Cross-Cultural Similarities and Differences in the Interrogation of Suspects

This narrative review examines cross-cultural similarities and differences in the interrogation process of criminal suspects, with a focus on how cultural norms, legal frameworks, and communication styles influence investigative interviewing techniques and methods. The practice of interrogation has evolved from a confession-driven strategy and the use of coercive methods to a more evidence-based and ethical approach, as represented by the Méndez Principles of Effective Interviewing and the PEACE model in the United Kingdom. Cross-cultural evaluations demonstrate that planning, cognitive interviewing, and rapport-building are increasingly being recognized as globally accepted best practices; however, their application remains inconsistent due to variances in professionalization, training, and institutional support across jurisdictions. Communication styles are heavily shaped by cultural norms, and perceptions of questioning tactics vary considerably among cultures. The review draws a distinction between interrogation, suspect interviewing, investigative interviewing, and information-gathering interviewing, as these terms carry different legal and ethical implications across jurisdictions. The review highlights the difficulties in protecting vulnerable groups (including juveniles, persons with mental health conditions or cognitive impairments, non-native speakers, and culturally marginalized suspects) in incorporating human rights safeguards and in customizing training to fit local cultural environments. A methodological note is provided to clarify the narrative scope of the review, its search parameters, and its thematic organization.