Interrogation Articles

Kassin, 2005

15-25% of DNA exonerees had confessed prior to trial Paper objective: show innocence may put innocent people at risk and propose policy reforms States that investigators have a belief that they only interrogate guilty people Preliminary judgement: reid this is the preinterrogation phase, can be impacted by crime related schemas or profiles interrogator has or going off a hunch they have - This judgement becomes pivotal choice point, determining whether person is interrogated or sent home - Studies show that determining this judgement for lay persons and police is about chance, with training inconsistent and limited in helping improve, BUT police are more confident, also response bias toward guilt/pro deception - Low stakes (maybe lab) can weaken deception cues but high stakes studies have only provided mixed results - Observers have been found to be more accurate in assessing than those in the conversation Miranda waiver: doesn't seem to protect innocents because they waive (and vulnerable pops), phenomenology of innocence/belief in a just world/illusion of transparency - Police have learned how to obtain waivers by doing things like being sympathetic or calling it a formality, or talking outside of miranda "off the record" but evidence generated from it can still be used against the person - Individuals with no prior felony record are more likely to waive Interrogation: investigators have a tendency to make false positive errors, presume guilt and hold this as a very strong belief - seeking, interpreting and creating behavioral date to verify it. - Self-fulfilling prophecy, interpersonal expectancy effect, behavioral confirmation bias - Three steps: perceiver forms belief, perceiver behaves toward target in manner that conforms to that belief, target responds often behaving in ways that support the perceivers belief o Studies: more movement in investigator = more in sus making them look fidgety, investigators expect guilt and use more guilt presumptive questions/pressure making innocents act more anxious, observers also perceived the suspects as more defensive and likely to have committed the crime - Reid: designed to get suspects to incriminate themselves by increasing anxiety associated with denial and minimizing the perceived consequences of confession o Social impact theory: high levels of influence by police interrogations (power, proximity, etc.) - False confession taxonomy: Voluntary, coerced-compliant, coerced-internalized - Situational factors: o Isolation: heightens stress, motivate to escape, can heighten suggestibility and impair complex decision making (especially paired with fatigue and sleep deprivation), false confessions increase with increasing length of interrogation o Confrontation: bold assertions, trickery is permissible in US, with false evidence sig increasing false confessions o Minimization: merely implied but readers can ID what is to be inferred without explicit statement, increase false confessions (and true), studies need to compare different types of minimization Safety net? - Mock jurors show confession having more impact than other evidence - People don't fully discount confessions when logically or legally should - Confessions tend to overwhelm alibis and other exculpatory evidence - Prosecutors will refuse to concede even after DNA testing proves innocence - Not better than chance at telling between guilty and innocent confessions (but police are more confident) o Expect self-serving behavior, fundamental attribution error making dispositional attribute instead of situational, police induced false confessions can contain elements that make them seem true (details, remorse, ect.) due to scripting or providing details, etc. - Expert testimony on this hasn't really been allowed into the court Conclusions - Five ways innocence can put innocents at risk o Confidently, police commit false pos errors and presume guilt o Believing that truth and justice will prevail, innocent sus waives rights o Because of denials, innocent sus triggers confrontational interrogation o Certain interrogation techniques increase risk of false confession o Police overbelieve confession from innocent sus - Three factors should be scrutinized: custody and interrogation time, concerns of presentation of false evidence, minimization - Video tape entire interrogations: camera will deter most egregious and coercive tactics, deter frivolous defense claims of coercion, its objective and accurate (can tell if waiver was voluntary, if there were promises or threats, where details from the confession came from) o Camera should also be equal focus showing interrogator and sus because people are more attuned to situational factors that caused confession when they can see both

