initial area to complete the post‐session measures. During this time, a
randomly selected subsample (n = 40) was asked to rate how much
authority they perceived the interviewer had using a scale labeled 0,
no authority at all, through 5, moderate authority, to 10, high authority.
After completing all post‐session measures, all participants were
debriefed and paid. Experiments generally lasted between 75 and
90 min.
2.5 | Coding procedures and reliability
Participants' responses in the written statement and interview were
transcribed verbatim. We coded their entire response in the written
statement and their response to the following prompt from the inter-
view: “I've read your statement but I want to hear in your own words
what you did in the file room. Tell me what you did.” This prompt was
the same as was used when participants wrote their written state-
ment, ensuring that the data were comparable.
2.5.1 | Informational elements
Participants' responses for relevant details, irrelevant details, and plau-
sibility were coded using the same procedures as reported in the
previous study testing reciprocity (Matsumoto & Hwang, in press).
Relevant details were any reported detail about what the participant
did, that likely occurred during the experiment, and was relevant to
the question being answered or the context (i.e., in relation to the
actual instructions; e.g., “I opened the envelope,” “There was a
check.”). Irrelevant details were any detail that may have occurred dur-
ing the experiment but was not relevant to the question being asked
or the context (e.g., “The carpet was brown”) or was likely not to have
occurred during the experiment (e.g., “I met someone”). Plausibility
was defined as the degree to which the events described in the
responses were likely to have occurred in reality for an average person
in the situation with the instructions given (i.e., whether the coder
believed the story of the participant). Plausibility was coded on a
520 MATSUMOTO AND HWANG

7‐point scale labeled 0 (not plausible at all), 1 (minimally plausible), 3
(moderately plausibly), and 6 (maximally plausible).
Two coders blind to the study's hypotheses and participants' con-
ditions independently coded all responses. The number of relevant
and irrelevant details in each response for each case was tallied.
Reliabilities were high and acceptable for all codes: For relevant and
irrelevant details, ICCs = 0.99 and 0.98 (interview) and 0.99 and 0.98
(written statement), respectively; for plausibility, rs = 0.91 and 0.90
for interview and written statement, respectively. All codes were
averaged across coders for analyses.
2.5.2 | Rapport
interactions were significant, F (14, 1232) = 13.05, p < 0.001,
ηp2 = 0.129 and F (14, 1232) = 4.44, p = 0.001, ηp2 = 0.048, respec-
tively. Neither authority nor gender produced any significant effects.
Simple effects analyses indicated that liars increased in guilt, fear,
anger, embarrassment, worry, contempt, disgust, nervousness, sur-
prise, sadness, and shame, and the effect sizes were moderate‐high
(ds = −0.84, −0.77, −0.29, −0.56, −0.51, −0.31, −0.44, −0.89, −0.39,
−0.27, and −0.65, respectively). Truth tellers also increased in fear,
anger, embarrassment, contempt, nervousness, and surprise
(ds = −0.38, −0.30, −0.35, −0.28, −0.40, and −0.64, respectively) but
decreased in excitement (d = 0.45). Thus, participants were emotion-
ally engaged in the study.

