How Intuitive is PEACE? Newly Recruited Police Officers Plans, Interviews and Self-Evaluations

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 2015 Vol. 22, No. 3, 355 367, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2014.949397 How Intuitive is PEACE? Newly Recruited Police Officers Plans, Interviews and Self-Evaluations Adrian J. Scott a, Jane Tudor-Owen a, Paul Pedretti b and Ray Bull a a Sellenger Centre, School of Law and Justice, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia; b Detective Training School, Western Australia Police Academy, Joondalup, WA, Australia The purpose of this study is to examine the spontaneous interviewing skills of 43 newly recruited police officers (i.e., untrained recruits) with reference to the five stages of the internationally adopted PEACE model of interviewing (Preparation and planning; Engage and explain; Account, clarification and challenge [Account]; Closure; and Evaluation). University students acted as witnesses and watched a short video of a mock assault before being individually interviewed by one of the recruits. The recruits resulting plans, interviews and self-evaluations were then coded to determine how closely they adhered to the PEACE model. The recruits focused on the Account stage in their plans and interviews with little attention given to the Engage and explain or Closure stages of the model. In selfevaluations of their interviews, the recruits recognised the need to further develop aspects of the Engage and explain and Closure stages. These new findings can be used to ensure interview training is presented at a suitable level and targets the least intuitive aspects of the interview process. Key words: interviewing skills; interviews; PEACE model; plans; police; self-evaluations; untrained recruits. Since its introduction in the United Kingdom (UK) in the early 1990s, the investigative interviewing approach has been adopted internationally by police and other organisations for use in the interviewing of victims, witnesses and persons of interest (POIs) (see Milne & Bull, 1999 for an overview of this approach). At times, Australia has been guided by policing developments in the UK, with a number of jurisdictions adopting modified versions of UK models of practice, including that of investigative interviewing. Although research into the efficacy of current practices in investigative interviewing is increasing, this study provides a unique insight into the spontaneous interviewing skills of newly recruited police officers (i.e., untrained recruits) with reference to the five stages of the PEACE model of interviewing. Development of the PEACE Model Concern regarding the interviewing skills of police officers in the UK prompted a number of inquiries and legislative reform throughout the 1980s and 1990s (Griffiths & Milne, 2006). The Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure in 1981 highlighted the absence of formalised police interview standards and resulted in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (UK) (Gudjonsson, 2003). This Act introduced a new ethical framework for Correspondence: Adrian J. Scott, Sellenger Centre, School of Law and Justice, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia. Email: adrian.scott@ecu.edu.au Ó 2014 The Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

356 A. J. Scott et al. police interviewing that focused on obtaining a freely provided and accurate account of the incident, having open-minded interviewers, conducting interviews in a fair manner, and giving special consideration to children and other vulnerable witnesses (Gudjonsson, 2007; Sear & Williamson, 1999). Following a Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, the PEACE model of interviewing was developed in 1992 (Milne & Bull, 1999) and a nationwide training programme was implemented to standardise interviewing procedures in the UK (Kassin, Appleby, & Torkildson Perillo, 2010). This new training programme reflected a move away from the confrontational approach to interviewing favoured in the United States towards an information-gathering approach (Kassin et al., 2010; Soukara, Bull, Vrij, Turner, & Cherryman, 2009). In a reflection of the influence of UK police practice, this model has now been adopted in a number of jurisdictions in Australia including New South Wales and Western Australia (as well as in other countries such as New Zealand and Norway). The PEACE model is used with victims, witnesses and POIs because a similar approach is required for the effective interviewing of each of these populations (Bull & Milne, 2004). The mnemonic PEACE is used to delineate five stages of the interview process: Preparation and planning; Engage and explain; Account, clarification and challenge (Account); Closure; and Evaluation (Walsh & Milne, 2008). Activities in the pre-interview Preparation and planning stage include becoming familiar with case materials and developing a plan to guide the interview. The Engage and explain stage includes, among other things, building rapport with the victim, witness or POI and providing an explanation of the interview purpose and procedure. The main information-gathering component of the interview is referred to as the Account stage. This stage typically incorporates specific techniques to encourage as full an account as possible from the victim, witness or POI (e.g., a focus on eliciting free recall and asking follow-up