ISSN: 2161-0231 (ONLINE)
The Bipolar Trap In Law Enforcement Interviews
William F. Sharkey, PhD & Jessica Kaneshiro, MA
Abstract
Questions are used as a basic investigative interviewing tool. The types and wording of
questions during interviews or interrogations are critical to increase the chances of educing
needed information. One problematic tool investigators use may hinder the effectiveness and
efficiency to obtain requested information – the bipolar trap. The bipolar trap increases the
probability of not getting the required information. Law enforcement training manuals and texts
perpetuate the use of bipolar traps by including them as examples, without precautions, of
properly phrased moderately closed and open-ended probes. Reducing or eliminating the use of
bipolar traps and such pitfalls may assist investigators in conducting more effective and efficient
interviews.
Key Words: Law Enforcement, Interview, Questions, Probes, Bipolar Trap, Interviewer,
Interviewee, Investigator
The Bipolar Trap in Law Enforcement Interviews/Sharkey & Kaneshiro 2 The Bipolar Trap In Law Enforcement Interviews
In 1940, Lt. W. R. Kidd argued that arrests and prosecutions are successfully achieved due to
competently executed interviews and interrogations. The interview is the focus. An interview,
“a free-flowing, non-accusatory meeting or discussion used to gather information” (Inbau, Reid,
Buckley, & Jayne, 2005, p. 3), is one of the more important and time-consuming duties of law
enforcement investigators/interviewers. It is the communication skills of the investigator that
can assist in the educing of information from all individuals involved in a given situation (e.g.,
witnesses, victims, complainants, informants, and suspects); indeed, efficient, effective, and
appropriate interviewing skills are a necessity. Both O’Hara and O’Hara (2003) and Royal and
Schutt (1981) claimed the successfulness of many court cases can only be achieved when
investigators take their time, question wisely, and avoid ineffective/inappropriate questioning
techniques.
Since the publication of the Wickersham Report (1931-32), which reported rampant law
enforcement misconduct during interviews and interrogations, a number of authors have
presented various recommendations to increase investigators’ interviewing efficiency, efficacy,
and appropriateness (e.g., see Fisher & Geiselman, 1992; Flanagan, 1982; Gordan & Fleisher,
2006; Inbau, Reid, Buckley, & Jayne, 2013; Kidd, 1940; O’Hara & O’Hara, 2003 Rabon &
Chapman, 2009; Royal & Schutt, 1981; Schollum, 2005; Shepherd & Griffiths, 2013; Simons &
Boetig, 2007; Zulawski & Wicklander, 2002). Specifically, these authors provided suggestions
for formulating effective and appropriate questions and probes, while avoiding problematic
question choices such as double-barreled questions and leading questions. Unfortunately, many
officers do not receive formal interviewing training, and those who do, receive varying degrees
of training (see Fisher & Geiselman, 1992; Myklebust & Bjørklund, 2006; Walters, 2002), some
of which is of insufficient length and detail to change established interviewing habits (Köhnken,
Milne, Memon, & Bull, 1999). Indeed, interviewers who have the knowledge of what to do but
are uncertain about how and when to use their knowledge will “meet with unsatisfactory results
more often than not” (Rabon & Chapman, 2009). The authors are interested in a type of
question/probe that can create unsatisfactory results for investigators. This question/probe is not
addressed in most training programs and/or is inaccurately used as an exemplar of more
appropriately worded probes – the bipolar trap.
According to Stewart and Cash (2014), the bipolar trap is a probe linguistically structured
as a yes or no question; however, interviewers do not want a yes or no answer. The investigator
would like “a detailed answer [a narrative] or specific information” (p. 61). Beyond a simple yes
or no, the investigator would use an open-ended probe or a moderately closed probe, respectively.
