Interviewing in Virtual Environments: Towards Understanding The Impact Of Rapport‑building Behaviours And Retrieval Context On Eyewitness Memory Part 3

Rapport manipulation analysis

Means (SDs & 95% CIs) for rapport behaviors across phases common to all interview conditions as a function of environment and interview condition are displayed in Table 2.

Cross-stage rapport behavior refers to individuals coordinating and adapting to the environment with internal and external resources in different stages of social environments to achieve integration and adaptation. This behavior has an important impact on an individual's growth, learning, and social development.

Cross-stage rapport behavior is closely related to memory. Research shows that an individual's memory and ability to engage in cross-stage rapport influence each other. Specifically, the improvement of cross-stage rapport behavior can promote the development of memory, and the improvement of memory can also promote the improvement of cross-stage rapport behavior ability.

Practicing cross-stage rapport behaviors can improve an individual's memory. In the process of constantly adapting to new environments and dealing with complex social relationships, individuals need to summarize and reflect on their own experiences, so that they can quickly adapt to the new environment and achieve good social results. Therefore, the practice of cross-stage rapport behaviors has the effect of improving individual thinking ability and can promote the enhancement of memory.

In turn, good memory also contributes to the development of rapport behaviors across stages. If a person can accurately remember his own experience and previous lessons, he can improve his adaptability in social environments at different stages. At the same time, good memory can also enable individuals to better remember and understand the behaviors of others regarding the different choices and decisions that need to be made in cross-stage rapport behaviors, to get along better with others.

Therefore, the relationship between cross-stage rapport behavior and memory is mutually reinforcing. Individuals can improve their comprehensive abilities through cross-stage harmonious behavior practice and memory training, better adapt to different social environments, and improve their social abilities. It can be seen that we need to improve our memory. Cistanche deserticola can significantly improve memory, because Cistanche deserticola can also regulate the balance of neurotransmitters, such as increasing the levels of acetylcholine and growth factors. These substances are very important for memory and learning. In addition, meat can also improve blood flow and promote oxygen delivery, which can ensure that the brain receives sufficient nutrients and energy, thus improving brain vitality and endurance.

Click know ways to improve brain function

The rapport-present main effect was nonsignificant for all four rapport-building behaviors across environments, in both the free-recall, all Fs < 4.00, all ps > .059, and questioning phases, all Fs < 2.21, all ps > .144 revealing that all behaviors were similarly present across the two environments in both recall phases. Likewise, there were no significant differences across environments in the rapport absent conditions for the four rapport-building behaviors in either the free-recall, all Fs < 1.00, all ps > .322, or questioning phases, all Fs < .214, all ps > .646, and so all rapport behaviors were similarly absent.

There were no significant differences across environment (VE and face-to-face) in the rapport phase of the present conditions for the use of the six rapport behaviors applied in this phase: (i) open-ended questions (M VE = 2.80, SD = .41; M FtF = 2.84, SD = .37), (ii) ofering information (M VE = 2.96, SD = .20; M FtF = 2.91, SD = .21), (iii) looking at interviewees when they speak (M VE = 2.80, SD = .40; M FtF = 2.92, SD = .28), (iv) using interviewee’s name (M VE = 2.88, SD = .33; M FtF = 2.88, SD = .32), (v) nodding in acknowledgment when interviewees speak (M VE = 2.84, SD = .37; M FtF = 2.95, SD = .20), and (vi) thanking interviewees when they answer questions (M VE = 2.84, SD = .31; M FtF = 2.88, SD = .31), all Fs < 2.00, all ps > .164.

There was a significant main effect of rapport condition (present/absent) for all four rapport behaviors in the free-recall phase (common to all interviews), looking at the interviewee/making eye contact when the interviewee speaks, F(1, 96) = 3221.94, p < .001, ηp 2 = .91, using the interviewee’s name, F(1, 96) = 5010.78, p < .001, ηp 2 = .94, thanking the interviewee when they answered questions, F(1, 96) = 1319.51, p < .001, ηp 2 = .993, and nodding in acknowledgment when the interviewee spoke, F(1, 96) = 1514.70, p < .001, ηp 2 = .94. 