questions). In interviews in which the POI (victim or witness) is hostile, or is offering information that is inconsistent with information previously gathered or now being provided, particular emphasis may be placed on the challenge aspect of this stage (i.e., the pointing out of contradictions). The Closure stage of the model involves the interviewer summarising the account for the victim, witness or POI, with the aim of encouraging further recall or to clarify any areas of uncertainty, and providing information pertaining to follow-up procedures. During the post-interview Evaluation stage, the interviewer is encouraged to reflect on his or her interview performance (considering what he or she did well and what areas may need improvement) and to seek feedback from colleagues. Evaluating the PEACE Model Since the implementation of the PEACE model, there have been a number of studies evaluating its use in the context of victim, witness and/or POI interviews. These studies have generally focused on the interviewing skills of experienced police and benefit fraud officers in order to evaluate their coverage of particular components of each stage of the model. Fewer studies to date have included separate analyses of each of the five stages of the PEACE model, with most including analyses of the Preparation and planning, Engage and explain, Account and Closure stages (e.g., Clarke & Milne, 2001; Clarke, Milne, & Bull, 2011; Walsh & Bull, 2010a, 2010b; Walsh & Milne, 2008). A few studies have included analyses of the Engage and explain, Account and Closure stages (e.g., McGurk, Carr, & McGurk, 1993), and the Engage and explain and Account stages only (e.g., Dando, Wilcock, & Milne, 2009). It is important to note that although these studies have used a number of different assessment scales, the majority have used modified versions of the scales developed by Clarke and Milne (2001). Very little attention has been given to

How Intuitive is PEACE? 357 the Evaluation stage of the PEACE model, with Walsh and Bull (2010a) stating that it is barely researched. This gap in the literature is surprising given the encouragement for police officers to reflect on their interviewing skills in order to improve performance. Previous research has provided mixed findings with regard to the interviewing skills of police and benefit fraud officers when individual stages of the PEACE model have been examined. Coverage of the Preparation and planning stage has been found to be adequate or satisfactory at best (Clarke & Milne, 2001; Clarke et al., 2011; Walsh & Bull, 2010a; Walsh & Milne, 2008). However, it is important to note that these evaluations were based on recordings of interviews and that the authors acknowledged the difficulty associated with making assessments of activities undertaken as part of Preparation and planning on the basis of recordings alone (Clarke & Milne, 2001; Clarke et al., 2011; Walsh & Bull, 2010b). With regard to the Engage and explain stage, overall coverage has been found to be adequate or satisfactory, although differences are apparent when comparing the individual components comprising this stage. For example, introductions are generally covered at a satisfactory or skilled level (Clarke & Milne, 2001; Clarke et al., 2011; Walsh & Bull, 2010a, 2012a; Walsh & Milne, 2008), whereas explanations of the interview purpose and rapport building are generally attempted or covered only at adequate or satisfactory levels (Clarke & Milne, 2001; Dando et al., 2009; Walsh & Bull, 2010a, 2012a; Walsh & Milne, 2008). McGurk et al. (1993) and Clarke et al. (2011) found that introductions and explanations of the interview purpose respectively were covered at less than adequate levels. Explanations of the interview procedure and account instructions, by comparison, are consistently attempted or covered at less than adequate levels (Clarke & Milne, 2001; Clarke et al., 2011; Dando et al., 2009; Walsh & Bull, 2010a, 2012a; Walsh & Milne, 2008). Similar to the Engage and explain stage, overall coverage of the Account stage has been found to be adequate or satisfactory, although differences are again apparent when comparing the individual components comprising this stage. Eliciting free recall and using active listening techniques are generally the most skilfully attempted or covered components (Clarke et al., 2011; Dando et al., 2009; Walsh & Bull, 2010a, 2012a; Walsh & Milne, 2008), whereas identifying topics and summarising are generally the least skilfully attempted or covered components (Clarke & Milne, 2001; Clarke et al., 2011; Walsh & Bull, 2012a; Walsh & Milne, 2008). The Closure stage of the PEACE model has not been evaluated as extensively as the Engage and explain and Account stages. Furthermore, research suggests that it is the least skilfully covered stage, with summarising the account and providing information pertaining to follow-up procedures often being covered at less than adequate levels (McGurk et al., 1993; Walsh & Bull, 2010a, 2012a; Walsh & Milne, 2008). However, Clarke and Milne (2001) and Clarke et al. (2011) found that summarising the account was covered at adequate levels. One explanation for these mixed findings is that mastery of the more complex components of the PEACE model (and other investigative interviewing models) is elusive to some interviewers (Baldwin, 1992; Clarke et al., 2011; Dando, Wilcock, & Milne, 2008; Walsh & Milne, 2008). It appears that the less complex components of investigative interviewing models are utilised by police (and benefit fraud) officers most often, perhaps intuitively, thereby explaining the overarching similarity between those who are trained in the use of the PEACE model and those who are untrained (Dando et al., 2008; Kebbell, Milne, & Wagstaff, 1999). Research comparing the interviewing skills of PEACE-trained and non-peacetrained police and benefit fraud officers found no significant differences with regard to the