Although no clear consensus exists on operationalizing these probes (Oxburgh, Myklebust, &
Grant, 2010), open-ended probes tend to “invite talk” (Anderson & Killenberg, 2009). Openended probes urge the interviewee to open up and freely provide information in narrative form
(Benson, 2000; Inbau et al., 2013; Lord & Cowan, 2011; Rabon, 1994; Snook, Luther, Quinlan,
& Milne, 2012). Such wording as, “Tell me about . . .” or “Please describe . . .” or “What
happened at the . . .?” will elicit, in most cases, a wealth of information and allow the
interviewee free reign over the type and amount of information provided. Moderately closed
questions on the other hand, focus on a specific piece of information and limits the amount of
information the interviewee supplies (Stewart & Cash, 2014). These probes are most effective
when clarifying information received from the open-ended probes. Probes such as “What was
her name?” “Where were you when you got the call?” “When did you leave?” will usually result
in clarification and the detail desired. Similarly, if investigators wish to confirm information, a
yes or no probe may be called for. For example: referring to a written address given by a witness,
www.jghcs.info (2161-­‐0231 ONLINE) JOURNAL OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, VOLUME 5, NUMBER 3
3 an investigator may appropriately ask, “Is this your present address?” or later in the interview
ask: “You mentioned earlier that she was on the phone with Jeff. Is that correct?” At other times,
asking direct yes or no questions would be appropriate to force the interviewee to commit to a
specific position, such as, “Did you start the fire?” “Were you at the warehouse at all on Friday?”
“There was a security camera on the premises that we are reviewing. Is there any reason we
would see you on the video?” (Inbau et al., 2013). Still at other times, an investigator may need
a yes or no answer to continue on with an interview, for example, “Can you speak English?”
“Do you understand your rights?” “Would you be willing to talk with me about what happened?”
or “Have you spoken to your mother?” In each of these situations, the investigator wants a yes
or no answer; hence, a yes/no question is appropriate. Issues arise when investigators do not
want a yes or no answer but construct/word a probe as a yes or no question.
Preceding intended open-ended and moderately closed probes with such phrases as do
you, did she, are you, have you, was it, is there, could you, would you, and can you, could
potentially lead to a yes or no answer instead of the narrative or specific information the
interviewer is searching for (Stewart & Cash, 2014). For example, suppose an investigator is
interested in a description of a suspect, the investigator could use an open-ended probe such as
“Please describe the person who was talking to you last night” or a moderately closed probe such
as “In relation to you, how tall was he?” Indeed, there are investigators who would instead ask,
“Would you/can you/are you able to describe the person who was talking to you last night?” or
“Is there anything you can tell me about the person who was talking to you last night?” and
“Could you/can you tell me how tall was he?” or “Do you know how tall he was?” Clearly, in
these examples, the investigator, does not want a yes or no answer, yet the investigator is giving
the respondents the option of providing (a) a description/height of the person, (b) a “yes” or a
“no” answer followed by a description/height of the person, or (c) an abrupt “yes” or “no” with
no description/height – this last possibility is the trap of the bipolar trap. Shepherd and Griffiths
(2013) have argued that the suggestion that the bipolar trap is problematic is problematic itself.
They stated that “some people believe that asking: Could you or Can you is a closed ‘yes’/’no’
confirmatory question because it is possible to reply ‘yes’ or ‘no’. They are, however, confusing
matters” (p. 204). Shepherd and Griffiths strongly suggested that the ‘yes’/’no’ question should
be interpreted as an “invitational instruction” or a request+instruction format (e.g., “Can you”
plus “tell me about that?” respectively) (pp. 204, 337). They continued to explain how
interactions between parents and teachers have taught children that these bipolar phrases are
more than requests; they are instructions to do something. Shepherd and Griffiths (2013)
suggested “interviewees know that when [an investigator says] “Could you” this is not an
enquiry into physical or mental ability to relate something: it is a request-cum-instruction” (p.