Different methods of assessing rapport in an interaction exist

(Bernieri, 1988; Bernieri, Davis, Rosenthal, & Knee, 1994; Bernieri &
3.1.2 | Relevant details, irrelevant details, and
plausibility
Gillis, 1995; Bernieri, Reznick, & Rosenthal, 1988; Grahe & Bernieri,
1999; Tickle‐Degnen & Rosenthal, 1987, 1990; Trout & Rosenfeld,
We computed univariate, three‐way, between‐subject ANOVAs using
1980), each with advantages and disadvantages. In this study, we were
authority, gender, and veracity conditions as factors on the coded
interested in perceptions of rapport from the interactants (as opposed
informational elements and rapport, separately for the interview and
to third‐party observer ratings) because interactants' perceptions may
written statement. The veracity condition main effects served as a
have been differentially related to interview outcomes. To facilitate
manipulation check on the coding procedures for the dependents
the ease by which the interviewers and interviewees rated rapport,
and were significant for relevant details and plausibility for both the
they independently rated rapport in the interactions they had with
interview, F (1, 108) = 76.42, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.414 and F (1,
each other using a 10‐point scale labeled 0, none at all, 5, a moderate
108) = 94.2, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.466, and written statement, F (1,
amount, and 10, maximum amount. We used a single, overall rating
108) = 86.10, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.441 and F (1, 108) = 142.41,
of rapport because a factor analysis of multiple dimensions of rapport
p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.566. Truth tellers' responses had more relevant
coded in our previous work in investigative interviews (Matsumoto &
details and were more plausible, which were to be expected given
Hwang, in press) produced a single factor solution.
the coding rules (see Table 1 for descriptives by authority condition).
Interviewers rated rapport twice, immediately after the initial
This main effect was not significant for irrelevant details for either
screening interview (not part of this study) and after the second,
the interview or written statement, F (1, 108) = 0.75, p = 0.389,
investigative interview; participants rated rapport once, immediately
ηp2 = 0.007 and F (1, 108) = 0.77, p = 0.383, ηp2 = 0.007, respectively.
after the investigative interview and before debriefing. These ratings
Identifying veracity by authority condition interactions allowed
occurred after the interviews, rendering interpretations concerning
us to select the appropriate moderated mediational model to test
when and how rapport was built impossible, which is a limitation. Mul-
tiple ratings of rapport during the interviews, however, would have
TABLE 1 Means and standard errors for the dependent variables
been logistically difficult, cumbersome, and artificial. Because there
(coded informational elements) and mediator (rapport) by authority
were significant mean differences among the interviewers' rapport rat-
condition
ings, F (2, 115) = 46.74, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.448 and F (2, 114) = 12.72,
High authority Low authority
p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.182, for the first and second ratings, respectively, Truth tellers Liars Truth tellers Liars
we standardized the ratings within each interviewer for use below.
Interview Relevant 16.45 2.99 10.01 3.62
details (1.15) (1.12) (1.14) (1.13)
Irrelevant 19.07 16.50 8.66 15.46
details (2.47) (2.41) (2.46) (2.44)
3 | RESULTS Plausibility 4.25 0.98 3.90 1.38
(0.30) (0.29) (0.30) (0.30)
Written Relevant 11.32 1.65 8.28 2.61
3.1 | Manipulation checks and preliminary analyses
statement details (0.85) (0.82) (0.83) (0.81)
Irrelevant 7.48 6.20 5.24 8.61
3.1.1 | Emotion ratings details (1.23) (1.18) (1.19) (1.17)
Plausibility 4.57 0.82 4.08 1.49
(0.27) (0.26) (0.27) (0.26)
We examined whether participants were emotionally engaged by
Rapport
computing a five‐way, mixed ANOVA on their emotion ratings using
Interviewer first 0.14 −0.42 −0.21 −0.42
gender (2), veracity condition (2), and authority condition (2) as rapport rating (0.20) (.20) (.20) (.20)
between‐subject variables and pre‐post (2) and emotion (15) as Interviewer second 0.64 −0.18 0.32 0.12
repeated measures. (As mentioned above, gender was included in rapport rating (0.23) (.22) (.22) (.22)
the overall analyses to determine if it moderated any results.) The Participants' 6.04 6.32 6.14 5.71
rapport rating (0.50) (0.49) (0.49) (0.49)
pre‐post by emotion and pre‐post by emotion by veracity condition
MATSUMOTO AND HWANG 521