358 A. J. Scott et al. Preparation and planning and Closure stages of the model (Clarke et al., 2011; Walsh & Milne, 2008). Although there were some significant differences in relation to the Engage and explain (Clarke et al., 2011; Walsh & Milne, 2008) and Account stages (Walsh & Milne, 2008), these related to a small number of individual components. For example, Walsh and Milne (2008) found significant differences for one of five Engage and explain components and for five of thirteen Account components. McGurk et al. (1993) found significant differences between preand post-peace-trained police officers with regard to the Preparation and planning, Engage and explain and Account stages of the model. However, the most skilfully covered components pre training often remained the most skilfully covered components post training. Present Study To date, much of the literature examining the use of the PEACE model has focused on the interviewing skills of trained police and benefit fraud officers, as well as issues surrounding the implementation of the model in practice. Although Dando et al. (2009) extended the literature by examining the interviewing skills of police officers with limited experience (less than 5 years), little if any research has considered the interviewing skills of newly recruited police officers. The purpose of the present study, therefore, is to examine the spontaneous interviewing skills of untrained recruits. It represents novel research and builds upon existing literature by examining the recruits plans, interviews and self-evaluations according to their inclusion or coverage of information relevant to 19 components relating to the Engage and explain, Account and Closure stages of the PEACE model of interviewing. Recent research by Walsh and Bull (2010b, 2012b) suggests that only a minority of POIs attend interviews having already decided to confess, and that the interviewing skills of benefit fraud officers are integral to the procurement of a comprehensive account and/or full confession. For example, Walsh and Bull (2012b) found that the skilled coverage of rapport building, eliciting free recall, remaining calm and flexible, and summarising were related to a shift towards confession. Given these findings, and the similarities in approach for the effective interviewing of victims, witnesses and POIs, it is important to identify the components of the interview process that are the most (and least) intuitive in order to ensure that interview training is presented at a suitable level. In this way, the recruits will graduate from the Police Academy having received the maximum opportunity to improve their interviewing skills. Method Participants Recruits Forty-three recruits (28 males and 15 females) volunteered to participate as interviewers. The average age of the recruits was 27 years (SD D 5.69) and ranged from 18 to 45 years. The interviews were conducted during the second week of the recruits training at the Western Australia Police Academy, thus the recruits were effectively untrained. Witnesses Forty-three university students (12 males and 31 females) volunteered to participate as witnesses. The average age of university students was 24 years (SD D 8.13) and ranged from 17 to 45 years. Materials Mock Assault Witnesses watched a 52-second video of a mock assault filmed from the perspective of the witness. A mock assault was selected for depiction because it is a realistic expectation that new police officers will be required to

How Intuitive is PEACE? 359 interview witnesses of this type of crime. In the video, the witness is making a call from a telephone box when he or she notices two men bump shoulders as they cross a nearby road. One of the men then turns and pushes the other man before kneeing him in the stomach and walking out of view. The witness walks over to the man who was kneed in the stomach to check on his well-being and is asked to call the police. The video ends after the witness calls the police. Plans, Interviews and Self-Evaluations The recruits were provided with paper, pens and a police-generated proforma prior to the interview. The interviews were conducted in rooms containing two chairs, a table and a DVD recording device. The recruits completed a short self-evaluation questionnaire after the interview. The questionnaire included the following open-ended question concerning the interview: If you could conduct this interview again, what would you do differently? Procedure Recruits The recruits were asked to imagine that they were working at the Village Police Station. They were then informed that a man or woman was waiting in an interview room to give information about an assault witnessed at 1.00 p.m. on that day. They were instructed to interview the witness in order to gain as much information as possible and informed that there were no time restrictions placed on the interview. The recruits were given 10 minutes to plan