204). And, most times, interviewees will provide the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer and proceed to give a
narration beyond the ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. Many bipolar trap probes are used because of
politeness rituals/norms. People are taught from an early age to request information in a polite
manner -- in essence, requesting permission for information rather than asking for the
information directly (e.g., “Would you mind telling me what your address is?” “Could you tell
how to get to the bus stop?”). Shepherd and Griffiths (2013) argued that if an interviewee fails
to provide the narrative after the bipolar trap, this lack of narration means that the interviewer
has not yet developed the interviewee’s confidence or his/her trust. The trouble with their
concern is that they rightly assume that a bipolar trap should be interpreted as a request to
provide information; nonetheless, there is no guarantee. Unfortunately, not everyone will
interpret a bipolar trap in this fashion. There are those who will be reluctant, as Shepherd and
Griffiths suggested, but others will be resistant, or will want to be intentionally difficult – the
smart ass. For example, Benson (2000) pointed out that repeat offenders tend to avoid narrative
answers; instead, they favor offering the bare minimum information requested, which may
include responding with a yes or no answer to a bipolar trap. With resistant individuals, the use
The Bipolar Trap in Law Enforcement Interviews/Sharkey & Kaneshiro www.jghcs.info (2161-­‐0231 ONLINE) JOURNAL OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, VOLUME 5, NUMBER 3
4 of bipolar traps only increases the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of the interviewers and
creates frustrations. Shepherd and Griffiths suggested that believing bipolar traps are
problematic - is problematic. The authors suggest that Shepherd and Griffiths’ claim be explored
further.
The authors argue that there are two difficulties with Shepherd and Griffiths’ (2013)
position on bipolar traps: (a) the use of polite but scripted/mindless bipolar traps by some
interviewers, and (b) the use of bipolar traps as exemplars of properly formed moderately closed
and open-ended probes found in law enforcement training manuals and texts.
The first problem for the use of bipolar traps is: do investigators use bipolar traps
mindlessly out of habit? This appears to be Shepherd and Griffiths’ (2013) position. Langer
(2014) argued that one way people develop mindless behaviors is through repetition. Once
individuals learn to play a guitar through practice, they no longer need to think about finger
placement on the guitar frets. The motion of the fingers becomes second nature -- mindless.
When riding a bicycle, after repeated attempts, the rider no long needs to think about how to
balance oneself. These behaviors become scripted (Reardon, 1987). Once behaviors have
become scripted, there is no need to consciously think about how to elicit the behaviors – they
become automatic, until something out of the ordinary occurs (Reardon, 1987). For example, a
new unknown guitar chord is needed or a cyclist hits a pothole and has to recover balance. As
Shepherd and Griffiths (2013) noted, we learn over the years, through repetitive interactions with
parents and teachers, that when one wishes to provide an instruction, the instruction should be
preceded by a request phrase (e.g., “Can you . . .”); one needs to instruct politely. Alternately,
children learn early on that such polite instructions should be interpreted and responded to as a
“request-cum-instruction” (p. 204). Through such repetition, both the use of and response to the
linguistic form of an “invitational instruction” becomes mindless/scripted. The drawback is that
once a behavior becomes mindless, automatic, scripted, people no longer reflect on the possible
consequences of their behavior, even if it would be opportune to do so (Langer, n.d.). Here lies
the concern for investigators. The “invitational instruction” format has been so internalized
though the normal socialization processes that the probe flows from investigators’ lips without
concern. The interviewee may decide to violate the taken-for-granted expectation and simply
reply with a yes or no answer. Investigators should be mindful of their behaviors and what
outcomes could be expected because of their choice of probe phrasing.
Royal and Schutt (1981) wisely recommended that investigators know what effect they
are striving for. Once they know this intended effect, they are in a better position to craft a probe
that will increase the chances of achieving the desired effect. In other words, investigators
should ask themselves, “What type of answer do I want?” (e.g., a narrative, a “yes” or “no,” a
person’s name, a location) and then construct a probe in a manner that increases the chances of
getting the desired information. The scripted use of the bipolar trap potentially frustrates such an
endeavor.