the hypotheses. This interaction was significant or marginally signifi-
cant on relevant and irrelevant details from the interview and all
three informational elements from the written statements, F (1,
108) = 9.68, p = 0.002, ηp2 = 0.082; F (1, 108) = 3.68, p = 0.058,
ηp2 = 0.033; F (1, 108) = 5.87, p = 0.017, ηp 2
= 0.051; F (1,
108) = 3.83, p = 0.053, ηp2 = 0.034; F (1, 108) = 4.80, p = 0.031,
ηp2 = 0.042, respectively. That interaction was not significant on plau-
sibility in the interviews, F (1, 108) = 1.55, p = 0.216, ηp2 = 0.014.
Thus, we incorporated veracity as a moderator in five of the main anal-
yses below. Gender did not interact with authority and was thus
dropped from further analyses.
3.1.3 | Perceived authority
We computed a two‐way ANOVA on the perceived authority ratings
using veracity and authority conditions as independent variables. No
effect involving authority was significant, F (1, 36) = 0.01, p = 0.934,
ηp2 = 0.000 and F (1, 36) = 0.42, p = 0.521, ηp2 = 0.012, for the main
effect and interaction, respectively, indicating that participants did not
consciously perceive a difference between the authority conditions.
Inspection of the cell means of the veracity by authority interaction,
however, suggested differential trends for effects of authority by
veracity condition (albeit nonsignificant). Truth tellers tended to rate
authority higher in the high authority condition (Mhigh = 8.50,
SD = 2.59; Mlow = 7.78, SD = 3.11), whereas liars tended to rate
authority higher in the low authority condition (Mhigh = 7.73, SD = 3.55;
Mlow = 8.29, SD = 2.14). These trending differential effects for truth
tellers and liars may inform interpretations about veracity condition
differences below.
3.1.4 | Rapport
Veracity by authority ANOVAs on the rapport ratings indicated that
the veracity main effect was marginally significant and significant
for the interviewers' first and second ratings, respectively, F (1,
110) = 3.77, p = 0.055, ηp2 = 0.033; F (1, 109) = 5.27, p = 0.024,
ηp2 = 0.046; both were higher in the truth condition than the lie
condition. No other effects were significant for the interviewers'
ratings. Interestingly, no effects were significant for participants'
rapport ratings (Table 1).
3.1.5 | Intercorrelations
We computed intercorrelations among the informational elements and
rapport ratings (Table 2). These analyses were informative because
interpretation of any findings from univariate analyses on the informa-
tional elements would be informed by intercorrelations among those
three variables. Also, because we included multiple ratings of rapport,
elucidating their relations would be helpful for understanding the main
analyses below. Identifying which rapport ratings were associated with
the informational elements also guided decisions concerning which to
use in the main analyses. The lack of associations between any rapport
rating and the informational elements would also be informative.
Unsurprisingly, relevant details were correlated with plausibility in
both the interview and written statements. Relevant details in the
interviews were also correlated with irrelevant details. With one
exception, relevant details and plausibility from the interviews and
written statements were correlated with the interviewers' first
and second rapport ratings. Interestingly, participants' rapport ratings
were not correlated with any of the informational elements or the
interviewers' rapport ratings.
3.2 | Moderated mediational analyses testing
Hypotheses 1–3
We tested hypotheses using SPSS PROCESS with 1,000 bootstraps
(Hayes, 2013). For relevant and irrelevant details from the interview
and relevant and irrelevant details and plausibility ratings from the
written statements, we used Model 5 (veracity moderating the relation
between the independent variable and the dependent), based on the
preliminary analyses above. For plausibility in the interviews, we used
Model 4. In all analyses, we included the interviewers' second rapport
rating as the mediator as this was the only rapport rating correlated
with the dependents.
3.2.1 | Interview
The overall models were significant for relevant details, irrelevant
details, and plausibility, R(115) = 0.69, F (4, 110) = 25.46,
p < 0.001; R(115) = 0.42, F (4, 110) = 5.79, p = 0.001; and
R(115) = 0.30, F (2, 112) = 5.46, p = 0.005, respectively. Authority

TABLE 2 Intercorrelations among the dependent variables and rapport ratings

Interview Rapport ratings
Relevant details Irrelevant details Plausibility Participants' ratings Interviewers' first Interviewers' second
(A) (B) (C) (D) ratings (E) ratings (F)

A 0.22* 0.82** −0.08 0.20* 0.39**

B −0.13 −0.02 0.11 0.29**
C −0.09 0.16 0.30**
D 0.04 0.00
E 0.51**
Written statement
A 0.06 0.87** −0.06 0.22* 0.37**
B −0.14 −0.10 −0.04 0.05
C −0.05 0.21* 0.37**

*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.