for the interview and were then directed to an interview room. Witnesses Witnesses were asked to imagine that they went to meet friends at the Village Tavern at 1.00 p.m. that day and were the first to arrive. They were then informed that the battery on their mobile phone was dead so they went to use the public telephone to call one of their friends to make sure they were still coming. They were then asked to watch a video of a mock assault before being instructed to be cooperative during the interview. Each witness was directed to an interview room to await the recruit s arrival. The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical requirements of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Coding of Plans, Interviews and Self-Evaluations The plans, interviews and self-evaluations were coded using modified versions of the interview assessment scales developed by Clarke and Milne (2001) and Dando et al. (2009), which were adapted for use with the plans and self-evaluations by the present authors. The three assessment scales for the plans, interviews and self-evaluations comprised a total of 19 components relating to the Engage and explain (n D 6), Account (n D 9) and Closure stages (n D 4) of the PEACE model (the individual components are outlined in the Appendix). The recruits inclusion of information relevant to each of these components in their plans and self-evaluations were rated using a dichotomous scale (1 D included: inclusion of information relevant to some aspects of the component; 0 D not included: no inclusion of information relevant to any aspects of the component). The recruits coverage of each of these components in their interviews was rated using a three-point scale (2 D covered: full coverage of all aspects of the component; 1 D attempted: partial coverage of some aspects of the component; 0 D not attempted: no coverage of any aspects of the component). The assessment scale for the interviews included an additional item as it was possible to determine whether the recruits had covered or attempted to cover all aspects of a

360 A. J. Scott et al. component, whereas this distinction was not applicable in the context of their plans and self-evaluations. In order to assess inter-rater reliability, all plans, interviews and self-evaluations were independently coded by two of the present authors. Separate Cohen s kappa coefficients were then calculated for criteria relating to the Engage and explain, Account and Closure stages of the PEACE model. Cohen s kappa coefficients were calculated because they provide a measure of agreement having controlled for the level of agreement expected by chance (Cohen, 1960). The corresponding Cohen s kappa coefficients were.79,.89 and.83 for the plans,.95,.88 and.89 for the interviews, and.92,.83 and.85 for the self-evaluations. Thus, of the nine criteria, eight coefficients exceed the.81 benchmark for almost perfect levels of agreement and one coefficient (.79) exceeds the.61 benchmark for substantial levels of agreement (Landis & Koch, 1970). Results All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 19. Overall, the recruits included very little information relevant to the 19 components of the Engage and explain (n D 6), Account (n D 9) and Closure stages (n D 4) of the PEACE model in their plans. The information included was only relevant to an average of 0.16 (SD D.49) Engage and explain components, 1.19 (SD D 1.08) Account components and 0.14 (SD D.52) Closure components. With regard to their interviews, the recruits covered or attempted to cover an average of 2.07 (SD D.34) Engage and explain components, 6.51 (SD D.91) Account components, and 1.65 (SD D.81) Closure components. Similar to the plans, the recruits self-evaluations included little information relevant to the components of the Engage and explain (M D 0.67, SD D.87), Account (M D 0.47, SD D.63) and Closure stages (M D 0.19, SD D.45). Table 1. The proportion of recruits who included each of the Engage and explain, Account and Closure components in their plans in rank order Included Not included Engage and explain Introduction 9.3 90.7 Interview purpose 4.7 95.3 Witness well-being 2.3 97.7 Interview procedure 0.0 100.0 Rapport building 0.0 100.0 Account instruction 0.0 100.0 Account Follow-up questions 37.2 62.8 Free recall 30.2 69.8 Defences 16.3 83.7 Elements 4.7 95.3 Listening techniques 2.3 97.7 Calmness and flexibility 2.3 97.7 Identify topics 0.0 100.0 Summarise 0.0 100.0 Clarification 0.0 100.0 Closure Confirm account summary 7.0 93.0 Follow-up procedure 7.0 93.0 Summarise account 0.0 100.0 Contact details 0.0 100.0 Cochran s Q tests revealed that the recruits inclusion of the six Engage and explain, nine Account, and four Closure components in their plans varied significantly across components, x 2 (5, n D 43) D 12.42, p D.029, x 2 (8, n D 43) D 136.59, p <.001, and x 2 (3, n D 43) D 9.00, p D.029, respectively. The proportion of recruits who included or did not include each of the Engage and explain, Account and Closure components in their plans are presented in rank order in Table 1. It is apparent from the plans that although introduction and interview purposes are the most frequently included Engage and explain components, they are included in only 9.3 and 4.7% of plans, respectively. Follow-up questions and free recall are the most frequently included Account components, but in only 37.2 and 30.2% of plans, respectively.