The second issue with bipolar traps is that many authors of law enforcement training
manuals and textbooks often unknowingly support the use of bipolar traps, including them as
representative exemplars of moderately closed and open-ended probes. The display of such
examples provides a disservice to investigators who rely on such documents for guidance. The
manuals should assist investigators in the tools of the trade and not foster the scripted/mindless
use of such tools. The following are illustrations from textbooks and training manuals that
include such examples. Fisher and Geiselman (1992), in their discussion of witnesses’
descriptions of suspects, presented the following example of how a bipolar trap can be
problematic for interviewers:
The Bipolar Trap in Law Enforcement Interviews/Sharkey & Kaneshiro www.jghcs.info (2161-­‐0231 ONLINE) JOURNAL OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, VOLUME 5, NUMBER 3
5 One could target . . . idiosyncratic information with the question, ‘Was there anything
unusual about the robber’s appearance?’ In our analysis of police interviews, many
detectives asked this question. In almost all cases, however, it elicited a ‘no’ response . . ..
Instead, to elicit a more positive response, we suggest that the [interviewer] rephrase the
question slightly and ask, ‘What was the most distinctive feature about the robber’s
appearance.’ (p. 46)
The Bipolar Trap in Law Enforcement Interviews/Sharkey & Kaneshiro The interviewee most likely did not take the time to think thoroughly about the robber’s
appearance. “No” is simply a quick answer to help move through the interview. Another
possibility is that the interviewee did not feel that anything really stood out as distinctive. By
removing the bipolar trap, the investigator removed the interviewee’s choice and encouraged the
interviewee to think about the robber’s “most distinctive feature.” What is frustrating is that later
in their text, Fisher and Geiselman (1992) presented an example of a moderately closed probe to
use when wanting to determine the texture of a suspect’s hair - - “can you describe the texture of
his hair?” (p. 77). Here, the investigator is interested in a specific and limited answer, the texture
of the suspect’s hair; however, Fisher and Geiselman recommended a bipolar trap as an
appropriately worded moderately closed probe. Indeed, the use of the bipolar trap creates three
options for the witness – the witness can answer with the (a) texture of the suspect’s hair, (b)
“yes” or “no” followed by the texture, or (c) “yes” or “no.” Rephrasing the probe to, “What was
the texture of his hair” or “If you would, please describe for me the texture of his hair” would
result, in most cases, in the information the investigator is looking for, as Fisher and Geiselman,
themselves, noted earlier in their text. Similarly, Lord and Cowan (2011) proposed that a proper
closed-ended question could be “Did the robber have any distinguishing marks?” As with Fisher
and Geiselman’s example, this example, is an inappropriate wording of a moderately closed
probe and may result in a “yes” or “no” answer. Rephrasing the probe to “What distinguishing
marks did the robber have?” or “If you don’t mind, describe for me any and all distinguishing
marks the robber had?” would eliminate the possible yes/no choice.
In the John E. Reid & Associates, Inc. (2011) training manual, the authors provided an
example of a moderately closed clarifying question for evaluating an interviewee’s alibi or a
victim’s account, “Could you give me an example of . . .” (p. 118). To avoid using the bipolar
trap as an example of a moderately closed probe, the authors could have instead suggested,
“Please give me an example of . . ..”
While discussing the use of follow-up moderately closed clarification and elaboration
probes, Gilbert provided the following example, “Can you give me any identifying information
about your stolen property?” (2004, p. 20). To avoid the bipolar trap, “Describe for me any
identifying information about your stolen property” would be a more appropriate formulation to
avoid the possibility of a yes or no answer. Later, when interviewing a witness, Gilbert (2004)
provided suggestions for the proper use of open-ended questions.