All behaviors occurred significantly more often in the rapport-present condition than in the rapport-absent condition. There were no significant main effects of the environment, and the Environment × Rapport interactions were also nonsignificant, with all Fs < 3.08, and all ps > .082 (see Table 3). Similarly, in the questioning phase (common to all interviews) there was a significant main effect for all four rapport behaviors (Table 3), looking at the interviewee/making eye contact when they spoke, F(1, 96) = 1514.07 p < .001, ηp 2 =.94, using the interviewee’s name, F(1, 96) = 2353.02, p < .001, ηp 2 = .96, thanking the interviewee, F(1, 96) = 3225.94, p < .001, ηp 2 = .97, and nodding in acknowledgment, F(1, 96) = 1412.10, p < .001, ηp 2 = .92.

All behaviors occurred significantly more often in the rapport condition than in the no-rapport condition. There were no significant main effects of the environment, and the Environment × Rapport interactions were also nonsignificant, with all Fs < 1.02, and all ps > .315.

A random sample of five interviews conducted by each interviewer (25 interviews in total) was coded for adherence to the interview protocol phases by two independent raters using a scoring sheet (ranging from 3 = fully implemented every phase to 0 = did not implement). The rapport-present interviews comprised six phases (see Table 1), whereas the no-rapport interviews comprised five phases. Analysis revealed a substantial level of agreement between raters, Kappa = .921, p = .003. Interviewer adherence across phases revealed no significant differences as a function of the interviewer for adherence to each phase, all Fs < 3.211, p = > .217, and each interviewer applied each phase as a function of condition.

Results

Analysis approach

To investigate H1 and H2 a series of 2 (environment: face-to-face, virtual) × 2 (rapport: present, absent) ANOVAs were conducted. Global memory performance (performance across the duration of the interview) main effects and interactions were investigated using the number of correct, incorrect, and confabulated items recalled, and percentage accuracy. Performance as a function of the retrieval phase was analyzed to investigate the pattern of memory performance and locus of any significant global main effects and interactions. 

Finally, to investigate H3, interviewee post-interview feedback was analyzed across conditions where appropriate, and responses to condition-specific questions. Guided by our additional research question, Environment × Rapport interactions were exploratory, allowing us to investigate the combined effects of rapport and retrieval environment. The global duration of interviews, the duration of the two recall phases (combined), and the number of questions asked in the question phase of interviews were also analyzed to fully explore the impact of the environment and conditions for applied audiences.

Global memory performance

Correct recall There were signifcant main efects of environment, F(1, 96) = 17.814, p < .001, ηp 2 = .16, and rapport, F(1, 96) = 6.840, p = .010, ηp 2 = .07, for correct recall. Participants interviewed in the VE recalled more correct information than those interviewed face-to-face, and when rapport was present participants recalled more correct information (see Table 4 for main effects). There was a significant Environment × Rapport interaction, F(1, 96) = 6.638, p = .012, ηp 2 = .07. When rapport was present, participants interviewed in the VE recalled more correct information, p < .001 (Table 5). All other interactions were nonsignificant.

Incorrect recall There were signifcant main efects of environment, F(1, 96) = 12.541, p < .001, ηp 2 = .12, and rapport, F(1, 96) = 6.183, p = .015, ηp 2 = .06, for incorrect recall. Participants interviewed in the VE recalled fewer incorrect items of information than those interviewed in person face-to-face (see Table 4). When rapport was present participants also recalled fewer incorrect items of information. There was a signifcant Environment × Rapport interaction, F(1, 96) = 13.081, p < .001, ηp 2 = .12 (see Table 5). When rapport was absent, participants interviewed FtF recalled significantly more incorrect items of information, p < .001. All other interactions were nonsignificant.

Confabulations There were nonsignificant main effects of environment and rapport, all Fs < 3.52 and all ps > .064. There was a signifcant Environment × Rapport interaction, F(1, 96) = 5.648, p = .019, ηp 2 = .56. When rapport was absent, participants confabulated more during in-person face-to-face interviews, p =.002 (see Table 5). All other interactions were nonsignificant.