How Intuitive is PEACE? 361 Table 2. The proportion of recruits who covered/attempted each of the Engage and explain, Account and Closure components in their interviews in rank order Covered Attempted Not attempted Engage and explain Introduction 79.1 18.6 2.3 Rapport building 9.3 90.7 0.0 Interview procedure 0.0 7.0 93.0 Witness well-being 0.0 2.3 97.7 Interview purpose 0.0 0.0 100.0 Account instruction 0.0 0.0 100.0 Account Follow-up questions 88.4 11.6 0.0 Listening techniques 88.4 11.6 0.0 Free recall 39.5 48.8 11.6 Clarification 27.9 62.8 9.3 Calmness and flexibility 18.6 81.4 0.0 Elements 7.0 79.1 14.0 Defences 0.0 83.7 16.3 Summarise 0.0 2.3 97.7 Identify topics 0.0 0.0 100.0 Closure Follow-up procedure 4.7 93.0 2.3 Summarise account 16.3 11.6 72.1 Confirm account summary 2.3 25.6 72.1 Contact details 0.0 11.6 88.4 Confirm account summary and follow-up procedure are the most frequently included Closure components, but are each included in only 7.0% of plans. Post-hoc analyses using McNemar s tests with Bonferroni corrected alpha values (.008 for Engage and explain,.006 for Account and.013 for Closure) revealed that, with the exception of the free recall component, the recruits included the follow-up questions component significantly more frequently than the remaining Account components (all p <.001). The recruits also included the free recall component significantly more frequently in their plans than the identify topics, summarise and clarification components (all p <.001). Regarding the interviews, Friedman s tests again revealed that the recruits coverage of the six Engage and explain, nine Account, and four Closure components varied significantly across components, x 2 (5, n D 43) D 199.66, p <.001, x 2 (8, n D 43) D 258.14, p <.001, and x 2 (3, n D 43) D 62.73, p <.001, respectively. Table 2 shows that introduction and rapport building are by far the most frequently covered or attempted Engage and explain components (in 97.7 and 100.0% of interviews, respectively). Of the Account components, follow-up questions, listening techniques and free recall are the most frequently covered or attempted (in 100.0, 100.0 and 88.4% of interviews, respectively). Regarding Closure components, only followup procedure was covered or attempted frequently (in 97.7% of interviews). Post-hoc analyses using Wilcoxon tests with Bonferroni corrected alpha values (.008 for Engage

362 A. J. Scott et al. Table 3. The proportion of recruits who included each of the Engage and explain, Account and Closure components in their self-evaluations in rank order Included Not included Engage and explain Witness well-being 27.9 72.1 Introduction 11.6 88.4 Interview procedure 11.6 88.4 Rapport building 11.6 88.4 Interview purpose 4.7 95.3 Account instruction 0.0 100.0 Account Follow-up questions 11.6 88.4 Listening techniques 9.3 90.7 Calmness and flexibility 9.3 90.7 Free recall 0.0 100.0 Identify topics 0.0 100.0 Elements 0.0 100.0 Defences 0.0 100.0 Summarise 0.0 100.0 Clarification 0.0 100.0 Closure Follow-up procedure 14.0 86.0 Confirm account summary 4.7 95.3 Summarise account 0.0 100.0 Contact details 0.0 100.0 and explain,.006 for Account and.013 for Closure) revealed that the recruits covered or attempted to cover the introduction component significantly more frequently than the remaining Engage and explain components (all p <.003). They also covered or attempted to cover the rapport-building component significantly more frequently than the interview procedure, witness well-being, interview purpose and account instruction components (all p <.003). With regard to the Account components, the recruits covered or attempted to cover the follow-up questions and listening techniques components significantly more frequently than the remaining components (all p <.001). Additionally, they covered or attempted to cover the free recall and calmness and flexibility components significantly more frequently than the defences, summarise and identify topics components (all p <.001). They also covered or attempted to cover the clarification, elements and defences components significantly more frequently than the summarise and identify topics components (all p <.001). Finally, the recruits covered or attempted to cover the follow-up procedure component significantly more frequently than the remaining Closure components (all p <.008). Consistent with the analyses for plans and interviews, Cochran s Q tests revealed that the recruits inclusion of the six Engage and explain, nine Account and four Closure components in their self-evaluations varied significantly across components, x 2 (5, n D 43) D 20.20, p D.001, x 2 (8, n D 43) D 79.27, p D.001, and x 2 (3, n D 43) D 13.09, p D.004, respectively. It is apparent that witness well-being is the most frequently included Engage and explain component (in 27.9% of self-evaluations). Follow-up questions, listening techniques and calmness and flexibility are the most frequently included Account components, but in only 11.6, 9.3 and 9.3% of selfevaluations, respectively. With regard to Closure components, follow-up procedure is the most frequently included component, but in only 14.0% of self-evaluations. Post-hoc analyses using McNemar s tests with Bonferroni corrected alpha values (.008 for Engage and Explain,.006 for Account and.013 for Closure) revealed that with the exception of the listening techniques and calmness and flexibility components, the recruits included the follow-up questions component significantly more frequently than the remaining Account components (all p <.001). Discussion The present study examined the spontaneous interviewing skills of newly recruited police officers with reference to the five stages of the PEACE model of interviewing. Although