Redlich et al., 2017

Almost all adjudicated defendants (about 95%) are convicted without trials, agree to plead in exchange for a bargain - discounted sentence or lesser charge - Factual guilt or innocence can effect plea decisions (NRE = 18% of known WC) Defendants: decide to accept a plea or risk it Defense attorneys: knowledgeable about the plea economy and how to advise defendant Prosecutors: know current market and whether or not to offer plea and the value of the offer Judge: decide whether to accept the plea Article purpose: review psychological and other social scientific research of the theories and factors underlying the process of pleading guilty AND identifying novel theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of guilty pleas Pleading guilty means that a defendant is willing to accept responsibility Brady v. United states: central to plea and foundation of judgement against the defendant is admission in open court that they committed the act charged in the indictment, and it is the consent that judgement of conviction may be entered without trial Pleas - difference is defendants willingness to take responsibility, most need a factual basis of guilt to take the plea but some states allow baseless pleas - Have direct and collateral consequences such as waiver of certain constitutional rights (jury/trial, prosecution prove case, have a defense) Guilty plea - traditional, accepts guilt Nolo contendere - or no contest, neither admits nor denies guilt but rather doesn't contest it Alford - maintains innocence (North Carolina v. Alford) Plea colloquy - judges ask defendant a series of questions to determine if plea was made properly (knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily), often perfunctory - Exploding offers, in which a plea must be accepted in a short window of time, most pleas made with haste/too little information so may not actually be meeting this criteria Pleas result in leniency or plea discount (gap seen in trial conviction vs. plea sentencing), often conflating conviction and sentencing which are usually separate Who pleads guilty - Defendants with strong cases against them (crime recorded) and less severe charges - Age is a factor, younger adults have been found to be more likely than older adults to plead and adolescents to young adults same pattern - but only when innocent o Result of youths cog and social immaturities, lack of legal experience, obeying authority likely explanations, also diff considering short term and long term consequences - Minority status, who have higher sentences in many cases and more likely to claim to have made a false admission and less likely to share that with their attorney, male minorities less likely to get a plea (especially black male with white victim) - Gender, most pleas are for men but so are most crimes, men report being more unwilling to take a plea than women - Personality traits: risk preference, intelligence and cognitive abilities especially because pleas requirements are presented to them in a reading level higher than their own (on avg) - Presence and advice of others (who and why) Theoretical reasons for pleading guilty - Shadow of the trial model: model of defendant's choice, defendant pleads guilty if the offered sentences is less than or equal to their expected value of the trial, at trial expect 7 years then will take a plea of 7 or less years o Also take into account risk preferences: risk-neutral = accept pleas less than or equal to expected value at trial, risk seeking = need sharp discount, risk adverse = pleas with even something exceeding value at trial to end uncertainty o Does directly deal with prosecutor choices, actual offer depends on the goal of the prosecutor o Actual pleas are 69% of what would be expected at trial (though model would suggest 75%), this may be due to coercive nature by prosecutors to force defendants to plead guilty o Missing from model: structural impediments (bad lawyering, etc) and psychological biases (overconfidence, etc) - doesn't allow for different behavior at extremes, issues when sentences may be not a prison sentence, defense attorney behavior - Trial penalty model: emphasizes that judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys within a jurisdiction are part of an interdependent workgroup who work toward shared goals such as disposing of cases efficiently and minimizing uncertainty. Predicted that the workgroup will establish norms/going rates for defendants who are willing to plead § Organizational efficiency perspective: need efficiency in disposing § Uncertainty-avoidance theory: need heuristics to help actors reduce uncertainty in sentencing § Focal-concern perspective: use heuristics incorporating offender blameworthiness/harm caused, protection of community, and pragmatic implications like resources o Trial penalty because defendant who goes to trial instead of excepting working groups going rate faces higher sentence § Predict size of penalty: strength of case Role of guilt vs. innocence in pleas (neither previous model takes innocence into account) - Research has found that guilty people in contrast to innocent ones are more likely to plead guilty, even when the probability of conviction is held constant - Prospect theory emphasizes the importance of a reference point when predicting decision preferences, with guilt status being important for determining the reference point o Guilty perceive conviction and punishment as natural result so plea is a gain - risk adverse choice is to accept plea vs. risk trial (plea acceptance) o Innocents see them as undeserved loss, prefer risk seeking - prefer to face possibility of greater risk at trial to avoid any loss (plea rejection), unless risk becomes too big Practical reasons for pleading - It's a good idea because leniency, study found students accepted plea when plea v. trial sentences were most discrepant - Concept of comparative fairness (perception of the plea), study found people less likely to accept plea when told it is worse offer than typical one but more likely to accept when told it was better - Coerced or pressured - from attorneys, family/friends, exploratory study of real offenders identified 7 factors in which pressure from prosecutor or indirect pressure such as family concern, juveniles parents or attorney plead guilty or planned to, mentally ill also report pressure to plea - Expediency and acquiescence: advice from defense attorney led defendants to plea that were presented as more expedient, acquiescence described as general sense that defense attorney didn't do enough to secure best plea possible thus good attorney who can best reduce the prosecutor pressure (a lot of pleas come from only meeting defense attorney once) and their advice has big impact especially for youth Next generation of research in pleas - Negotiations leading up to pleas are never recorded or observation, so no idea how many pleas are typically offered and how the offers vary - New theoretical o Consider jurisdictional difference o Pleas are in large part a negotiation between two groups, so need to incorporate goals of prosecutor too and their strategies (first best or none after a certain stage) or goal of prosecutor to minimize innocents who plead guilty New empirical approaches - Currently limited to hypothetical vignettes and some plea simulations - Experimental realism is the extent to which participants are actively engaged in and buy into the experimental situation - Mundane realism is the extent to which the experimental situation mimics the real world and has superficial appearance of reality - Could use incentivized decision making problems - faced with decisions with immediate or future rewards to test present vs. future orientation - Analyze administrative datasets, new ones now have data across stages of the process - Consider less single effects and more broad effects that occur in real world as well as bringing the information to the key target audience (data drives science but individual cases drive policy makers)

Gudjonnson, 2003

Before 1990s no national training in interrogation, just experience Irving studies - Three observational studies of the interrogations by English Criminal Investigation department, spurred by Sir Henry Fisher's concern about confessions with psychologically vulnerable groups - First study: observed interviews of suspects, considering their mental state. (76 interviews with 60 suspects), 55% interviewed within 3 hours, but 80% had longer delay, 81% interviewed only once or twice averaging about 76 minutes, custody length about 12 hours, main purpose seemed to be to get a confession (and when achieved, often cleared up more than just the case at hand) - 58% made incriminating admissions o The effects of custody: many suspects showed distress or abnormal mental state before interview, caused by unfamiliarity or isolation, if confined before interrogation showed under-arousal which suspects find uncomfortable and thus motivates them to talk to police, first time offenders especially of sex crimes showed most fear, confession = immediate behavioral relief due to reduced uncertainty o Suspects mental state: 18% intoxicated in some way, 8% mentally ill, 2% low intelligence, 13% mentally disordered - thus about half were mentally disturbed o Interrogation tactics: two thirds of police used persuasive and manipulative tactics - Types of interrogation tactics used o Telling suspects it was futile to deny their involvement: information bluffs, used in about half o Influencing the suspects perception of the consequences of confessing: used in about half, minimizing o Advising suspects that it was in their best interest to confess o Using custodial conditions: isolation, assert authority (40%) o Offer promises (23%) - Subsequent studies: replication of prior study, after the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE, 1984) was enacted, in 1986 and 87. o 86: dramatic fall in number of manipulative and persuasive tactics used - likely due to PACE o 87: more tactics than in 86 but still less than in the first study o Diminished use of tactics didn't reduce the confession rate Softley study 80 - Observed 4 police stations from time of arrival until after being charged - 48% interviewed at the police station made confessions, only 12% exercised right to silence - Persuasive tactics noted in 60% of interviews - but considered interrogations to be mostly fair not coercive, didn't note anything about suspects mental state Walsh study 82 - Examined arrest and interrogation practices under the emergency legislation in Northern Ireland, suspects suspected of terrorist activities o 50% of suspects asked for a solicitor and most were denied access, most released without being charged, half noted verbal or physical abuse University of Kent research 93 - Examined videos of interrogations by police as recording was now mandatory, finding 76% were inquisitorial (aimed at general information gathering, built rapport) to start and 14% accusatorial (aimed to get a confession, made accusations) o Accusatorial lead to false confessions that were hard to tell if true or contamination from police, confession ended the interview o If suspect was silent: avoidance (stop interview), downgrading (less threatening questions), persistence, upgrading (exaggerating seriousness of crime), rationalization (your opportunity to speak) o New law saying jury could draw adverse inferences if suspect didn't answer police questions - Williamson (90,93): listened to tapes and IDed 4 interrogation styles, found officers don't really ID with any one type, and prefer video recording, claim to aim for truth not confession o Collusive: cooperative and problem-solving approach aimed toward a confession o Counselling: cooperative and non-judgmental approach aimed at securing evidence o Business like: confrontational aimed at securing evidence o Dominant: confrontational aimed at securing a confession Baldwin study 89: assessed interview techniques used by police at various police stations based on video and audio recordings - Interview formalities: hurriedly/casually give caution or not at all, sometimes incorrectly - Flaws: general ineptitude, assumption of guilt, poor interviewing techniques, too much pressure exerted - Officer terminated interview after admission made, failed to get post admission statement - Police find presence of legal representation inhibited, legal representation often failed to do their job too - Suspects response o Most were submissive or cooperative, few exercised their legal rights, many made an admission but few moved from complete denial to complete confession suggesting most suspects enter police interview having already decided whether to confess or deny Training manuals - Walkley 87 produced first british interrogation manual, heavily influenced by Reid but also had to contend with PACE, did mention that some tactics can produce false confessions - did not get much traction for following reasons: o Changes in police practices following PACE, reducing coercion, deception, trickery, and psychological manipulation o Research into false confessions and psychological vulnerability o Successful appeals such as Guildford 4 or Birmingham 6 got public and judicial attention of wrongful convictions due to coerced confessions o Increased acceptance by courts of expert psychological evidence o December 1992 judgement concerning oppressive police interviewing - Thus, psychologists and police/lawyers teamed up to make PEACE, national guideline for interviewing suspects and witnesses, more focused on info gathering than confession and if oppressive interviewing found - resulting admissions would be less likely to be admitted o Preparation and planning: for the interview and your aims o Engage and explain: purpose of interview to interviewee, introduce officer, administer caution, establish rapport o Account: 2 methods for eliciting account of event, CI (cooperative witnesses) and Conversation Management (for when degree of cooperation from suspect is insufficient; Mortimer & shepherd 1999) o Closure: conclude by summarizing main points and providing interviewee change to correct or add anything o Evaluate: evaluating information obtained and performance of the interviewer (often not done) - Additionally mentions shift was influenced by need to restore faith in police, as seen by increasing acquittal rates in the 90s - study idea to see if trust or confidence in police is related to conviction/acquittal decisions and if increased acquittal you could argue the need to make fixes in police to rectify this (maybe choose cases you know should be a conviction or acquittal so to see if police trust/confidence is real cause)