Percentage accuracy There were signifcant main efects of environment, F(1, 96) = 21.069, p < .001, ηp 2 = .18, and rapport, F(1, 96) = 11.350, p = .001, ηp 2 = .11, for percentage accuracy. Participants were more accurate in the VE (MVE = 91.23, SD = 3.11, 95% CI [88.79, 93.66]) than in-person face-to-face (MF2F = 89.69, SD = 6.26, 95% CI [87.26, 93.67]). They were also more accurate when rapport was present (M rapport = 90.46, SD = 4.95, 95% CI [89.06, 91.87]) than when it was absent (M no rapport = 86.33, SD = 8.58, 95% CI [83.89, 88.77]). The Environment × Rapport interaction was also significant, F(1, 96) = 11.118, p = .001, ηp 2 = .10. Participants were less accurate when interviewed in-person face-to-face when rapport was absent (MF2F No rapport = 81.48, SD = 7.99, 95% CI [79.05, 83.91]) than those interviewed in-person face-to-face when rapport was present (MF2F rapport = 89.69, SD = 3.11, 95% CI [87.26, 92.13]) and those interviewed in the VE when rapport was present (MVE rapport = 91.23, SD = 6.12, 95% CI [88.80, 93.67]) and absent (MVE No rapport = 91.19, SD = 6.12, 95% CI [88.76, 93.63]), all ps < .001. All other interactions were nonsignificant.

Recall phase memory performance

Given the small mean confabulations, in analyzing memory as a function of the interview phase (free-recall and questioning), we collapsed the two types of errors (incorrect information and confabulations) to allow a more meaningful interpretation.

Free‑recall phase

Correct recall There was a significant main effect of environment, F(1, 96) = 13.81, p < .001, ηp 2 = .13. Participants interviewed in the VE recalled more correct items of information in the free-recall phase (MVE = 41.96, SD = 13.32, 95% CI [39.04, 44.88]) than those interviewed in-person face-to-face (M F2F = 34.22, SD = 7.14, 95% CI [26.79, 38.05]). The main efect of rapport was nonsignifcant, F = 3.01, p = .082 (M rapport = 39.92, SD = 11.97; M no rapport = 36.26, SD = 10.45). The Environment × Rapport interaction was significant, F(1, 96) = 4.18, p = .044, ηp 2 = .04. When rapport was present participants interviewed in the VE recalled more correct information in the free-recall phase (MVE rapport = 45.92, SD = 12.83, 95% CI [41.79, 50.05]) than those interviewed face-to-face (MF2F rapport = 33.92, SD = 7.26, 95% CI [29.79, 38.05]), p < .001. When rapport was absent, participants interviewed in the VE recalled more correct information (MVE No rapport = 38.00, SD = 12.85, 95% CI [33.87, 42.13]) than those interviewed face-to-face (M F2F No rapport = 34.52, SD = 7.16, 95% CI [30.87, 38.65]), p = .001.

Errors There were signifcant main efects of environment, F(1, 96) = 18.23, p < .001, ηp 2 = .16, and rapport, F(1,96) = 8.63, p = .004, ηp 2 = .08 for the number of errors in the free-recall. Participants interviewed in the VE made significantly fewer errors (MVE = 1.92, SD = 2.44, 95% CI [1.20, 2.64]) than those in the in-person face-to-face condition (MF2F = 4.10, SD = 3.18, 95% CI [3.83, 4.18]). Where rapport was present participants made significantly fewer errors (M rapport = 2.26, SD = 2.04, 95% CI [1.54, 2.98]) than when rapport was absent (M No rapport = 3.76, SD = 3.62, 95% CI [3.04, 4.48]). The Environment × Rapport interaction was significant, F(1, 96) = 16.27, p < .001, ηp 2 = .15. When rapport was absent, participants interviewed in-person face-to-face made more errors (MF2F No rapport = 5.88, SD = 3.14, 95% CI [4.87, 6.89]) than those interviewed in the VE (MVE No rapport = 1.64, SD = 1.60, 95% CI [.67, 2.65]), p = .001, and when rapport was present participants interviewed in-person face-to-face (MF2F rapport = 2.32, SD = 2.06, 95% CI [1.31, 3.33]) made more errors than this interviewed in the VE (MVE rapport = 1.64, SD = 1.08, 95% CI [1.89, 3.21]), p < .001.