How Intuitive is PEACE? 363 the recruits included very little information in their plans, the information that was included predominantly related to the Account stage, with little attention given to the Engage and explain or Closure stages of the model. Similarly, the recruits spent little time covering components relevant to the Engage and explain or Closure stages during their actual interviews. Instead, the recruits spent most time covering or attempting to cover components relevant to the Account stage of the model. With regard to the self-evaluations, again, very little information was included. However, the information that was included predominantly related to the Engage and explain stage, followed by information related to the Account and Closure stages of the model. When consideration was given to the individual components, it was apparent that the majority of information included in the plans related to the need to gather information from the witness via a free recall account and the asking of follow-up questions. Very little attention was given to any other components. Furthermore, when the frequencies of components included in the plans were compared with the frequencies of components covered or attempted in the interviews, there were a number of consistent findings. For example, the free recall and follow-up questions components that were most frequently included in the plans were covered or attempted in the vast majority of the interviews. Similarly, no attention was given in the plans to the account instruction, identify topics, summarise or contact details components and these components were rarely covered or attempted in the interviews. However, there were some exceptions. For example, the rapport building, listening techniques, and calmness and flexibility components were not often included in the plans, but were covered or attempted in all of the interviews. In the interviews, the least frequently covered or attempted components comprised four of the six Engage and explain components (interview procedure, witness well-being, interview purpose and account instruction), two of the nine Account components (summarise and identify topics) and three of the four Closure components (summarise account, confirm account summary and contact details). It is apparent, therefore, that the vast majority of information covered or attempted in the interviews related to the Account stage of the PEACE model. With regard to the self-evaluations, the majority of the limited information included related to the Engage and explain stage of the model, specifically the witness well-being, introduction, interview procedure and rapport-building components. Some of the recruits also reflected on a number of Account components, highlighting the importance of asking detailed follow-up questions, using active listening techniques, and remaining calm and flexible throughout the interview. Finally, some of the recruits reflected on Closure components and the need to provide information pertaining to follow-up procedures. There were a number of consistent findings when the coverage of information in the interviews was compared with the existing literature. For example, introduction was the most frequently covered Engage and explain component in this study, and is also generally the most skilfully covered component in previous research (Clarke & Milne, 2001; Clarke et al., 2011; Walsh & Bull, 2010a, 2012a; Walsh & Milne, 2008). With regard to the Account components, the recruits frequently attempted to elicit free recall, ask follow-up questions and use active listening techniques which is again consistent with previous research (Clarke et al., 2011; Dando et al., 2009; Walsh & Bull, 2010a, 2012a; Walsh & Milne, 2008). Consistent findings were also apparent when the least frequently covered or attempted components were compared. For example, the interview procedure and account instruction components of the Engage and explain stage, the identify topics and summarise components of the Account

364 A. J. Scott et al. stage, and the summarise account component of the Closure stage were infrequently attempted in this study and generally the least skilfully covered components in previous research (Dando et al., 2009; McGurk et al., 1993; Walsh & Bull, 2010a, 2012a; Walsh & Milne, 2008). These comparisons demonstrate the importance of examining the spontaneous interviewing skills of newly recruited police officers and the identification of the most (and least) intuitive aspects of the interview process. The discovery of these spontaneous skills (and of what newly recruited police officers lack) has important implications for training. Previous research suggests that the most skilfully covered components pre training may remain the most skilfully covered components post training. Thus, longitudinal research is necessary to examine the apparent consistency between the intuitive interviewing skills of untrained recruits and their interviewing skills as they become trained police officers. Limitations and Further Research The findings of this study provide a unique insight into the aspects of the interview process that newly recruited police officers find the most and least intuitive. However, the study was limited to