find authors, 2016

Children under the age of 14 in Israel are protected by a unique law in 1955 - Law of Evidence Revision, requiring interviews to be done by child forensic interviewers (part of the welfare office - service of investigative interviews). Idea is that child can't be sole perpetrator and kid is at risk - Law also states age of criminal responsibility in Israel is 12 (under 12 can't be criminally charged) - Use NICHD (national institute for child health and human development), children assumed to be victims o Introductory phase: intro self, clarify task at hand, explain ground rules and expectations o Rapport-building phase: structured open-ended questions, and detailed narrative of a unrelated but recently experienced event to practice level of detail/further rapport o Transitional phase: open ended prompts used to identify target event, which can be narrowed if kid isn't mentioning the event - During interview, interviewer has to consider kid as both victim and suspect - For kids under 12, child forensic interviewers don't talk to the police or give them a report, stays in welfare system and therapeutic planning, over 12 they share with police - 12 to 14, child forensic interviewers try to adapt NICHD for suspects, integrating a formal warning like right to silence and introduces the nature of the complaint o Still consider the kid to be at risk - Additionally, legislation was enacted stating people of all ages with disabilities who are suspects of crimes are also to be interviewed by child forensic interviewers: same as 12-14 but not considered as possible victim as well (see table 4.1 for breakdown of all 3) - Forensic interviewers lack training targeting interviewing suspects and only 1 study done on interviewing in israel (found open ended was better than closed, or suggestive questions) Above age 14, interviews are done by a special unit in the police called youth investigators. These interviews are not recorded, no standardized practice for interviewing youth and nothing published about it Above 18, interviewed by police trained to be investigators with no standardized best practices or published research. There is also a special unit for matters of security Unique features of israel - Highly conservative groups: arabs and orthodox jews, collectivist and importance of family - Children in israel and in the jewish religion are considered highly important and key in keeping the family safe Problems: lack of transparency or evaluation of methods used, NICHD needs adaptations for all uses required (suspect, mental disabilities)

Perillo & Kassin, 2011

Dispositional vulnerability: inherent to suspect (foster compliance and suggestibility) Situational pressures: conditions of custody and interrogation False evidence ploy has been shown to be strong form of misinformation, create confusion and people doubt their own beliefs/internalize guilt (has been tested with alt key paradigm) Bluff: considered less deceptive than false evidence ploy, interrogators pretend to have evidence without additionally asserting that this evidence necessarily implicates the suspect (like we have a witness and they may implicate you but we haven't interviewed them yet) - Thus the idea is innocents shouldn't feel as threatened by a bluff BUT the bluff promises future exoneration so it may be easier for innocent people to confess Current study: using alt key paradigm with three goals - Investigate the bluff technique on compliant and internalized confessions - Compare bluff to false evidence ploy - Determine whether the presence a witness who affirms the participant's denial protects against false confessions Experiment 1 - 5 groups: false witness evidence, bluff, false witness and bluff, no tactics, witness affirming innocence o Probed to see if there was internalization (say they hit the alt key but didn't) - should be highest for false evidence because it is "proof" whereas the bluff hasn't been proven yet - Results: confessions across all conditions o Presentation of false evidence increased confessions compared to control § Also, sig increase in bluff to control o False confession rate was high in bluff and false evidence alone and together o Innocent affirming witness didn't buffer o Marginal increase in false confessions for the tactics § Lower rates of internalization for the bluff than false evidence ploy Experiment 2 - Only bluff or control and asked reason for confessing directly - Results o No internalized, so more compliance o Bluff significantly increased false confession compliance rate o Most innocents were certain of their innocence but confessed, mostly due to knowing they'd be exonerated later based on the bluff § Some who didn't confess also cited the bluff as the reason o 55% confessed due to interrogation pressure Experiment 3 - Using a cheating paradigm variant so diagnosticity can be evaluated, again bluff v. no bluff (video that must be checked = bluff) - Results o Sig more confessions in guilty condition o Sig more confessions when bluff was used o Interaction: confessions for innocents sig increased when bluff was used (could be because so many people in guilty confessed with nothing so difference between guilty v. guilty bluff was small (ceiling effect) vs. innocent v. innocent bluff) o Bluff severely diminished the diagnosticity of outcomes o 45% of guilty cited the bluff as the reason for confessing o 88% of innocent confessors confronted with bluff cited the bluff as the reason for their confession § 75% who refused to sign confession also cited bluff as the reason § THUS, supports that bluff protects innocents and adversely affects them Discussion Bluff is a promise of future exoneration due to phenomenology of innocence and illusion of transparency (overestimate the extent to which your true inner state - innocence - is discernable to others) Authors predict that bluff induced false confessions are particularly likely to be misperceived to be voluntary and as true because of the apparent benign nature of the deception Confederate has been seen by some in the guilty condition to be a prisoners dilemma situation (they are going to tell on me) - is there a way to fix this (like stating the confederate is refusing to talk or something to combat ceiling effect in guilty condition (everyone confessed) - she has used "confederate finished and left before we could talk to them."

