Beyond the phenomenology of innocence: An exploratory study of innocent suspects’ reasoning in an investigative interviewing context

Objectives: Research shows that innocent suspects tend to be forthcoming in investigative interviews, often providing truthful accounts even if this involves revealing potentially self-incriminating information. This could leave them vulnerable to being misclassified as guilty. While such behaviour is often attributed to a belief in the exonerating power of truth, little is known about the decision-making processes involved. This study explored the reasoning and expectations of innocent suspects regarding the main verbal counter-interrogation strategy they would use in a specific scenario.Research questions: We had three research questions. First, what verbal counter-interrogation strategy regarding truthfulness do participants expect to use in the situation outlined in the vignette? Second, what is their reasoning behind pursuing said strategy? Third, do participants expect their strategy to be successful in convincing the police of their innocence and why?Method: We conducted twelve semi-structured interviews with university students and members of the general population based in the Midlands, UK. We analysed the data using thematic analysis and identified four overarching themes.Results: Eleven of the twelve participants indicated they would provide a completely truthful account. However, their expectations about the strategy’s effectiveness varied. While many discussed reasons aligned with the phenomenology of innocence (PoI) mindset, participants also raised various other aspects in relation to their choice of strategy and their beliefs about its effectiveness, namely considerations around evidence, risks of lying, and perceived credibility. Conclusions: The findings support the idea that the PoI is prevalent among truth-tellers. However, our results also suggest that additional considerations seem to be relevant in their decision-making. Based on the data, we identified the subjective expected utility (SEU) model as a potentially useful framework for understanding how innocent suspects choose their counter-interrogation strategy, which can also explain findings from previous research, and we propose it be tested in future studies.