522 MATSUMOTO AND HWANG

had significant, direct effects on relevant and irrelevant details;
higher authority produced more of both types of details (see
Table 3). Significant and marginally significant veracity by authority
interactions, however, qualified these interpretations and conditional
direct effects indicated that authority had significant effects on rele-
vant and irrelevant details for truth tellers but not liars. Authority did
not affect plausibility ratings.
Rapport had significant, direct effects on all three informational
elements; interviewers' perceptions of greater rapport were associ-
ated with more details and higher plausibility in those details. But
authority did not affect the interviewers' rapport ratings
R(110) = 0.01, F (1, 113) = 0.004, p = 0.951, and rapport did not medi-
ate the effect of authority on the informational elements.
3.2.2 | Written statement
The overall models were significant for relevant details and plausibility,
R(115) = 0.70, F (4, 110) = 26.05, p < 0.001 and R(115) = 0.77, F (4,
110) = 41.12, p < 0.001, respectively, but not for irrelevant details,
R(110) = 0.20, F (4, 110) = 1.18, p = 0.322. Authority had significant,
direct effects on relevant details, indicating that perceptions of
authority produced more relevant details even in the written
statements. But a marginally significant veracity by authority interac-
tion again qualified this interpretation and conditional direct effects
indicated that authority had significant effects on relevant details for
truth tellers but not liars.
Rapport again had significant, direct effects on relevant details
and plausibility (see Table 4), indicating that interviewers' perceptions
of greater rapport were associated with more relevant details and
higher plausibility in the written statements. As reported above,
authority did not affect interviewer rapport ratings and rapport did
not mediate the effects of authority on the informational elements
in the written statements.
3.3 | Post hoc analyses
We examined whether the different interviewers affected the infor-
mational elements in the interviews or written statements by comput-
ing three‐way ANOVAs involving interviewer, veracity, and authority
conditions as between‐subject factors. No effect involving interviewer
was significant in any analyses.
In order to examine possible differences between the interviews
and written statements in the amount of details produced, we

TABLE 3 Moderated mediational analyses on the informational elements coded from the interviews
Coefficient SE t p LLCI ULCI
Relevant details
Direct effects
Interviewer rapport rating 1.71 0.49 3.46 0.001 0.73 2.68
Authority 11.71 3.65 3.21 0.002 4.49 18.94
Veracity −0.05 3.62 −0.01 0.990 −7.23 7.14
Veracity by authority −5.96 2.30 −2.59 0.011 −10.51 −1.40
Conditional direct effects
Truth tellers 5.76 1.63 3.53 0.001 2.53 8.98
Liars −0.20 1.61 −0.12 0.902 −3.40 3.00
Indirect Effects
Interviewer rapport rating 0.02 0.39 −0.86 0.73
Irrelevant details
Direct effects
Interviewer rapport rating 3.47 1.00 3.48 0.001 1.49 5.44
Authority 17.08 7.37 2.32 0.022 2.48 31.67
Veracity 15.99 7.32 2.18 0.031 1.48 30.50
Veracity by authority −7.82 4.65 −1.68 0.096 −17.03 1.40
Conditional direct effects
Truth tellers 9.26 3.29 2.81 0.006 2.74 15.78
Liars 1.44 3.26 0.44 0.659 −5.02 7.90
Indirect effects
Interviewer rapport rating 0.05 0.77 −1.64 1.48
Plausibility
Direct effects
Interviewer rapport rating 0.53 0.16 3.29 0.001 0.21 0.85
Authority −0.13 0.39 −0.34 0.735 −0.90 0.64
Total and indirect effects
Total effects of authority −0.12 0.40 −0.31 0.759 −0.92 0.68
Interviewer rapport rating 0.01 0.13 −0.24 0.29
MATSUMOTO AND HWANG 523

TABLE 4 Moderated mediational analyses on the informational elements coded from the written statements

Coefficient SE t p LLCI ULCI

Relevant details
Direct effects
Interviewer rapport rating 1.14 0.37 3.10 0.002 0.41 1.86
Authority 5.24 2.63 1.99 0.049 0.02 10.46
Veracity −2.80 2.58 −1.08 0.281 −7.92 2.32
Veracity by authority −2.92 1.66 −1.76 0.081 −6.21 0.37
Conditional direct effects
Truth tellers 2.32 1.18 1.97 0.051 −0.02 4.65
Liars −0.61 1.16 −0.52 0.603 −2.90 1.70
Indirect effects
Interviewer rapport rating 0.07 0.26 −0.44 0.58
Irrelevant details
Direct effects
Interviewer rapport rating 0.26 0.53 0.48 0.631 −0.80 1.31
Authority 6.27 3.82 1.64 0.104 −1.31 13.84
Veracity 7.73 3.75 2.06 0.041 0.31 15.16
Veracity by authority −4.35 2.41 −1.80 0.074 −9.12 0.43
Conditional direct effects
Truth tellers 1.92 1.71 1.12 0.263 −1.47 5.31
Liars −2.43 1.68 −1.44 0.150 −5.76 0.91
Indirect effects
Interviewer rapport rating 0.02 0.13 −0.15 0.43
Plausibility
Direct effects
Interviewer rapport rating 0.36 0.12 3.12 0.002 0.13 0.59
Authority 1.20 0.83 1.44 0.151 −0.45 2.84
Veracity −1.67 0.81 −2.05 0.042 −3.28 −0.06
Veracity by authority −0.88 0.52 −1.68 0.096 −1.91 0.16
Conditional direct effects
Truth tellers 0.32 0.37 0.87 0.389 −0.41 1.06
Liars −0.56 0.37 −1.52 0.131 −1.28 0.17
Indirect effects
Interviewer rapport rating 0.02 0.079 −0.14 0.18