Once it is established that the witness was present during the time frame of the incident, a
good question would be “could you tell me what you’ve done this evening?” . . . By
asking the question, we are using the witness’s memory of the evening to our advantage,
and making the question more interesting for the witness to answer . . .. The question
“could you tell me what you’ve done this evening?” solicits a detailed narrative of
activity. (p. 30)
The probe “Could you tell me what you’ve done this evening?” is a bipolar trap. The first part of
the probe, “Could you tell me,” is asking if the person is able to present the information. This is
not the information the investigator is probing for. To decrease the possibility that the
www.jghcs.info (2161-­‐0231 ONLINE) JOURNAL OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, VOLUME 5, NUMBER 3
6 interviewee will provide a “yes” or a “no” response, the investigator could rephrase the question
to “What did you do this evening?” or “If you would, please tell me what you did this evening.”1
While discussing the proper use of open-ended questions, Rabon and Chapman (2009)
suggested the following examples: “Could you explain to me the circumstances that led to the
cancellation of the loan?” “Would you begin with the time you got to work and tell me
everything that happened?”1 and “Could you tell me what happened from the time you opened
up the deposit bag until you noticed that the deposit was $2,500 short?” (p. 51). In each instance,
the investigator is giving the reluctant, resistant, or difficult interviewee the option of providing a
narrative or answering yes or no.
Inbau et al. (2013), in suggesting ways to clarify an interviewee’s response to an openended probe, provided the following example, “Could you explain more fully why you were in
that neighborhood?” (p. 92). Similarly, Milne and Bull instructed that “Open-ended questions
can also be used to elaborate on incomplete information provided in free recall, for example:
‘You said that the perpetrator was a man. Can you describe him for me please?’” (1999, p. 22).
In both examples, removing the “Can you” from the front-end of the probes would eliminate the
possible yes or no response.
O’Hara (1969) recommended to avoid using yes/no probes when an investigator is
interviewing someone to gain that person’s perspective of a situation (p. 86-87). Yet O’Hara
suggested using the probe “Can you tell me something about the habits of this man?” would lead
the interviewee to provide “general discourse” (p. 88; also see O’Hara & O’Hara, 2003, p. 117).
Yet, the interviewee could respond with a yes or no. Forensic linguist Heydon (2005) reported
that probes such as: “Can you describe to/for me . . .?” will generate a narrative, while: “Do you
know . . .?” or “Can you remember . . .?” decreases the chances of securing a narrative. In
actuality, the argument is that all three probes should be reworded to avoid the bipolar traps.
Respectively, “Please describe for me . . .” “What do you know about . . .” and “Tell me what
you remember . . .?” Each of these reworded probes would assist the investigator in avoiding a
possible “yes” or “no” answer.
In the John E. Reid & Associates, Inc. (2011) training manual, in offering an example of
a hypothetical statement interview, the following exchange between a John E. Reid & Associates,
Inc. interviewer and a male suspect was presented as a model for investigators:
The Bipolar Trap in Law Enforcement Interviews/Sharkey & Kaneshiro Q: “Where is that 9mm automatic right now?”
A: “It’s behind a wall in my bedroom.”
Q: “Could you explain that?”
A: “I cut a small hole out of the wall in my bedroom . . .” (p. 132).
The “Could you explain that?” probe is a bipolar trap. The suspect could have simply
responded with “no” or “yes” if he wished. Such was the case in Carter’s (2011) study of an
actual exchange between an investigator and an uncooperative suspect with respect to drugs.
1
“Would you begin with the time you got to work and tell me everything that happened?” has two basic problematic issues: (a) it is a bipolar trap
and (b) a double-barreled inquisition (see Stewart & Cash, 2014). “Would you begin with the time you got to work?” (a moderately closed probe)
and “would you tell me everything that happened?” (an open-ended probe). More effective and appropriately worded probes would be “What
time did you get to work?” and “Please, tell me everything that happened.” Better yet, “Please, tell me everything that happened after you arrived
at work.”
www.jghcs.info (2161-­‐0231 ONLINE) JOURNAL OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, VOLUME 5, NUMBER 3
The Bipolar Trap in Law Enforcement Interviews/Sharkey & Kaneshiro 7 Extract 5: Drugs in the wardrobe (ii)
122: Pl
can you remember where you got it ofrâomo
123:
(.4) [secs]
124: S
n*ah
125:
(4.5) [secs]
There are three possibilities: the suspect did not remember where he got the drugs; he did
remember but did not want to provide the information; he just wanted to be difficult. Had the
investigator used a moderately closed probe such as “Where did you get it from?” the suspect
could not give a “yes” or “no” (“nah”) answer. The moderately closed probe controls the
possible answers the suspect gives: the location of the drugs, “I don’t know,” or “I didn’t get it
from anywhere, I don’t know what you’re talking about,” and so on. The investigator forces the
interviewee to talk and provide usable information rather than a less informative “nah” response.