Luke, 2020

ELICITATION: getting info without ever really asking the question (nice watch - then they respond elaborating about the watch - don't know they are being targeted for information) - crim interrogations they ask questions, but may hide their exact objectives, disguises the information you really want to know - Perspective taking type technique in understanding how the source is thinking and working around it Scharff approach: more details on the second page or in presentation of other article - Friendly approach - Not pressing for information - Illusion of knowing it all - Confirmation/disconfirmation of claims (different than a false evidence ploy because not accusatory) - Not acknowledging new information Scharff is a style of how to conduct an interview not a step-by-step procedure, not for criminal suspects Experimental studies: use mock sources, give them background information, incentivize to strike a balance between too little and too much information shared and interviewed (usually Scharff vs. direct approach or some control) Meta-analysis looked at - Does Scharff elicit more new information - Do sources with Scharff believe they provided less information - Do sources with Scharff perceive the interrogator as more knowledgeable - Do sources with Scharff subjectively underestimate the amount of new information they have objectively disclosed - *not sure this is actually in there: Also not knowing interrogator objective Method: literature review of electronic databases using terms, reference lists, conference programs, and contacted known authors in the area - Found 11 studies Findings - Scharff tended to reveal more new information, effect varied but consistently positive - Scharff tended to think they revealed less information - Scharff tended to think the interviewer had more knowledge about the events in question - Subjective-objective calibration: Scharff condition generally underestimated the amount of new information revealed and control conditions tended to overestimate their information revealed - Moderator: medium of interview, Scharff perceived interviewer to be less knowledgeable when interviewed remotely than in-person - Scharff had a poorer time understanding interviewer goals - Experimental evidence is fairly strong Issues - Wide range of effects being studied rather than one true effect size - Effect may be underestimated in lab setting - All studies had small sample sizes - Little research on source motivation differences - Small group of collaborators in Europe doing all the work - Need for operationalizing intelligence objectives: like something being accomplished or other intelligence outcome/objective

Woody & Forrest 2020 - chpt 1

Emergence of policing: - slave patrols - legally sanctioned law enforcement system existed before the civil war, should be considered the forerunner of modern American law enforcement, police additionally supported segregation and discrimination/jim crow o explicit racial biases contribute to the totality of the circumstances faced by suspects today - Political era: political figures selected police officers, the focus of the police (set the expectations of what was acceptable), and when the political figure lost reelection their time as a police officer was over, patronage, and would cover up illegal activity of the political figure/their allies, intimidating those who would vote/run against the politician o Southern cities still tied to race as only voters (white people) could select the leaders, who selected the cops and the policing methods that were advantageous to them/their agendas o Institutions hired and administered their own police forces, explicitly against unionized workers - private policing available to the wealthy/corporations o Interrogations: beat, tortured, threatened aka the third degree - both physical and mental torture § Typology of coercive interrogation: brute physical force, physical torture that does not result from beatings, beatings that do not leave visible injuries, long detentions without charge or access to legal representation (mental torture), physical distress (ex. Sleep deprivation), explicit threats and promises of leniency Reform - Driven by external pressures such as formal law enforcement reviews, journalism, courts limiting police interrogation practices o Wickersham Commission Report: contained examples of police misconduct like third degree, warned of potential for false confessions - provoked public outcry, Hoover: initiated national training programs and promoted police academies o Journalistic interest prompted many legal investigations of police departments and practices o Courts: Bram v. US - used 5th A protection against self-incrimination to reject confessions generated from explicit threat and promises, Brown et al v. Mississippi 1936 - confessions obtained by physical coercion could no longer be admissible at trial, Ashcraft v. TN - limits amount of time police can deprive suspect of sleep, Reck v. Pate - same but for food, Chambers v. Florida - limited the use of psychological pressure during interrogation - Driven by internal pressures such as those who train police, police themselves - move to increase professionalism, led by August Vollmer o Moved away from their roles as general service providers and focused exclusively on crime prevention and control, separation of police hiring and management from local political leaders - also promoting crime control above other activities § Officers expected to retain their position unlike with political leaders, also had their discretion reduced § Police started actively embracing and actively promoting the emerging science of policing (like fingerprinting), technological changes (like rapid response systems), and educational changes (police academies) o Interrogations: § Moved away from third degree and replaced these with methods of trickery and deception · W.R. Kidd - wrote first interrogation manual in US, argued third degree shouldn't be used, could lead to false confessions, and lack of public confidence in the police · Fred E. Inbau: advocated for trickery and deception, thought it was more acceptable, thinks interrogations without some trickery would be ineffective · Lynumn v. Illinois - police can't use deception that would shock the conscience of the community Ongoing changes - Sometimes trainees are reminded that false confessions can occur and that part of their responsibility as interrogators is to take precautionary measures to protect the innocent - 5th edition Reid mentions assisting interrogators in distinguishing between true and false confessions - Other factors have slowed, particularly within departments, relying on informal trainings/intimidation and other tactics found in police culture Other: State v. Cayward - if the fabricated evidence could be mistaken for real evidence then any resultant confession may be inadmissible

Davis & O'Donohue, 2003

Factors related to false confessions that the person clearly brings into the situation and are enduring traits of that person. Mental disorders are more mitigating as competency to confess is significantly diminished DMS: mental disorder is a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and is associated with present distress, disability, or with significantly increased risk of suffering, death, pain, disability, or important loss of freedom - Could exacerbated by interview characteristics, or interact with the interview characteristics to produce a false confession Mental disorders - Mental retardation: difficulty recalling events, understanding questions, consequences of actions, or meaning of utterances, impairments increase severity of retardation and have exaggerated need to please - Communication disorders: difficulty understanding words, sentences, and types of words. Problems with receptive and expressive language and leave out key parts of sentences, error in communication could lead to false confession - Pervasive developmental disorders: abnormalities in communication, cog skills, impulsiveness, short attention span - ADHD: probs with attention, impulsivity, listening, not following instructions, distraction, blurting out - Oppositional/defiant disorder: defies adult rules and spiteful - Separation anx: distress when separated from major figure/fear of harm befalling that person, confess to escape being separated or save attachment figure - Delirium disorders: disturbances in consciousness with reduced ability to focus or sustain attention, cog and memory deficits, language impairments and perceptual disturbances - Dementia disorders: cog impairments, language disturbances, agnosias, executive functioning problems - Amnesic disorder: memory disturbance and deficits - Substance abuse disorders: cog impairment, withdrawal symptoms could motivate individual to confess - Schizophrenia and psychotic disorders: abnormalities in perception, inferential thinking, language and communication, behave monitoring, and attention. Delusions (false beliefs) and hallucinations (false perceptions) - Mood disorder: depression = fatigue, probs concentrating, inappropriate guilt, indecisiveness, and foreshortened future, Manic = grandiosity, pressure to keep talking, flight of ideas, distractibility, and false beliefs - Anx disorders: interview can invoke sufficient anx they would false confess to escape - Dissociative disorders: inability to recall important personal info, sudden and unexpected travel with inability to recall past, 2 or more distinct identities with inability to recall personal info - Personality disorders: schizotypal - cog and perceptual distortions, antisocial - impulsivity, lying, and rule violation, borderline - instability, impulsivity, unstable self-image, histrionic - needs for attention seeking, suggestible, confess to gain desired notice, narcissistic - fantasies of fame

