Document Type



Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)



First Advisor's Name

Nadja Schreiber Compo

First Advisor's Committee Title

Associate Professor, Co-Director Legal Psychology Graduate Program, Department of Psychology, Florida International University, Miami, FL

Second Advisor's Name

Ronald Fisher

Second Advisor's Committee Title

Professor, Department of Psychology, Florida International University, Miami, FL

Third Advisor's Name

Rob Guerette

Third Advisor's Committee Title

Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Justice, Florida International University, Miami, FL

Fourth Advisor's Name

Lindsay Malloy

Fourth Advisor's Committee Title

Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Florida International University, Miami, FL

Fifth Advisor's Name

Jonathan Vallano

Fifth Advisor's Committee Title

Assistant Professor, Behavioral Sciences Division, University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg, Greensburg, PA


Rapport building, Change in interviewer, Investigative interviewing, Witness

Date of Defense



Most investigative interviewing protocols, including the National Institute of Justice’s 1999 guidelines on collecting eyewitness evidence, recommend building rapport with cooperative witnesses to increase the quality and quantity of details obtained at recall. To date, only three published articles have empirically addressed the effects of rapport-building on adult witness memory, and all suggest an increase in witness accuracy under certain conditions. However, to our knowledge no research has addressed the importance of the investigator when building rapport and whether rapport can increase witness susceptibility to suggestive-leading questions – the aim of the current research. Specifically, this project examined the effects of change in interviewer between rapport and retrieval, and the effects of interviewer suggestion after rapport eyewitness memory accuracy.

Participant witnesses (N=198) viewed a videotaped mock convenience store robbery followed by rapport-building or a standard police interview about non-crime related details (rapport manipulation). One week later all participants were interviewed about the mock crime they witnessed either by the same or a different interviewer (interviewer manipulation). All witnesses were interviewed about the mock crime using open-ended questions about the event, witnesses, suspect, and location followed by a series of specific suggestive questions containing both correct- and incorrect-leading information about the crime. Videotaped and transcribed witness reports were scored for accurate and false information by two independent raters.

Findings indicated that, contrary to all hypotheses, neither rapport-building on day 1 nor change in interviewer on day 2 (one week later) manipulations resulted in significant effects on the primary accuracy dependent measures on day 2, including open-ended and suggestive-leading questions. The present study was the first to investigate the effect of rapport-building on eyewitness recall after a delay, whether changing interviewers across the investigation impacts recall, and whether rapport can act as a safeguard by inoculating witnesses against investigator-provided misinformation. These null findings further suggest that future research should disentangle the specific conditions under which rapport-building facilitates witness recall need to be disentangled in future research.





Rights Statement

Rights Statement

In Copyright. URI:
This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).