Questioning phase

Correct recall There were significant main effects of environment and rapport on the amount of correct information recalled in the questioning phase, F(1, 96) = 7.51, p = .007, ηp 2 = .07, and F(1, 96) = 4.42, p = .038, ηp 2 = .04, respectively. Participants interviewed in the VE recalled more correct information (MVE = 31.54, SD = 11.73, 95% CI [28.72, 34.36]) than those in the in-person face-to-face condition (MF2F = 26.04, SD = 8.76, 95% CI [23.22, 28.86]). Participants also recalled more correct information when rapport was present (M rapport = 30.09, SD = 12.30, 95% CI [28.08, 33.72]) than when it was absent (M No rapport = 26.68, SD = 8.32, 95% CI [23.86, 29.50]). The Environment × Rapport interaction was nonsignificant for the questioning phase, F = 3.78, p = .055.

Errors The main effects of the environment, F = 3.86, p = .052 (M F2F = 7.10 SD = 5.98, 95% CI [5.76, 8.44]; M VE = 5.22 SD = 3.60, 95% CI [5.76, 8.44]), and rapport, F = 2.52, p= .116, were nonsignificant for the number of errors in the questioning phase (M Rapport = 5.40 SD = 3.49 95% CI [5.76, 8.44]; M No rapport = 6.92 SD = 6.09, 95% CI [5.76, 8.44]). However, the Environment × Rapport interaction was significant, F(1, 96) = 5.67, p = .019, ηp 2 = .06. Participants reported more errors in the in-person face-to-face condition when rapport was absent (M F2F no rapport = 9.00 SD = 7.11, 95% CI [7.10, 10.90]) than in the VE (M VE no rapport = 4.84 SD = 4.03, 95% CI [2.94, 6.74]), p = .004. When rapport was present, there were no significant differences between participants in the in-person face-to-face (M F2F rapport = 5.20 SD = 3.85, 95% CI [2.94, 6.74]) and VE conditions (M VE rapport = 5.60 SD = 3.16, 95% CI [3.70, 7.50]).

Interview duration

Global duration As one might expect due to the additional rapport phase, there was a significant main effect of condition on interview duration (from start to finish including all interview phases), F (1, 96) = 108.22, p = <. 001, η2 = .53. Globally, rapport-building interviews were significantly longer (M = 44.96 mins, SD = 5.12, 95% CI [42.60, 46.17]) than the no-rapport-building interviews (M = 31.17 mins, SD = 9.15, 95% CI [29.38, 32.95]). The main effect of the environment was nonsignificant, F (1, 96) = 1.13, p = . 291, as was the Environment × Condition interaction, F(1, 96) = .02, p = . 887.

Recall phase duration Similarly, the duration of the free recall and question phases combined, revealed a significant main effect of condition, F(1, 96) = 73.17, p <. 001, η2 = .43. As expected, rapport-building interviews were longer across the combined recall phase (M = 32.71 mins, SD = 5.56, 95% CI [31.33, 34.10]) than the no rapport interviews (M = 24.29 mins, SD = 4.09, 95% CI [22.91, 25.67]). The main efect of environment was nonsignifcant, F(1, 96) = .35, p = . 553, as was the Environment × Condition interaction, F(1, 96) = .09, p = . 759.

Probing tell, explain, describe (TED) questions

The main effect of rapport (Mrapport = 11.52, SD = 1.76, M no rapport = 10.74, SD = 2.16), was nonsignificant, F = 3.822, p = .053, as was the main effect of environment (MVE = 11.16, SD = 2.08, 95% CI [10.60, 11.72]; M F2F = 11.10, SD = 1.94, 95% CI [10.54, 11.66]), F = .03, p = .881. The Environment × Rapport interaction for the number of questions asked was also nonsignificant, F = .003, p = .961.