Kassin et al., 2010

False admissions and confessions are present in 15-25% of DNA exonerations - but this is just the tip of the iceberg Aims of paper: review the literature, ID situational interrogation factors and dispositional characteristics, make recommendations Problem of false confessions - False confessions: make an admission to a criminal act you didn't commit - Deemed false because: later discovered no crime occurred, additional evidence proves it was physically impossible, real perpetrator found, or scientific evidence like DNA - Of 125 proven false confessions, most were men and for serious crimes (more likely to have DNA), and most under the age of 25 - Difficult to know incidence rate as no tracking system, incomplete list, no ground truth, lack of access to case materials Third degree: 19th century through 1930s, inflicting physical or mental pain to get confession, declined in 30s-60s to be more psychologically oriented (now) Current practices: purpose of interrogation is to get a confession not the truth per say, police believe they only interrogate guilty, Reid Miranda: effort to protect suspects from conditions that produce involuntary and unreliable confessions, In re Gault 1967 extend the rights to youths - No research has shown this to have actually been effective in its goal - Issues: large variations across jurisdictions in terms of aspects like reading level - Adolescents and adults with mental disabilities have trouble understanding factually, and sometimes understand it factually but not their relevance to their situation, may comply with requests too o Many states only require factual understanding, poor comprehension of miranda is predictive of false confession o Also youths will obey authority - Suggestibility: predisposition to accept information communicated by others and to incorporate that information into one's beliefs and memories Corroboration rule: requires that confessions be corroborated by independent evidence, prove death, injury, or loss occurred and criminal agency was responsible - Goal: prevent false confessions, incentive for police to keep investigating, safeguard against jurors tendency to view confession as dispositive of guilt regardless of circumstances in which it was obtained - BUT does require corroboration that the defendant committed the crime or proof of requisite mental state or elements of the crime, just that crime occurred - Trustworthiness rule: corroboration of the confession itself with independent evidence, in practice this hasn't worked Voluntariness - Bram v. US: fifth amendment, no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against themselves - Brown v. Mississippi: 14th amendment due process clause, totality of the circumstances for confession admissibility Minimization and Maximization - Max: interrogator conveys rock solid belief that suspect is guilty and all denials will fail - Min: provide suspect with moral justification and face-saving excuses for having committed the crime - Frazier v. Cupp: established that police deception alone is not sufficient to render a confession involuntary o Some states have distinguished between false assertions and false reports England: PACE, then PEACE - based on the cog interview Types of false confessions - Voluntary: without prompting of pressure by police, reasons: desire for notoriety, need for self-punishment, inability to distinguish fact from fantasy, protect actual perp - Coerced-compliant: induced to confess through interrogation, acquiesce to police, bow to pressure, believe short term benefit of confessing outweighs long term cost - Coerced-internalized: come to believe they committed the crime and confabulate false memories, occurs due to profound distrust in own memory so vulnerable to outside influence Relevant psychology principles - Behavioral economics paradigm: people prefer outcomes that are immediate rather than delayed - Attitudes and persuasion, informational and normative influences, sequential request strategies (foot in the door), gradual escalation of commands, authority Situational risk factors (interrogation itself) - Isolation, interrogation time, sleep deprivation (heightens susceptibility and impacts decision making) - Presentation of false evidence, misinfo renders people vulnerable to manipulation and alters judgements, beliefs, and perceptions, fabricated video has made people confess and internalize - Minimization: implies leniency (pragmatically implied), concerns for principles of reinforcement, have been found to lower sentencing expectations Dispositional risk factors (within individual) - Age, mental impairment - Immaturity in impulse control, decision making, lack of concern for long term consequences, heightened emo arousal, reward seeking, risk taking, susceptible to pressure like peer pressure - Deficits in understanding miranda and complying to waiving, change answers in response to mild negative feedback - Personality and psychopathology: faulty reality monitoring, distorted perception, impaired judgement, anx, mood disturbances, poor self-control, feelings of guilt o Need to understand "fitness for interview" - Innocence as a risk factor, more likely to waive miranda, illusion of transparency, phenomenology of innocence Consequences of confessing: investigator closes case and stops investigating, overlook exculpatory evidence, prosecutors just as bad and charge suspect with highest number of offenses, set bail higher, and less likely to initiate or accept a plea, confessions can taint other evidence (like eyewitness IDs) - People less likely to discount a confession, even when judged to be coerced or presented from an informant - Trust confession because it goes against one's self-interests, fundamental attribution error (make dispositional attributions for a person's actions, taking behavior at face value while neglecting situational factors), no adept at deception detection, and police induced confessions often include content cues such as vivid details, why the crime was committed, apologies, and expressions of remorse Recommendations - Lift veil of secrecy, increase transparency = videotape all custodial interviews in their entirety with equal focus view o Deters most egregious/coercive tactics, more object record (more accurate their notetaking and allows for clearing up source attribution errors), see situational factors more - England showed a reduce in psychologically manipulative tactics without a drop in confessions so a shift toward PEACE - impose interrogation time limits - stop some variants of false evidence, though assertion vs. physical report is likely an arbitrary line to draw - minimization: allow moral and psychological forms of minimization but ban legal minimization (more research needed to distinguish pieces of various tactics) - for youth - require presence of an attorney and give special training to interrogators who deal with youths and those with mental health problems