Finally, in discussing the use of open-ended probes, Schollum (2005) cited the Thames
Valley Police training material (2004) whose authors recommended using TED (Tell me,
Explain to me, and Describe to me) to extract information during interviews. This technique has
been widely used in marketing and sales training. The examples given, however, deviated from
the formula and included “Tell me,” “I’d like you to Explain,” and “Can you Describe?” (p. 55).
Instead of the recommended “Describe to me,” the authors inserted the bipolar trap. A similar
issue was also discovered in the 2004 New Zealand Police guidelines for interviewing children
and vulnerable witnesses (i.e., “Tell me,” “Can you explain to me,” and “Can you describe to
me?” (Mulayim, Lai, & Norma, 2015, p. 25). Likewise, Shepherd and Griffiths (2013)
suggested the TED technique could be very useful for an investigator to get an interviewee to
open up. They suggested that investigators “can lessen the cumulative, bossy effect of TED
instructions by varying the way in which [investigators] deliver them:
•
make it a request, (e.g., Could you tell me . . .?)
•
better still precede the combination with a softening utterance, (e.g., I wasn’t there
and I need to know. So could you tell me how that happened?)” (pp. 203-204).
Shepherd and Griffiths (2013) maintained that such a change could cultivate a more positive
interaction between the interviewer and the interviewee. However, both individuals will need to
implicitly agree to follow the request+instruction format expectation. If not, changing the TED
recommendations to bipolar traps increase the possibility that an uncooperative interviewee will
instead choose a yes or no response.
As can be seen from the examples provided, authors of a number of law enforcement
texts and training manuals perpetuate the notion that bipolar traps are exemplars of moderately
closed probes and open-ended probes. Such inclusions exacerbate the scripted behaviors of
those investigators who do not take in to account the possibility that a resistant or reluctant
interviewee may respond to the bipolar probe instead of the intended moderately closed and
open-ended probes. For example, during the Dr. Harold Shipman murders’ interview, the police
interviewer presented Dr. Shipman with the following evidence, “The letters in the will were all
typed on your Brother typewriter.” The interviewer then used a bipolar trap, “Can you account
for that?” Dr. Shipman responded “no” (BBC News, 2000 January 31). Bull, Valentine, and
Williamson’s (2009) recommended that the interviewer should have considered asking, “How do
you account for that?” or “How do you explain that?” (pp. 25, 228). The interviewer did not
want a yes or no answer, yet employed a politely worded, request+instruction, scripted bipolar
trap when an open-ended probe was called for. Shepherd and Griffiths’ (2013) provided
www.jghcs.info (2161-­‐0231 ONLINE) JOURNAL OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, VOLUME 5, NUMBER 3
8 techniques to counter the unintended consequences of using the bipolar trap. These techniques
most likely will work very well in many situations. Why would an investigator want to create
such a situation in the first place if preventable? Shepherd and Griffiths would say for politeness
sake. However, investigators should mindfully and intentionally choose to use the bipolar traps
for politeness sake and not use them mindlessly. Indeed, one could instead politely introduce a
probe with “please,” “if you would,” or “if you don’t mind” while avoiding the use of “can you,”
or “would you,” or “could you.”