Post interview feedback

Feedback means (SDs and 95% Cis) are shown in Table 6. There was a significant main effect of rapport, F(1, 96) = 16.86, p < .001, ηp 2 = .15, and a significant Rapport × Environment interaction, F(1, 96) = 5.590, p = .020, ηp 2 = .06, for how easy/difficult participants had found it to remember what they had seen. Participants in the rapport-present condition reported finding it easier to remember than those in the no-rapport condition. Participants in the no rapport VE condition reported finding the recall task more difficult than those in the no rapport face-to-face condition. The effect of the environment was nonsignificant, F = 2.17, p = .109.

There were signifcant main efects of rapport, F(1, 96) = 42.09, p = < .001, ηp 2 = .30, and environment, F(1, 96) = 35.31, p < .001, ηp 2 = .27, for confdence that recall was correct. Participants in the rapport-present condition reported feeling more confident their recall was correct than those in the no-rapport condition. Likewise, participants in the VE condition reported feeling more confident they were correct. The Environment × Rapport interaction was also nonsignificant, F = 3.57, p = .062.

There were no significant main effects nor interactions for confidence ratings regarding errors, all Fs < 1.17, all p > .281. Participants were generally undecided (50%) as to whether they had made any errors or not. There were signifcant main efects of environment, F(1, 96) = 155.83, p < .001, ηp 2 = .62, and rapport, F(1, 96) = 5.21, p = .025, ηp 2 = .05, for how comfortable participants felt during the interviews. Participants interviewed in the VE reported feeling more comfortable throughout the interview than those interviewed face-to-face, and participants in the rapport condition reported feeling more comfortable than those in the no-rapport condition, F(1, 96) = 155.83, p < .001, ηp 2 = .62. The Environment × Rapport interaction was nonsignificant, F = .162, p = .688.

There were significant main effects of the environment, F(1, 96) = 57.28, p < .001, ηp 2 = .37, and rapport, F(1, 96) = 5.71, p = .019, ηp 2 = .07, for how easy/difficult it was for participants to tell the interviewer they could not remember. Participants in the VE found it easier than those in the face-to-face environment, and participants in the no-rapport condition found it more difficult to say they could not remember. There was a significant Environment × Rapport interaction, F(1, 96) = 7.78, p = .006, ηp 2 = .08. Participants in the face-to-face + rapport condition found it more difficult to say they could not remember than those in the face-to-face no-rapport condition, and participants in both VE + rapport and VE no-rapport conditions found it significantly less difficult than those in the face-to-face + rapport and face-to-face no-rapport conditions, p = .002

There were signifcant main efects of environment, F(1, 96) = 19.27, p < .001, ηp 2 = .18, and rapport, F(1, 96) =23.03, p < .001, ηp 2 = .19, for ratings of how friendly participants found the interviewer. Participants in the VE found the interviewer more friendly than those in the face-to-face condition, and participants in the rapport condition found the interviewer more friendly than those in the no-rapport condition. A significant Environment × Rapport interaction also emerged, F(1, 96) = 12.77, p < .001, ηp 2 = .12. Participants in the VE no rapport found the interviewer more friendly than those in the no rapport face-to-face rapport condition, p = .001.

Participants interviewed in the VE were asked four additional questions. Eight (16%) stated they had used a virtual reality (VR) headset before (yes/no) and 42 (84%) stated they had not. Participants were asked how easy/difficult they found it to use the headset. Overall participants reported finding the headset extremely/somewhat easy to use (M = 1.72, SD = .83) with no significant difference between the rapport-present (M = 1.84, SD = .99) and rapport-absent conditions (M = 1.60, SD = .67), F = 1.36, p = .314. When asked how they generally liked/disliked being interviewed in a VE, overall participants reported somewhat liking the environment (M = 2.02, SD = .96) with no significant difference between the rapport-present (M = 1.96, SD = .90) and rapport-absent conditions (M = 2.08, SD = 1.04), F = .19, p = .663. Simple linear regression revealed that having used a VR headset before was not a significant predictor of ratings of ease of use nor liking of the VE environment, R2 = .047, F = 1.15, p = .372. Finally, participants reported the headset to be very comfortable to wear (M = 1.62, SD = .71).