Cleary, 2017

False confession rates among juveniles are higher If vulnerabilities associated with normative adolescent development influence youth perceptions of interrogation context or impact interrogation behave/decision making, then must consider the implications for due process and fairness even for the guilty States have diff parental involvement guidelines Interrogation - Suggestibility - Psychosocial and neurobio dev o Psychosocial maturity: involves development of adolescent judgement in socioemotional domains § Peer influence, reward sensitivity, sensation seeking, impulse control or self-reg, future orientation § Linked to structural and functional changes in brain, § Dual system models vs. connectivity o Reward sensitivity: adol are hypo sensitive, want immediate reward such as getting out of the interrogation, false confessions have cited just wanting to go home/true said getting it over with § Issue of implying leniency o Self-reg: involves capacity such as impulse control, response inhibition, resistance to peer influence, and ability to delay gratification - have shown deficits especially in emotionally salient stimuli or under threatening conditions § Interrogation related reg decline, adol likely more susceptible § Youth anx may be diff than adult, especially getting in trouble or being in unfamiliar environment without parent/support, isolation § May be under the influence of drugs/alcohol or fatigue/prolonged stress impact cog functioning o Future orientation: constellation of abilities to think and reason about the future or connect current behave with future events § even short interrogation can feel terribly long due to limits - Adol social development: Police interrogation is process of social influence led by authority that already holds a belief and wants to get a confession/coercion, Pressure may be intensified for youth, respect for authority, and obey adults o Compliance with authority: waiving rights, police have developed strategies to downplay Miranda, also adult interaction with adults are framed as requests § JDB v North Carolina: a reasonable child subject to police questioning will sometimes feel pressured to submit when a reasonable adult would feel free to go o Role of parents: parents do not reliably possess the requisite knowledge to effectively advocate for children, conflicting role as parents of protecting children vs. serving as educator and moral guide - Adol legal and procedural knowledge o Dev contribute to poor understanding, they are susceptible, propensity to false confession, and perceptions of police custody, don't understand Miranda or apply them to their own situation o Dusky v. US: defendant's effective participation in their own legal defense - New directions: consider age in Miranda/totality of the circumstances, develop an interrogative competence - Lab research: youth more likely than college students to false confess to alt key, stress reduced understanding of Miranda in college students o Need research into various interrogation techniques on adols - Field Research: School resource officers are expanding (SRO) making adol interact with police more, and referring more to juvenile justice system, this may impact custody understanding because at school - Record adol interrogations but not all developmental deficits will be observational - Also require assistance of counsel (NOT PARENT)

Yang et al., 2015

False confessions may be because of the tendency for short-term consequences to influence behavior more strongly than long-term consequences Temporal discounting: Avoid proximal consequences even though doing so increased risk of distal consequences Thus, looking at perceived uncertainty (expected utility theory) and temporal distances effect on taking short term v. long term consequences Expected Utility Theory - When people are faced with multiple courses of action they will choose the one that is linked to outcomes that yield the greatest expected utility (probability (of event occurring) x utility) - Rational decision maker will consider both the probability and utility of outcomes associated with the available courses of action and choose the one with greatest expect utility to achieve an optimal outcome o Deny guilt (short term consequences, but interrogation is rough) v. confess (long term consequences, but don't have to endure the interrogation anymore) Uncertainty - May discount distal consequences because inherent uncertainty of future events, whereas proximal is more certain Temporal distance - sus may discount distal because consequences are temporally remoter relative to the present in interrogation ones Hypos - Whether influence of proximal consequences on admissions of guilt increased as a distal consequences became less certain and more temporally remote Method - Repetitive question paradigm (20 criminal and unethical behaviors), denials paired with repetitive questions and admissions paired with distal consequence of meet with a police officer, certainty of meeting the officer was either 100% of 20% (only meeting 1/5 of people), temporal manipulation was meeting with officer soon (one week) or far (one month) Main analyses: did a manipulation check checking percent chance of meeting or when, to check that they understood the circumstance of the meeting, and showed manipulations did seem to work - No sig interaction between certainty and temporal distance o Main effect found for certainty, low certainty made more admissions o Main effect found for temporal distance, one month made more admissions than one week o Thus, participants more readily admitted guilt to avoid the proximal consequences when distal consequences were uncertain and when they were temporally more distant Discussion - More proximal a consequence the greater effect is has on confession decisions (what if add in evidence ploy) o Current research shows this is especially strong when distal consequence is uncertain or far in the future - Future suspects may perceive future punishment is improbable due to phenomenology of innocence - Temporal o Psychological connectedness: degree of overlap between one's present self and one's future selves in terms of factors such as shared memories, intentions, and beliefs § People feel closer to current self and near future self § Potentially felt more psychologically connected to the self that would meet the police officer in one week vs. one month o Perceived aversiveness: perceived utility of future event decays as its temporal distance increase, month is less averse than one week - Construal level theory: people mentally represent objects and events in more abstract terms when they are temporally, spatially, and socially distant Limitations - Small differences between temporal conditions (1 week v. 1 month) - Didn't have a measure of ground truth for the admissions so don't know effects on true v. false admissions (study?) - Sample was college students, looking at vulnerable group could have big differences - Not as coercive as interrogations in real world