computed four‐way, mixed ANOVAs using authority, gender, and
veracity conditions as between‐subject factors and source (interviews
vs. written statements) as a repeated measure, separately on the infor-
mational elements. For these analyses, we were only interested in
effects involving source. The source main effect was significant for
both relevant and irrelevant details, F (1, 106) = 61.61, p < 0.001,
ηp2 = 0.368 and F (1, 106) = 61.09, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.366, respec-
tively; more of both were produced in the interviews than written
statements. This interpretation was qualified by a significant source
by veracity by authority interaction on relevant details and a signifi-
cant source by authority interaction on irrelevant details, F (1,
106) = 7.20, p = 0.008, ηp2 = 0.064 and F (1, 106) = 7.68, p = 0.007,
ηp2 = 0.068, respectively. Cell means (Table 1), however, indicated dif-
ferences in the degree of difference. There were no significant effects
involving source on plausibility ratings.
Because the interviews produced more details, we examined
whether rapport was associated with increases in details by correlat-
ing rapport and the change in details from the written statement to
the interviews. Interviewers' second rapport ratings were positively
correlated with increases in both relevant and irrelevant details,
r(101) = 0.28, p = 0.005 and r(101) = 0.32, p = 0.001, respectively.
Correlations using participants' rapport ratings were not significant.
Thus, better rapport as perceived by the interviewers was associ-
ated with more information elicited in the interviews than in the
written statements.
We then examined whether authority produced increases in details
by computing two‐way authority by veracity condition ANOVAs on the
change in relevant and irrelevant details. Authority condition main
effects were significant for both, F (1, 98) = 8.29, p = 0.005, ηp2 = 0.078
and F (1, 98) = 9.41, p = 0.003, ηp2 = 0.088; the authority condition pro-
duced increases in both types of details. The interpretation for relevant
details was qualified by a significant authority by veracity condition
interaction, F (1, 98) = 6.80, p = 0.011, ηp2 = 0.065; simple effects
indicated that the authority condition produced increases in relevant
details for truth tellers but not liars, F (1, 46) = 9.68, p = 0.003,
ηp2 = 0.174 and F (1, 52) = 0.07, p = 0.796, ηp2 = 0.001, respectively.
524
4 | DISCUSSION
Hypotheses 1 and 3 were partially supported: The authority condition
produced more relevant and irrelevant details in the interview and more
relevant details in the written statements but just for truth tellers and
not liars, suggesting that the influence of authority was different for
them. Authority did not affect plausibility. Hypothesis 2 was also
partially supported: Rapport had direct effects on all informational
elements from the interview and on relevant details and plausibility in
the written statements. But authority did not affect rapport and rapport
did not mediate the effect of authority on the informational elements.
These results added to a growing literature demonstrating the
effects of social influence in investigative interviews. For truth tellers,
the effects were fairly strong and robust; essentially, the trappings of
authority facilitated them to talk more. The same was true for relevant
details in the written statements, which was interesting because these
were produced without the interviewer present (although the effects
were marginally significant and the CIs overlapped with zero). The
trappings of authority also facilitated truth tellers to provide even
more details in the interviews compared with their written statements,
and all effects occurred across different interviewers and interviewee
genders. These findings were somewhat remarkable given that the
authority operationalization was subtle and implicit and that the inter-
viewees themselves did not report a difference in perceptions of
authority between the conditions.
Theoretically, the trappings may have primed the concept of
authority during the activation phase of a four‐component framework
of the cognitive mechanisms associated with deceptive contexts
(Walczyk et al., 2003; Walczyk et al., 2014). Such priming can infuse
judgment and decision‐making processes with concepts related to
authority such as obedience, disclosure, cooperation, or compliance.
Given that activation facilitates respondents in realizing that truthful
information is being sought, truthful facts should have been more
easily recalled and reported.
But the findings suggested that different components of the con-
cept of authority may have been primed for truth tellers and liars. For
truth tellers, the authority priming may have activated the cooperation
component of authority. If truth tellers are akin to cooperative eyewit-
nesses, the findings for truth tellers make sense and were likely not at
odds with their preexisting framework of cooperation, facilitating
information retrieval and reporting. Liars, however, may have been
uncooperative to begin with in order to conceal their wrongdoing.
As such priming the cooperation component of authority may have
been at odds with their preexisting, noncooperative cognitive frame-
work and the authority manipulation may have primed a component
other than cooperation, such as compliance; thus, priming authority