Discussion

Theoretical and evidence-based witness interviewing techniques typically champion rapport-building to reduce some of the social demands of recalling a crime event, thereby potentially increasing cognitive capacity for remembering. Cognitive and social benefits have also emerged in remote interview contexts with reduced anxiety and social pressure contributing to improved eyewitness performance. To date, as far as we are aware no research has investigated the combined impact of interview context and rapport-building behaviours. Here, we investigated episodic memory in mock eyewitness interviews conducted in virtual environments (VE) and in-person face-to-face (FtF), where rapport-building behaviors were either present or absent.

To summarise, participants interviewed in the VE demonstrated superior memory performance to those interviewed FtF, recalling an average of 15% more correct information, reporting more than 50% fewer erroneous details, and over 40% fewer confabulations. Further, irrespective of environment, participants recalled more episodic information when rapport was present. However, the VE superiority effect was augmented by the presence of rapport-building behaviours, since participants in the VE + rapport outperformed participants in all other conditions suggesting the benefits of each manipulation were complimentary. 

As one would expect both the global duration and combined recall phase duration of rapport-present interviews were significantly longer than when rapport was absent. Analysis of the combined recall phase during which participants were retrieving and verbalizing episodic information revealed they were 30% longer in rapport-present interviews. However, the number of probing questions asked in the question phase that immediately follows the initial free recall did not significantly differ as a function of rapport, potentially indicating cognitive benefits in terms of supporting cognitive effort whereby responses to questions were more detailed and that the information was accurate since there was no increase in errors and confabulations.

Participants interviewed in the VE reported more correct information, fewer errors, and greater accuracy. Accordingly, our findings support H1 and are similar to the results of research conducted by others (e.g., Bethel et al., 2013; Fängström et al., 2017; Hamilton et al., 2017; Nash et al., 2014; Taylor & Dando, 2018). However, our findings add to the emerging literature on cognition in VEs where information gathering is a primary goal (e.g., Bacon et al., 2019; Hope et al., 2011; Nash et al., 2014; Nash et al., 2020; Sun, 2014). 

The importance of social context is increasingly recognized in applied cognition research (Fisher et al., 2011; Powell et al., 2005; Taylor & Dando, 2018). Indeed, the social cognition literature concerning memory performance when social demand is controlled offers several potential explanations for our pattern of results (e.g., Vredeveldt et al., 2011; Wagstaff et al., 2011). Physical co-presence can impose dual task demands, reducing resources available for effortful remembering (Koutstaal et al., 2001; Vredeveldt et al., 2018; Vredeveldt et al., 2011). Monitoring of social, physical, and linguistic cues while simultaneously recalling episodic information has been found to negatively impact retrieval and control processes Koriat & Goldsmith, 1994, 1996; Shapira & Pansky, 2019).

In a VE, dual-task demands may be reduced since parties are not physically co-present. 

Rather, each is represented by an avatar, and they communicate as such. Hence, the social environment may be less demanding. Nonetheless, VEs allow an immersive experience, supporting natural behaviors and effective communication (Lee & Marsella, 2006; Shardaet al., 2006). Our feedback reveals participants interviewed in the VE reported reduced social demands, potentially allowing improved cognitive control. Cognitive control supports top-down resource allocation to goal-relevant tasks, here conscious recall (e.g., Braver et al., 2007; Kiyonaga et al., 2012; Savine et al., 2010), which has been found to enhance performance in cognitively complex tasks such as episodic retrieval (e.g., Botvinick et al., 2001; Greene et al., 2004; Hammond & Summers, 1972; Rondeel et al., 2015). Indeed, despite differences in recall duration, that there was parity across conditions for the number of probing (TED) questions asked adds weight to the importance of the environment for supporting the cognitive effort and the benefits of doing so for improved performance.

Equally, the VE might have promoted memory performance by potentially reducing feelings of anxiety often associated with traditional in-person face-to-face interactions (Davis & Bottoms, 2002; Fisher & Geiselman, 1992). Theories suggest that anxiety can compete for cognitive resources (e.g., Eysenck & Calvo, 1992; Eysenck et al., 2007). Reduced anxiety at retrieval releases cognitive resources for memory search with the potential for improving memory output. In this study, VE participants reported feeling more comfortable during the interview compared to the FtF participants, which suggests a more relaxed experience, perhaps. Nevertheless, neither actual nor perceived anxiety was directly measured, so future research could investigate anxiety and trauma responses in remote interviewing settings.