The Bipolar Trap in Law Enforcement Interviews/Sharkey & Kaneshiro Recommendations
Train investigators to: (a) differentiate between the wording of yes/no probes (e.g., “do
you understand your rights?”), moderately closed probes (e.g., “what color was the car?), openended probes (e.g., “tell me what happened.”), and bipolar traps (e.g., “can you describe the
car?”); (b) recognize possible interviewee responses to these probes; (c) intentionally construct
probes based on what information they are searching for; and (d) precede probes with “if you
would,” “please, ” or “if you don’t mind” followed by the moderately closed or open-ended
probe if politeness is desired or required. Such training will lead investigators to avoid scripted
behaviors and engage in more mindful/conscious choices. Shepherd and Griffiths’ (2013)
position on and recommendations for the use of bipolar traps are commendable; nonetheless,
their proposition relies on two debatable assumptions. First, interviewers chose the use of
bipolar traps purposely. Second, interviewees’ mindlessly respond to the “request-cuminstruction” directive with full narratives or moderately specific information, which is not always
assured.
Writers of law enforcement texts and manuals need to cautiously choose examples for the
various probe types reviewed. Each probe presented should be an accurate, linguistically
constructed exemplar of the probe being discussed. Otherwise, this inaccuracy perpetuates
scripted behaviors, confuses interviewers, and denies readers/instructors/investigators the
opportunity to view and understand the subtle differences between and ramifications of the
various probe types. Probes are the tools of the trade for investigators. Those who practice the
trade need to mindfully choose the most appropriate, effective, and efficient tools and to present
these tools with the clearest description of and instructions for how to best use these tools. Such
recommendations, if incorporated into law enforcement training, should lead to investigators
making more mindful decisions about the wording of their probes, which should result in more
useful information.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS:
William F. Sharkey (PhD, The Ohio State University) is a full professor of Communicology and
undergraduate chair in the Department of Communicology at the University of Hawai`i at Mānoa.
He holds an AAS degree in American Sign Language Interpretation, a BA, MA, and PhD in
Speech Communication with an emphasis in interpersonal and nonverbal communication. His
research/publications focus on the use of intentional embarrassment as a form of strategic
communication, embarrassability, cross-cultural communication in interpersonal contexts, and
law enforcement interviewing and interrogation. He teaches courses in conflict management,
interviewing, interrogation, and family interactions. Correspondence regarding this article can be
sent to: [email protected]
www.jghcs.info (2161-­‐0231 ONLINE) JOURNAL OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, VOLUME 5, NUMBER 3
9 Jessica Kaneshiro is an instructor of Communicology at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa
where she earned her BA and MA in Communicology. Her research focuses on relational
communication with an emphasis on parent-adolescent communication. Correspondence
regarding this article can be sent to: [email protected]
The Bipolar Trap in Law Enforcement Interviews/Sharkey & Kaneshiro References
Anderson, R., & Killenberg, G. M. (2009). Interviewing: Speaking, listening, and learning for
professional life (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
BBC News (2000, January 31). The Shipman tapes I [transcript]. Retrieved from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/uk/2000/the_shipman_murders/the_shipman_files/613
286.stm
Benson, R. (2000). Ragnar’s guide to interviews, investigations, and interrogations: How to
conduct them, how to survive them. Boulder, CO: Paladin Press.
Bull, R., Valentine, T., & Williamson, T. (editors) (2009). Handbook of psychology of
investigative interviewing: Current developments and future directions. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Carter, E. (2011). Analysing police interviews: Laughter, confessions and the tape. London,
England: Continuum International.
Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative
interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Flanagan, E. J. (1982). Interviewing and interrogation techniques. In J. J. Grau (ed.), Criminal
and civil investigation handbook (pp. 4-3 - 4-23). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Gilbert, S. V. (2004). Interviewing and interrogation: The discovery of truth. Mason, OH
Cengage Learning.
Gordon, N. J., & Fleisher, W. L. (2006). Effective interviewing & interrogation techniques (2nd
ed.). Burlington, MA: Academic Press.
Heydon, G. (2005). The language of police interviewing: A critical analysis. Hampshire, Great
Britain: Palgrave MacMillan.
