I am unapologetically happy to use the mnemonic PEACE to teach or instruct people new to investigative interviewing. It is a science-based framework containing multiple elements all supported by years of scientific research and practical knowledge. For me importantly It does exactly what it says on the tin.
The PEACE letters refer to the phases of the interview:
- Planning and preparation – what is known about the interviewee and what needs to be proved?
- Engage and explain – explain what the interview is for, engage the interviewee to build rapport.
- Account, clarification and challenge – use open questions, allow interviewee to provide their account
- Closing.– summarize the account given and explain what happens next
- Evaluation – evaluating the information received, the interview process and the interviewer.
This framework was originally designed to introduce police officers to the investigative interviewing process, but it is applicable to anyone. It needed to be something that conveyed each element and perhaps more accurately prompted the student to remember the elements. It was also flexible enough to cover talking to both cooperative and uncooperative people and thus was not limited to just victims and witnesses or just subjects. It is a framework that allows concepts to be introduced and built upon. An analogy might be, we teach children math starting with addition and subtraction before moving to other operators such as multiplication and division. We do not attempt to add calculus until they are experienced and proficient with other math concepts.
The contents of the framework, as they should, continue to evolve with time as informed by new validated information. The latest iteration involves improving the vital element of rapport in difficult interviews or with resistant interviewees. A new training program has recently been launched to improve police interviews in child sexual abuse cases. It teaches officers how to build better rapport with suspects using techniques developed by a research team led by Professor Laurence Alison. These advanced interviewing techniques initially developed for counterterrorism are known as the Observing Rapport Based Interviewing Techniques (ORBIT). Yet another example of a mnemonic to aid the memory in remembering critical components of the method. This heavily researched and validated technique can enhance a PEACE framework interview. Professor Alison is quoted in an article stating “ORBIT is entirely consistent with the PEACE model of investigative interviewing and not an alternative,” adding “It fills a critical gap by explicitly training officers on how to build, sustain, and deepen rapport in suspect interviews – something the current curriculum identifies as important but doesn’t explain how to do.”
The concept of science-based interviewing is undoubtedly growing in the US. In this podcast PEACE and ORBIT with Ivar Fahsing, Professor Alison highlighted the “pick and mix” nature of police interview training worldwide, where departments and officers are often presented with a confusing array of models. His advice to law enforcement is clear: Ask questions about the training you are offered. Ask what data underpins the model, what evidence supports its claims, and how rigorously it has been tested. Just as no one would take a medical treatment without proof of safety and efficacy, interview techniques should be held to the same standard, because not all models are equally evidence-based.
The TSA's Behavior Detection and Analysis (BDA) is a stunning example of those questions not being asked prior to implementing a method. Until 2016 it was called Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT). The concept was to identify terrorists at airports by using a set of 94 criteria. All of which were identified as signs for either stress, fear, or deception, according to controversial research on so-called "micro expressions," primarily espoused by American psychologist Paul Ekman. Critics say the program is not backed by strong science and often leads to racial profiling without catching terrorists. Despite spending hundreds of millions of dollars, studies show the program is mostly ineffective. Science based anything needs to be the right science.
I am about to spend another five days imparting information about investigative interviewing to police officers in a city police department. After the theory I will have just 7 officers to guide through scenarios testing how well that have understood the information provided. They will act as interviewer, interviewee and observe and provide feedback on their fellow students on the elements as taught. It is not perfect; I am not perfect they will not be perfect. However, if they fail to demonstrate enough evidence they have grasped the fundamentals of conducting an investigative interview (such as the student, who indicated for his subject interview at the end of the course, his aim or goal was to obtain admissions and a confession!) I will fail to certify them, providing an evidenced evaluation of what they did and did not do. If appropriate and willing they will be coached and supported to try again at a later time. The certificate is not a certificate of attendance!
After this five-day training, I would back my students to remember to Prepare and Plan, including to set a goal and objectives for the interview. They will Engage (Attempt to generate rapport) and Explain the interview process before obtaining an Account (using the extensively researched cognitive interview or applying the technique of conversation management with the researched and effective strategic use of evidence) They may remember to check their objectives before they end but they will likely give attention to how to close the interview. They will be provided with a video of their interview and if I am honest, despite the encouragement to view the video after the training I think little attention is given to the evaluation phase assessing what they did or how they could do better.
In six months or maybe a year some of these skills may have been lost depending on the frequency of repetition of using them, but when they see or hear the word PEACE, I believe they will still have a structure to follow. Certainly if the feedback is anything to go by almost without exception the students are all in on the framework and are eager to put their new skills into practice.
Whatever alphabet soup or not you wish to describe to a model of interviewing, I find PEACE continues to achieve the purpose of introducing investigative interviewing to those with little to no previous knowledge. It is contributing to changing the mindset of those exposed to the contents of the framework and is still relevant providing a baseline for those who wish to continue to expand their knowledge.
Ivar Fahsing provided a European example which may be enlightening for what is in a name. He described his experience as follows. He was performing training in Beirut, partly funded by the EU. Also present were a German judge and a former French Supreme Court judge quietly observing the sessions. By the end of the week—and a glass or two of wine—they were fully converted, praising the approach enthusiastically. I couldn’t resist asking, “Isn’t it interesting that here we are, in Beirut, implementing a method you both love… yet it isn’t used in your own countries?” The German judge smiled and said, “Ah, but you must know why… it’s British.” A lighthearted reminder that cultural barriers, not evidence, often dictate whether good ideas cross borders.