In line with predictions on the benefits of rapport for leveraging cooperation and eliciting information (e.g., Abbe & Brandon, 2014; K. Collins & Carthy, 2019; Gabbert et al., 2020; Nahouli et al., 2021), our cluster of rapport behaviors were well received and resulted in quantifiable benefits (more information & fewer errors), providing support for H2. Where rapport was present in the free recall, fewer errors were made, and more correct information items were reported. In follow-on probing (TED) questioning, additional correct information was reported without concomitant increases in errors. 

Questioning is vital for gathering additional fine-grained information (Ministry of Justice, 2011). However, this additional information is often accompanied by errors, a consistently reported pattern in adults and children (Dando, 2013; Dando et al., 2009; Köhnken et al., 1999; Mattison et al., 2015; Memon et al., 2010; Milne & Bull, 2002; Milne et al., 2019) and so understanding which types of interviewing technique or interviewer behaviors have potential to mitigate errors is important.

Two possible explanations emerge for why rapport-building might mitigate errors during probing (TED) questioning. First, feedback revealed participants were more comfortable and found it easier to say when they couldn’t remember. This is crucial since errors increase when witnesses feel pressure (real or perceived) to provide answers even when unsure (Scoboria & Fisico, 2013; see also Ceci& Bruck, 1993). Second, the rapport superiority effect may have carried over from the preceding free-recall phase. Reduced errors from the offset offer some protection as the interview progresses since interviewees are not then questioned about information initially provided, which unbeknown to them may have been erroneous—where the free-recall is highly accurate, it follows that the questioning phase may be more accurate, also.

The benefit of external task support for improved episodic recall is clear (e.g., Dando et al., 2020; Fisher & Geisleman, 1992; Hope et al., 2014; Mattison et al., 2015; Smith & Vela, 1992). Here, rapport-building behaviors offered support in line with this literature, assuaging the social demands of an interview to support the goal-directed allocation of resources (Dando, 2013; Mather & Knight, 2005; Vredeveldt et al., 2018; Vredeveldt et al., 2011; Wagstaff et al., 2011). Saying “I do not know” or “I can’t remember” allows witnesses to withhold information they are less confident about (see Koriat & Goldsmith, 1994). Low-confidence responses are typically less accurate than high-confidence responses (e.g., Evans & Fisher, 2011; Wixted et al., 2018), although not always (e.g., Berkowitz et al., 2020; Sauer et al., 2019). Feedback revealed participants in the rapport condition were more confident in their memory and were more comfortable saying they did not know/could not remember.

Finally, participants in the VE + rapport condition outperformed all others. While the standalone benefits of rapport-building and the VE are apparent, our performance and feedback results indicate these benefits were additive in this condition. The VE reduced feelings of anxiety associated with traditional in-person FtF interactions alongside rapport-building behaviors, which feedback indicated had lowered the cognitive task demands. We did not, however, observe a similar pattern of interaction results in the FtF + rapport condition, thereby adding to the literature concerning the potential benefits of VEs as interviewing spaces (e.g., Mousas et al., 2018; Saarijärvi & Bratt, 2021; Sutherland, 2020) and the impact of environment on complex cognition. The locus of improved performance in the VE + rapport condition was the free recall, where 20% to 35% more correct information was reported than in the rapport-absent face-to-face and rapport-absent VE conditions.

Correct recall interactions were nonsignificant in the follow-on questioning phase. In contrast, errors were high in face-to-face rapport-absent interviews, an increase of over 100% compared to the VE rapport-absent condition. The importance of rapport irrespective of environment is clear, but in face-to-face contexts, rapport appears particularly important for mitigating errors and increasing information gain. Our findings add to the importance of rapport (e.g., R. Collins et al., 2002; Nahouli et al., 2021; Risan et al., 2016) for interpersonal communication (e.g., Abbe & Brandon, 2014; Alison et al., 2013; Gabbert et al., 2021) and offer novel insights into the use of rapport in VEs for investigative purposes. As reported elsewhere, we too found rapport could be built between agents in VE and that agent-generated rapport-building was effective (e.g., Gratch et al., 2006; Hale & Antonia, 2016; Herrera et al., 2020; Rotman & Wu, 2015).