Inbau, F., Reid, J., Buckley, J., Jayne, B. (2005). Essentials of the Reid technique: Criminal
interrogation and confessions. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Inbau, F., Reid, J., Buckley, J., & Jayne, B. (2013). Criminal interrogation and confessions (5th
ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
John E. Reid & Associates, Inc. (2011). The Reid technique of interviewing and interrogation.
Chicago, IL: John E. Reid & Associates, Inc.
John E. Reid & Associates, Inc. (2012). The advanced course on the Reid technique of
interviewing and interrogation. Chicago, IL: John E. Reid & Associates, Inc.
Kidd, W. R. (1940). Police interrogation. New York, NY: R. V. Basuino.
Köhnken, G., Milne, R. Memon, A., & Bull, R. (1999). A meta-analysis on the effects of the
Cognitive Interview. Special Issue of Psychology, Crime, & Law, 5, 3-27. doi:
10.1080/10683169908414991.
Langer, E. (n.d.). Mindfulness and mindlessness. Retrieved from
http://secondjourney.org/newsltr/Archives/LangerE_08Sum.htm
Langer, E. J. (2014). Mindfulness, 25th anniversary edition. Boston, MA. Da Capo Lifelong
Books.
Lord, V. B., & Cowan, A. D. (2011). Interviewing in criminal justice: Victims, witnesses, clients,
and suspects. Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
Milne, R., & Bull, R. (1999). Investigative interviewing: Psychology and practice. Chichester,
England: John Wiley & Sons.
www.jghcs.info (2161-­‐0231 ONLINE) JOURNAL OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, VOLUME 5, NUMBER 3
The Bipolar Trap in Law Enforcement Interviews/Sharkey & Kaneshiro 10 Mulayim, S., Lai, M., & Norma, C. (2015). Police investigative interviews and interpreting:
Context, challenges, and strategies. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Myklebust, T., & Bjørklund, R. A. (2006). The effect of long-term training on police officers’
use of open and closed questions in field investigative interviews of children. Journal of
Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 3, 165-181. doi: 10.1002/jip.52
O'Hara, C. E. (1969). Fundamentals of criminal investigation. Springfield, IL: Charles C
Thomas.
O'Hara, C. E., & O'Hara, G. L. (2003). Fundamentals of criminal investigation (7th ed.).
Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Oxburgh, G. E., Myklebust, T., & Grant, T. (2010). The question of question types in police
interviews: A review of the literature from a psychological and linguistic perspective.
International Journal of Speech, Language, and the Law, 17, 45-66. doi:
10.1558/ijsll.v17il.45
Rabon, D. (1994). Investigative discourse analysis. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Rabon, D., & Chapman, T. (2009). Interviewing and interrogation (2nd ed.). Durham, NC:
Carolina Academic Press.
Reardon, K. K. (1987). Interpersonal communication: Where minds meet. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Royal, R. F., & Schutt, S. R. (1981). The gentle art of interviewing and interrogation: A
professional manual and guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Schollum, M. (2005). Investigative interviewing: The literature. Office of the Commissioner
of Police. Wellington, New Zealand.
Shepherd, E., & Griffiths, A. (2013). Investigative interviewing: The conversation management
approach (2nd ed.). Oxford, Untied Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Simons, A. B., & Boetig, B. P. (2007). Structured investigative interview. FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin, 76(6), 9-20.
Stewart, C. J., Cash, W. B. (2014). Interviewing: Principles & practices (14th ed.). New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
Thames Valley Police (2004). Tier two investigative interviewing programme. Sulhamstead:
Force Training Centre, Thames Valley Police: England.
Wickersham, G. W. (1931-1932). National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement:
Report on police. Washington, D. C.: United States Government Printing Office.
Zulawski, D. E., Wicklander, D. E. (2002). Practical aspects of interview and interrogation (2nd
ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
www.jghcs.info (2161-­‐0231 ONLINE) JOURNAL OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, VOLUME 5, NUMBER 3