appeared to have different effects on liars. This speculation is sup-
ported by the differential albeit nonsignificant trends in authority rat-
ings for truth tellers and liars reported in the manipulation check. Also,
if cooperation is considered a component of rapport, the differences in
interviewers' ratings of rapport between veracity conditions lend
some credence to this interpretation because their rapport ratings
were higher in the truth condition.
But characterizing truth tellers as cooperative and liars as not
assumes that liars are not cooperative, which is not necessarily the
MATSUMOTO AND HWANG
case. Liars can be cooperative (and compliant) but not entirely forth-
right or credible in the contents provided. The above argument
depends on whether the concept of cooperation requires truthfulness
as a component. Conceptualizing cooperation as a “working alliance”
or “operational accord,” for example, does not necessarily require
truthful responses (although such alliances make truthful responses
more likely). The nondifferences in participants' rapport ratings further
raise questions about whether cooperation may have been the reason
why authority did not affect liars.
Authority did not affect plausibility but these nonfindings likely
occurred because of the increased amount of irrelevant details
produced by the authority operationalization, reducing the overall plau-
sibility of the responses. In fact, ratios of irrelevant to relevant details
were correlated with plausibility ratings, r(97) = −0.60, p < 0.001 and
r(93) = −0.55, p < 0.001, for interviews and written statements, respec-
tively, and these correlations were likely underestimates because they
did not include data with zero values for either type of detail.
The effects of interviewer‐rated rapport were fairly robust on all
informational elements from the interviews and on relevant details
and plausibility from the written statements (all CIs did not overlap
with zero). That rapport had direct effects on the interviews was not
surprising, given that the informational elements produced by the
interviewees and the interviewers' rapport ratings were based on their
interaction. That interviewers' rapport ratings also had direct effects
on the written statements was somewhat surprising given that the
statements were produced at the beginning of the interviews when
interviewees were alone whereas rapport ratings were obtained after
the interviews were completed. There are at least two interpretations
for this finding: The developing rapport between the interactants prior
to the request to write the statements may have affected production
of relevant details in the statements written thereafter. The positive
correlations between the interviewers' first rapport ratings and the
relevant details and plausibility in the written statements produced
subsequently are suggestive of this possibility. Or the greater produc-
tion of relevant details in the statements influenced better rapport
outcomes in the subsequent interviews. Unfortunately, the way the
rapport ratings were obtained did not allow for any conclusive inter-
pretations of when and how rapport was built. Regardless, these
findings contributed to a growing literature on the importance of
rapport in investigative interviews (cited earlier).
Participant rapport ratings were not related to any of the informa-
tional elements or interviewer rapport ratings, raising questions about
differential effects of different sources of rapport in investigative inter-
views. These nonfindings suggested that the effects of authority on the
informational elements occurred regardless of interviewees' percep-
tions of the quality of the interactions. For them, the interview context
may have been sufficiently charged so that the press of the context
diminished effects of their perceptions of rapport. Interviewers had a
different perspective and may have been attuned to greater operational
accord in the interaction, which may account for the positive effects
involving their ratings. Alternative interpretations may also exist.
The current findings urge practitioners to consider subtle manipu-
lations in their operational contexts that may facilitate information
elicitation. Anecdotally, most investigators want their interviewees to
talk more so that claims can be verified and ground truth more easily
MATSUMOTO AND HWANG
obtained. Even subtle, implicit authority operationalizations may aid in
gathering information from truth tellers, which may render clearer
indicators of who should be ruled out in certain investigative contexts,
especially those dealing with multiple persons of interest. At the same
time, our findings suggest that practitioners be wary of the possible
effects of similar authority manipulations because more irrelevant
information can also be produced. To be sure, irrelevant information
may not necessarily be false; the information may actually have
occurred but was just not related to the question or context. The fact
that irrelevant information increased from the written statement to
the interview for liars suggested that they were more compliant but
not necessarily more cooperative (as suggested above).
These findings were not produced without limitations, the first
concerning the operationalization of authority using the trappings of
authority. This operationalization did not differentiate between status