Acker & Redlich 2011

False confessions or other damning admissions, including guilty pleas, were a factor in 51 of the first 225 wrongful convictions (23% - DNA cases). Types of false confessions - Voluntary: people claim responsibility for crimes they didn't commit without prompting from police, reasons - need for attention or self-punishment, guilt or delusions, perception of tangible gain, desire to protect someone - Compliant: suspect acquiesces in order to escape from a stressful situation, avoid punishment, or gain a promised or implied reward (induced to confess), act of public compliance by suspect perceiving short-term benefit for the confession outweigh the long-term cost - Internalized: innocent but vulnerable suspects, exposed to highly suggestive interrogation tactics, not only confess but come to believe they committed the crime False confessions: cascade rapidly into wrongful convictions because police will curtail further investigation, prosecutors may accept the suspect incriminating statement as strong evidence and file charges, defense attorneys think a confession = guilt so they refrain from investigating and don't prep for trial and focus on negotiating a plea, jurors give determinate weight to a defendants confession even in the face of strong evidence of innocence and convict, appellate court see confession as harmless error and affirm the conviction - so all in all it is a self-fulfilling prophecy Voluntariness Brown v. Mississippi: 14th amendment due process clause prohibits state criminal courts from admitting into evidence confessions shown to have been extorted by officers of the state by brutality and violence, must be voluntary Rogers v. Richmond: involuntariness standard, test requiring careful attention to the totality of the circumstances surrounding a confession, including both the suspect's characteristics (dispositional) and the police interrogation tactics (contextual/conditional). - Though voluntariness is vaguely defined Colorado v. Connelly: restricts the application of the term involuntary to those confessions observed by police coercion. Confessions by mentally ill individuals or by persons coerced by parties other than police are now considered voluntary Wilson v. Lawrence County In the interest of Jerrell C.J.: considered Jerrell's personal characteristics (such as youth, education/intelligence, prior experience with police) and the police tactics such as denying his ability to talk with his parents - this was considered strong evidence of coercion so confession wasn't voluntary - didn't adopt a rule for youth confessions though - Social scientists have determined characteristics that typify juveniles and persons with mental impairment, such as suggestibility, the tendency to obey authority, impulsivity, and deficiencies in abstract thinking, are the same characteristics that serve to increase the risk o Lab study demonstrated that minors between 12-16 were more likely than young adults 18-24 to take responsibility for an act they didn't commit In Miranda v. Arizona: chief justice recognized the same psychological techniques employed by police to get confessions from the guilty risk inducing false confessions from innocent Lincoln v. State: false evidence ploy used, argued it was psychological coercion, due to totality of the circumstances deception/false evidence ploys alone don't equal involuntary confessions - State v. patton: made a distinction between police orally misrepresenting facts and their fabricating scientific reports or other physical evidence as a poly to induce suspects to confess (look this up, could do study with cheating paradigm and diff kinds of ploys) Deception: interrogations are conducted when suspect is already presumed guilty, deception detection techniques are unreliable - Kassin and Gudjonsson: interrogation process in three stages, 1. Custody and isolation, 2. Confrontation, 3. Minimization and interrogation objective is to obtain a confession does not obtain truth which facilitates and reinforces tunnel vision and confirmation bias Burden of proof: in Lego v. Twomey argued that due process requires the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a confession was given voluntarily to be admissible, but the court disagreed - saying the heightened standard of proof is not necessary because already protected by the standard (like at trial) - State v. Lawrence: having state prove voluntariness of a confession by a preponderance of evidence instead of beyond a reasonable doubt is fine, o dissent: cost of higher burden is does not outweigh the benefit to society, also mentions that juries aren't good at discriminating between reliable and unreliable confessions (81% of false confessors whose cases went to jury/judge trial were convicted despite being later proven innocent) o study found students performed better than police on IDing true/false confessors (though both bad) o false confessions have been found to have indicators of reliability and veracity, credible statements of remorse, motivation, and apologies - because pre-scripted by police o Garret examined 34 false confessions, and all had contamination from some source o Students have been found to know false confessions happen but not think it would happen to them, misconceptions play a part and are likely contributing to juror decisions Ross v. State (Miranda violations and false confessions): custody for the purposes of Miranda depend on how a reasonable person in the suspects situation would perceive his circumstances, court analyzed - manner in which police summoned the suspect for questioning, the purpose, place and manner of the interrogation, the extent to which the suspect is confronted with evidence of guilt, and whether the suspect is informed that they are free to leave, delaying Miranda on purpose minimizes and downplays the rights mentioned in Miranda and may impact the understanding of the rights Stephan v. State - specific for Alaska: unexcused failure to record an interrogation conducted in places of detention violates a suspects due process and recording protects the publics interest in honest and effective law enforcement (1st state to require a recording) - Places that record tend to positively embrace the practice, place that don't cite disadvantages such as suspects claming up, jurors not understanding or being shocked by the video, logistical issues, increased likelihood confessions will be suppressed - Suggestion is also to have cameras equally showing the suspect and detective as confession voluntariness perceptions are compromised with only suspect Vent v. State (expert witnesses): (mentioned daubert standard), expert wasn't allowed because testimony was considered to amounting to nothing more than common sense - Study found that after reading expert testimony, conviction rates by participants dropped 15 percentage points - Misconceptions may be pervasive when interrogation isn't video recorded, and expert testimony may be especially helpful (Study?)

Houston et al., 2014

Goal: provide review theoretical approaches to understanding confessions and describe the variety of internal and external pressures that individuals may experience. Additionally describe field work and experimental studies. Hypothesis: guilty driven to confess by perceptions of evidence against them and internalized feelings of guilt, accountability, and responsibility. False confessions driven by perceptions of potential consequences of confessing and social pressure to comply Field research: external validity but no ground truth so low internal validity Experimental: high internal low external - Together can achieve convergent validity Describes Alt key paradigm: all participants are innocent and could be an accident (low ecological validity) - Youth more likely to confess - Compliant personality and minimization more likely to confess Russano cheating paradigm: higher psychological realism, gets true and false confessions, allows for diagnosticity - Direct and implying of leniency - Investigator bias = thought guilty so employed more aggressive and manipulative tactics - Manipulating consequences of confessing increased innocent confessions - Info more diag than accusatorial Theories - Internal accountability models: when one has transgressed against a societal or moral norm, a deep-seated internal feeling of guilt is experienced, leads to anx and discomfort and resulting in seeking authority to confess/alleviate o Nonconscious motivation - Decision-making models: cost-benefit ratio, consider available actions and their proximate and distal consequences/benefits, and the probability of each occurring. Thus, determine utility of each action and confess or not based on that info o Suspect subjective perception of the situation, may be manipulated by interrogator like their perception of evidence/consequences - Anxiety and Social pressure: desire to escape or end interrogation, tactics increase discomfort of being deceptive (accusatorial) o Internal accountability model: guilty naturally feel guilt but this model anx and social pressure come from interrogation tactics being applied - Cognitive Behavioral model: relationship between antecedents (social isolation, emo distress, situational factors) and consequences (short and longterm), manipulated by interrogator Theory testing - Surveys: external mechanisms of pressure, intimidation, and fear of consequences for not confessiong, leniency = false, true = internal pressures like guilt and evidence against them - Experiment: cheating paradigm, found true associated with internal motivations (resolve guilt, shame, accountability) and false with external (social pressure) - Perceptions of consequences for both, strength of evidence more for true, but presentation of evidence can be manipulated to effect false as well Meta-analysis of studies done by their lab, all using cheating paradigm - Horgan et al 2012: psychologically manipulated perception of consequences sig less diag - Meissner et al 2011: two experiments, info gathering more diag - Narchet et al 2011: interrogator perception of guilt elicit more false c and engaged in behavioral confirmation, info gathering reduced - Russano et al 2005a: explicit and implied reduce diag - Russano et al 2005b: written confession statement (false evidence), no sig effect - Results of meta-analysis o False confessions: consideration of consequences of confessing (small effect), perceptions of external social pressure (robust effect) o True confessions: sig association with consequences (somewhat robust), affect (like feelings of stress/worry/anx, small effect), evidence against them (small effect), and guilt (robust effect). Discussion - Does show some differences in external and internal motivations - Cog behavioral theory support, confess is motivated by a relationship between factors rather than any one in isolation - Recommend info gathering: highlight internal mechanisms promoting true confess while reducing external pressures associated with false confess