Limitations should be noted. Mock witness paradigms do not precisely replicate the experiences of real eyewitnesses. Nonetheless, some social and cognitive demands were present. Participants were recruited from the general population and were unfamiliar with eyewitness research but were made aware that memory was important and would be assessed. 

This demand characteristic is present with real witnesses who understand the importance of their memory performance (Fisher et al., 2017; Geiselman & Fisher, 2014; Hoogesteyn et al., 2020) and the need to provide detailed information. Further limitations stem from our operationalization of a series of basic techniques, thus reducing multifaceted social behavior to individual components. The value of rapport is likely far more. A priori power analysis (Faulet al., 2007) revealed our sample size was more than adequate to detect large effects but would not be powerful enough to detect small effects. Future research might consider larger sample sizes for a more nuanced understanding, although the impact of small effect sizes for applied research is currently the subject of discussion (see Götz et al., 2022; Primbs et al., 2022). We did not consider the impact of individual rapport behaviors and neither did we collect formal interviewer feedback in terms of perceived challenges and benefits of interviewing in a VE, for example.

Despite limitations common to most applied research of this nature, our findings advance our understanding of the positive impact of basic rapport-building behaviors per se, and as far as we are aware the first to have highlighted the impact of rapport-building in avatar-to-avatar investigative witness interview contexts. Virtual reality technologies have significant, yet-to-be-fully realized potential to change and improve professional practice in terms of seamlessly supporting prosocial compliance and improving associated cognitions. Increased availability of VR headsets allows people to easily communicate in VEs using accessible platforms. Most participants (+80%) had never used VR headsets but reported them as easy to use and were open to being interviewed in VEs. However, the availability and accessibility of hardware and software and end-user acceptability require further attention, although pre-COVID-19 government statistics reveal that 91% of UK adults already use web-based platforms (Office of National Statistics, 2019). Since the COVID-19 pandemic, digital adoption has taken a quantum leap, changing the way that organizations do business, including police and government bodies (e.g., national crime agencies) concerned with security. Accordingly, cognition in VEs must be further investigated, and research is urgently needed to better understand rapport in a diverse range of investigative contexts.

Nonetheless, this research does provide much-needed insight into the importance of task support for complex cognition in applied settings in terms of considering both retrieval environment and managing prosocial behaviors. Our results illuminate the importance of a cluster of basic prosocial behaviors used in combination, and as such offer interviewing professionals additional “tools” towards improved outcomes, and a way of practicing and honing their rapport-building and interviewing skills which seem very likely to port across to more traditional in-person face-to-face contexts.

References

1. Abbe, A., & Brandon, S. E. (2014). Building and maintaining rapport in investigative interviews. Police Practice and Research, 15(3), 207–220.

2.Ahn, S. J., Le, A. M. T., & Bailenson, J. (2013). The effect of embodied experiences on self-other merging, attitude, and helping behavior. Media Psychology, 16(1), 7–38.

3. Alison, L. J., Alison, 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.

4.Baccon, L. A., Chiarovano, E., & MacDougall, H. G. (2019). Virtual reality for teletherapy: Avatars may combine the benefits of face-to-face communication with the anonymity of online text-based communication. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 22(2), 158–165.

5. Baker-Eck, B., Bull, R., & Walsh, D. (2020). Investigative empathy: A strength scale of empathy based on European policy perspectives. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 27(3), 412–427.

6. Bailenson, J. N., Davies, A., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., McCall, C., & Guadagno, R. E. (2008). The effects of witness viewpoint distance, angle, and choice on eyewitness accuracy in police lineups conducted in immersive virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 17(3), 242–255.

7.Bente, G., Rüggenberg, S., Krämer, N. C., & Eschenburg, F. (2008). Avatar-mediated networking: Increasing social presence and interpersonal trust in net-based collaborations. Human Communication Research, 34(2), 287–318.

For more information:1950477648nn@gmail.com