and power nor did it require any direct intervention by the inter-
viewers. Also, authority did not affect rapport and rapport did not
have a mediational effect. Future studies should examine other direct
and indirect operationalizations of authority and their effects on
both information produced and rapport. Different operationalizations
including changes in questions and interviewer demeanor that
directly demonstrate authority, status, or power may influence infor-
mation and rapport in either positive or negative ways and these
potential influences deserve research attention. Future studies will
also need to examine operationalizations that produce positive
effects in both truth tellers and liars as well as different levels of
intensity of authority.
The different effects of interviewer and interviewee rapport we
obtained suggested that researchers incorporate multiple measures
of rapport so that the effects of rapport can be differentially examined
using different assessments of rapport. Future research should
examine the effects of different sources of rapport on the elements,
effectiveness, and efficiency of interviews.
Finally, the findings were limited to one type of crime (mock crime
of theft) in a laboratory context; the effects of social influence need to
be tested in other contexts as well. We also tested participants who
probably had no previous experience with actual investigative situa-
tions; thus, the findings were limited to those who were relatively
naïve about such contexts (although people may have ideas about
such experiences through media). Future studies should examine the
possibility that the findings might differ for people with experience
in actual investigative contexts.
ACKNOWLEDGEMEN TS
The authors thank Vincent Sandoval for his suggestions about the
potential effect of principles of persuasion and influence in investiga-
tive interviews.
This work was funded by the High‐Value Detainee Interrogation
Group contract DJF‐15‐1200‐V‐0009510. Statements of fact, opinion,
and analysis in the paper are those of the authors and do not reflect the
official policy or position of the FBI or the U.S. Government.
ORCID
David Matsumoto https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3186-1503
525
RE FE RE NC ES
Bernieri, F. J. (1988). Coordinated movement and rapport in teacher–
student interactions. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 12(2), 120–138.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00986930
Bernieri, F. J., Davis, J. M., Rosenthal, R., & Knee, C. R. (1994). Interactional
synchrony and rapport: Measuring synchrony in displays devoid of
sound and facial affect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20,
303–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167294203008
Bernieri, F. J., & Gillis, J. S. (1995). The judgment of rapport: A cross‐
cultural comparison between Americans and Greeks. Journal of Nonver-
bal Behavior, 19(2), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02173170
Bernieri, F. J., Reznick, S. J., & Rosenthal, R. (1988). Synchrony,
pseudosunchrony, and dissynchrony: Measuring the entrainment
process in mother‐infant interactions. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54(2), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐
3514.54.2.243
Blass, T. (1999). The Milgram Paradigm after 35 years: Some things we
now know about obedience to authority. Journal of Applied Social Psy-
chology, 29(5), 955–978. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559‐1816.1999.
tb00134.x
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.). Harlow;
London: Pearson Education.
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004a). Social influence: Compliance and
conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621. https://doi.org/
10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004b). Social Influence: Compliance and
conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1), 591–621. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised Neo‐Personality Inventory
(NEO‐PI‐R) and Neo Five Factor Inventory (NEO‐FFI). Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction
with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. https://
doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13
Goodman‐Delahunty, J., & Howes, L. M. (2016). Social persuasion to
develop rapport in high‐stakes interviews: Qualitative analyses of
Asian‐Pacific practices. Policing and Society, 26(3), 270–290. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2014.942848
Goodman‐Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N., & Dhami, M. K. (2014).
Interviewing high value detainees: Securing cooperation and disclo-
sures. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(6), 863–897. https://doi.org/
10.1002/acp.3087.
Grahe, J. E., & Bernieri, F. J. (1999). The importance of nonverbal cues in
judging rapport. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 23(4), 253–269.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021698725361
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional
process analysis: A regression based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Hwang, H. C., Matsumoto, D., & Sandoval, V. A. (2016). Linguistic cues of
deception across multiple language groups in a mock crime context.
Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 13(1), 56–69.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1442
Kieckhaefer, J. M., Vallano, J. P., & Schreiber Compo, N. (2013). Examining
the positive effects of rapport building: When and why does rapport
building benefit adult eyewitnesses. Memory, 22(8), 1010–1023.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2013.864313
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1997). International
Affective Picture System (IAPS): Technical manual and affective ratings.
Washington, DC: NIMH Center for the study of emotion and attention.
Matsumoto, D., & Hwang, H. C. (2018). Social influence in investigative
interviews: The effects of reciprocity. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
32, 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3390
Meissner, C. A., Hartwig, M., & Russano, M. B. (2010). The need for a pos-
itive psychological approach and collaborative effort for improving
practice in the interrogation room. Law and Human Behavior, 34(1),
43–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979‐009‐9205‐9
526
Meissner, C. A., Kelly, C. E., & Woestehoff, S. A. (2015). Improving the effective-
ness of suspect interrogations. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 11,
211–233. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev‐lawsocsci‐120814‐121657
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525
Paddock, J. R., & Terranova, S. (2001). Guided visualization and suggestibil-
ity: Effect of perceived authority on recall of autobiographical
memories. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 162(3), 347–356.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221320109597488
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dom-
inance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political
attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741–763.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐3514.67.4.741
Schultz, P. W., Nolan, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Goldstein, N. J., & Griskevicius,
V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of
social norms. Psychological Science, 18(5), 429–434. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467‐9280.2007.01917.x
Schwartz, S. H. (2006). Value orientations: Measurement, antecedents, and
consequences across nations. In R. Jowell, C. Roberts, R. Fitzgerald, &
G. Eva (Eds.), Measuring attitudes cross‐nationally—Lessons from the
European social survey (pp. 161–193). Long: Sage.
Snyder, M. (1974). Self‐monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 526–537. https://doi.org/
10.1037/h0037039
Tickle‐Degnen, L., & Rosenthal, R. (1987). Group rapport and nonverbal
behavior. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychol-
ogy, Vol. 9. Group processes and intergroup relations, (pp. 113‐136).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Tickle‐Degnen, L., & Rosenthal, R. (1990). The nature of rapport and its
nonverbal correlates. Psychological Inquiry, 1(4), 285–293. https://doi.
org/10.1207/s15327965pli0104_1
Trout, D. L., & Rosenfeld, H. M. (1980). The effect of postural lean and body
congruence on the judgment of psychotherapeutic rapport. Journal of Non-
verbal Behavior, 4(3), 176–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00986818
MATSUMOTO AND HWANG
Tsai, J. L., Ying, Y.‐W., & Lee, P. A. (2000). The meaning of “being Chinese”
and “being American”: Variation among Chinese‐American young
adults. Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology, 31(3), 302–332. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0022022100031003002
Tyler, T. R. (1998). The psychology of authority relations: A relational per-
spective on influence and power in groups. In R. M. Kramer, & M. A.
Neale (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations (pp. 251–260).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/
9781483345291.n11
Vallano, J. P., & Compo, N. S. (2011). A comfortable witness is a good wit-
ness: Rapport‐building and susceptibility to misinformation in an
investigative mock‐crime interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
25(6), 960–970. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1789
Vrij, A., Meissner, C. A., Fisher, R. P., Kassin, S. M., Morgan, C. A., &
Kleinman, S. M. (2017). Psychological perspectives on interrogation.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 927–955. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1745691617706515
Walczyk, J. J., Harris, L. L., Duck, T. K., & Mulay, D. (2014). A social‐
cognitive framework for understanding serious lies: Activation‐
decision‐construction‐action theory. New Ideas in Psychology, 34,
22–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2014.03.001
Walczyk, J. J., Roper, K. S., Seemann, E., & Humphrey, A. M. (2003). Cogni-
tive mechanisms underlying lying to questions: Response time as a cue
to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17(7), 755–774. https://doi.
org/10.1002/acp.914
How to cite this article: Matsumoto D, Hwang HC. Social
influence in investigative interviews: The effects of authority
on informational elements produced in interviews and written
statements. Appl Cognit Psychol. 2019;33:516–526. https://
doi.org/10.1002/acp.3488
Copyright of Applied Cognitive Psychology is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.