examining the interviewing skills of one cohort of untrained recruits attending a single police academy in the context of simulated witness interviews. It is important, therefore, that further research examines the plans, interviews and self-evaluations of untrained recruits from other cohorts and attending different police academies in order to determine the robustness of the findings of this study. The use of simulated witness interviews may also have contributed to the limited coverage of witness well-being and follow-up procedures as the recruits knew that the witnesses had just watched a video and were not going to be in contact again. Thus, they were potentially less likely to enquire after the witnesses well-being or to provide details of follow-up procedures. The study was also limited to consideration of the recruits rapport building during the Engage and explain stage of the interview. Walsh and Bull (2012a) pointed out that rapport building can occur throughout the interview, for example, via the use of regular summaries which help demonstrate a common understanding between interviewer and interviewee. Consequently, it is important that further research adopts a more holistic approach to understanding the coverage of rapport building throughout the interview. Finally, it has been suggested that competency in the Preparation and planning stage, in combination with the Account stage, is correlated with the quality of interviews (Walsh & Bull, 2010b). Further research is required, therefore, to examine the relationships between the different stages of the PEACE model and the overall quality of interviews. Conclusion The present study examined the spontaneous interviewing skills of newly recruited police officers and found that the Account stage of the PEACE model was the most intuitive aspect of the interview process. The recruits focused on the Account stage in their plans and interviews with little attention given to the Engage and explain or Closure stages. Encouragingly, the recruits recognised the need to further develop aspects of the Engage and explain and Closure stages in their selfevaluations. These findings suggest that the interview, particularly coverage of the Account components, is the most intuitive aspect of the interview process for newly recruited police officers. However, other aspects of the model (e.g., Preparation and planning and Engage and explain), which have been shown to impact upon the quality of the interview, do not appear to be intuitive. It is important, therefore, that these new findings are used to ensure that interview training

How Intuitive is PEACE? 365 is presented at a suitable level and targets the least intuitive aspects of the interview process in order to maximise the quality of the interview. These findings are particularly important given that recent research (Walsh & Bull, 2010b, 2012b) highlights that interviewing skills are integral to the procurement of a comprehensive account and/or full confession. Finally, given that previous research suggests that the least skilfully covered components pre training often remain the least skilfully covered components post training, the use of a targeted training approach with recruits could help address the most persistent skill deficits that, until now, are still apparent in more experienced interviewers. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the Western Australia Police Academy for its support during the development of this research and highlight that the views expressed are those of the authors and do not represent the policies or views of the Western Australia Police. The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution Pamela Henry made to the conceptualisation of the research, as well as the assistance of Jonathon Williams, Laura Goodwin and Nikki Rajakaruna during the running of the research. References Baldwin, J. (1992). Videotaping police interviews with suspects: An evaluation. Police Research Series Paper 1. London: Home Office Police Department. Bull, R., & Milne, R. (2004). Attempts to improve the interviewing of suspects. In G. D. Lassiter (Ed.), Interrogations, confessions and entrapment (pp. 181 196). New York: Springer. Clarke, C., & Milne, R. (2001). National evaluation of the PEACE investigative interviewing course (Police Research Award Scheme, Report No: PRAS/149). London: Home Office. Clarke, C., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2011). Interviewing suspects of crime: the impact of PEACE training, supervision and the presence of a legal advisor. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 8, 149 162. doi: 10.1002/jip.144 Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37 46. doi: 10.1177/001316446002000104 Dando, C., Wilcock, R., & Milne, R. (2008). The cognitive interview: inexperienced police officers perceptions of their witness/victim interviewing practices. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 59 70. doi: 10.1348/ 135532506162498 Dando, C., Wilcock, R., & Milne, R. (2009). The cognitive interview: novice police officers witness/victim interviewing practices. Psychology, Crime and Law, 15, 679 696. doi: 10.1080/10683160802203963 Griffiths, A., & Milne, R. (2006). Will it all end in tiers? Police interviews with suspects in Britain. In T. Williamson (Ed.), Investigative interviewing: Rights, research and regulation (pp. 167 189). Cullompton, UK: Willan. Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Gudjonsson, G. H. (2007). Investigative interviewing. In T. Newburn, T. Williamson & A. Wright (Eds.), Handbook of criminal investigation (pp. 466 487). Cullompton, UK: Willan. Kassin, S. M., Appleby, S. C., & Torkildson Perillo, J. (2010). Interviewing suspects: practice, science, and future directions. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 39 55. doi: 10.1348/135532509449361 Kebbell, M. R., Milne, R., & Wagstaff, G. F. (1999). The cognitive interview: a survey of its forensic effectiveness. Psychology, Crime and Law, 5, 101 115. doi: 10.1080/ 10683169908414996 Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1970). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159 174. Retrieved from www.jstor.org McGurk, B. J., Carr, M. J., & McGurk, D. (1993). Investigative interviewing courses for police officers: An evaluation. Police Research Series, Paper 4. London: Home Office. Milne, R., & Bull, R. (1999). Investigative interviewing: Psychology and practice. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Sear, L., & Williamson, T. (1999). British and American interrogation strategies. In D. V. Canter & L. Alison (Eds.), Interviewing and deception (pp. 67 81). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Soukara, S., Bull, R., Vrij, A., Turner, M., & Cherryman, J. (2009). What really happens in police interviewing of suspects? Tactics and confessions. Psychology, Crime and Law, 15, 493 506. doi: 10.1080/10683160802201827

366 A. J. Scott et al. Walsh, D., & Bull, R. (2010a). Interviewing suspects of fraud: an in-depth analysis of interviewing skills. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 38, 99 135. Retrieved from http://heinonline. org Walsh, D., & Bull, R. (2010b). What really is effective in interviews with suspects? A study comparing interviewing skills against interviewing outcomes. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 305 321. doi: 10.1348/ 135532509463356 Walsh, D., & Bull, R. (2012a). Examining rapport in investigative interviews with suspects: does its building and maintenance work? Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 27, 73 84. doi: 10.1007/s11896-011-9087-x Walsh, D., & Bull, R. (2012b). How do interviewers attempt to overcome suspects denials? Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 19, 151 168. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2010.543756 Walsh, D., & Milne, R. (2008). Keeping the PEACE? A study of investigative interviewing practices in the public sector. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 39 57. doi: 10.1348/135532506157179 Appendix Engage and Explain Introduction The recruit greets the witness, states his or her name and place of work. Interview Purpose The recruit explains that the purpose of the interview is to gain as much information as possible and that he or she has no knowledge of the to-beremembered event. Interview Procedure The recruit provides an overview of the interview procedure, checks that the witness has time for the interview and checks that the witness is aware that he or she may have to give evidence in court. Rapport Building The recruit uses a friendly conversational style, appears genuinely interested in what the witness has to say and asks questions that are not necessary for the interview. Account Instruction The recruit asks the witness to report absolutely everything he or she remembers, even if the information seems unimportant, trivial or incomplete and tells the witness that if he or she cannot remember he or she should say so and never guess or fabricate details. Account Free Recall The recruit uses an open question to encourage the witness to give a free recall account of the event and does not interrupt the witness account. Identify Topics The recruit identifies topics from the witness account and explores them in the order the witness gave them. Follow-Up Questions The recruit asks the witness follow-up questions about the event and the people involved. Elements The recruit correctly covers the main elements of the offence. Defences The recruit correctly covers the main defences of the offence. Summarise The recruit provides a detailed summary after the witness free recall account and summarises information during the interview. Witness Well-Being The recruit asks the witness if he or she is okay to continue with the interview, needs to use the bathroom and requires a drink. Clarification The recruit clarifies terms that may have different interpretations and clarifies confusing information provided by the witness.

How Intuitive is PEACE? 367 Listening Techniques The recruit allows the witness time to think, and uses active listening techniques and silence to encourage the witness to continue with his or her narrative or to answer questions. Confirm Account Summary The recruit asks the witness if the summary of his or her account is correct, and asks if he or she would like to add or alter anything. Calmness and Flexibility The recruit is calm during the interview and demonstrates flexibility during the interview. Follow-Up Procedure The recruit thanks the witness for his or her time, mentions the possibility of further contact and explains the need to create a statement that the witness will sign. Closure Summarise Account The recruit provides a detailed summary of the witness entire account. Contact Details The recruit provides the witness with his or her name and contact details, explains the elements of the incident number and asks the witness to contact him or her if he or she thinks of anything.