Meissner et al., 2017

HIG: High value detainee interrogation group Background - US history with "enhanced interrogation" - Interrogations have historically been drawn from customary knowledge practices developed over time through experience, handed down, and ultimately codified in manuals/policies - Third degree, then reformed to psychological manipulation - Dr. Robert Fein report Educing Information: found US devoid of scientific eval or validity and recommended US gov initiate a program of research to develop effective, evidence-based approaches to meet ethical and legal standards - Obama authorized creation of the HIG August 2009: comprised of personnel from FBI, DIA, CIA, and other US intelligence agencies as necessary o Aim is to develop robust evidence-based perspective on effective methods of interrogation that are legally and ethically sound - Criminal v. HUMINT: obtain confession as evidence for prosecution v. collect information related to a national security investigation - HIG research addresses: cooperation, elicitation of information, strategic use of info or evidence, assessment of credibility, as well as culture and language, and research to practice Psychology of interrogations and confessions - Accusatorial approach: guilt presumptive and confession focused, establish control and attempts at deception detection o Isolate, confront/exaggerate consequences of alleged act, downplay consequences associated with confessing o These tactics have a powerful influence on getting confessions, but sometimes dubious in diagnostic value § Min, max, and false evidence ploys increase true and false confessions § Also must consider suspects individual characteristics: like suggestibility, vulnerable groups: mental illness, intellectual disability, juveniles § Thus, England implemented noncoercive PEACE model, field studies suggesting info gathering increases likelihood of confession and the confessions diagnosticity Psychology of interviewing cooperative subject - Info gathering: focus on open ended, nonsuggestive questions, and memory enhancing techniques o Suggestive questioning can lead to contamination and misinformation, create false memories o Common elements of rapport: clear description of rules and expectations, open ended questions, willingness to explore an alternative hypothesis o CI: supports and enhances retrieval - uses context reinstatement, sketching, multiple retrieval opportunities, and use of mnemonic approaches like reverse order or perspective taking, getting increased info and keeping accuracy § Truth tellers talk more and give more details than liars, truth teller stories are more logical and plausible, and TTs are more immediate in answering § DD is at chance (54%) so using these verbal cues could be better Taxonomy of interrogation techniques - Rapport and relationship building (most endorsed), context manipulation, emo provocation, confrontation/competition (least effective), collaboration, presentation of evidence Accusatorial v. information gathering - Minimization: implying leniency, maximization: inducing fear of harsher punishment, increase likelihood of false confession o False confessions more likely when high social pressure to confess and manipulating consequences v. info gathering increasing feelings of guilt, responsibility, or remorse to get true confessions - Info gathering: increase info and admissions from guilty, increase diagnosticity and reduce likelihood of false confessions Rapport - 3 components: mutual attention, positivity, coordination - Another model's tactics for developing: immediacy behaviors (eye contact), active listening, mimicry, contrasting emos, disclosing personal info, establishing common ground, frequency of contact - Observing rapport based interpersonal techniques (ORBIT): use motivational interviewing and interpersonal behavior to create a collaborative environment - Emotional approach: used positive or negative approaches, vs direct approach, both emos were better at eliciting details but positive reduced anxiety and increased perceived rapport - Conceptual priming: has been shown to increase info disclosed and dimmish depending on what is used to prime, priming attachment v. insecure increased info, adding openness cues to the room increased info disclosure - CI: utility, increased critical info, increased info with use of a model statement Strategic use of evidence - Used to elicit inconsistencies - Must be specific in manner evidence is disclosed - SUE: Seeks to initially gain cooperation and get a narrative, then evidence can be used to challenge the narrative o Initially withhold evidence, then present it in a gradually narrowing manner so sus is forced to attune their story to account for these details - Scharff technique: presenting known info upfront may encourage disclosure, demonstrate knowledge of the case then subtly elicit additional information without interviewee realizing o Tactics: friendly approach, not pressing for info, creating illusion of knowing it all, use confirmations/disconfirmations, ignore new info that is brought up o Interviewee underestimates amount of new info revealed Cog model of deception detection - Liars adopt strategies that allow them to remain close to truth telling - BUT lying involves certain distinct features such as making up a story, avoiding checkable facts, and remaining consistent with earlier statements while truth draws on memory - So, o impose cognitive load such as reverse order o Liars will report fewer details than TTs so have them listen to a model statement that requires them to increase their level of detail o Liars may only prepare answers to questions they expect to be asked, so use combo of anticipated and unanticipated questions (TT provide based on memory, L have to generate something plausible) Culture and Language - IDing tactics effective across cultures and in the context of an interpreter - Have found few differences in deception detection performance o Using a secondary language can increase cognitive load, making one perceived as liar but not - Interpreters diminish info elicited and lessen prevalence of cognitive cues, their presence doesn't influence development of rapport Research to Practice CI, SUE, Scharff, ORBIT found to be effective Cog lie detection: increased ability to detect deception and the effective and appropriate use of cog based questioning Conclusion - Need to understand rapport disentangled from related constructs - Need further research in subtly elicitation, and how to collect info from a source trying to mask the depth of their knowledge - Further research into truth/lying by same person, or those who embed lie in truth (like about actual people they know) - Other factors: interviews conducted overtime may require promoting continued relationships, evaluate time critical interviews, evaluate interviewers naturalistic decision making during an interrogation

Evans et al., 2010

HUMINT seek info used for national security improvement or to further national interests, regular interrogation wants confession Goal of paper: compare and contrast the processes, methods, and goals of interrogations in criminal and intelligence settings and ID gaps Pg. 219 defines an interrogation 3 stages of interrogation: preinterrogation (eval source), interrogation, and post interrogation (credibility assessment) Both crim and intel interrogations occur before judicial determination of guilt Threshold for ensure interrogation of guilty/info holding sources is likely not stringent enough, often based on a gut impression, bias effecting crim and intel likely Initial assessment of sources - General info and level of cooperation - Crim = behavioral analysis interview in REID - nonaccusatorial preinterrogation could likely benefit in crim and intel Planning and preparation phase: how the interrogation should proceed, collect all available info and goals of the questioning Operational accord/interrogation methods - Operational accord: interrogator-interviewee relationship marked by a constructive degree of conformity by interviewee and/or mutual affinity between the two o Rapport o Compliance/coercion, also cause concern in HUMIT context questioning Interview - Both are a managed exchange of information and a managed relationship - Crim emphasize attributing responsibility, HUMINT want to gain information - HUMINT can have added issues with cultural and linguistic differences, and inclusion of an interpreter Post interrogation - Confession is confirmatory in nature during evaluation - lack of further investigation after, often right after an event occurs - HUMINT post interrogation appraisal is more common, may be seeking info that is significantly dated or relate to someone unimportant to the source Adjudication - Crim: questioned further, released, held, prosecuted - Intel: strategic consequence of releasing a detainee, produce info for federal or military court - so can be similar to crim Research from crim relating to intel - Need high diagnosticity of info - Russano cheating paradigm: studies show minimization and other accuse methods are bad whereas info gathering is more diagnostic - Deception detection research: people are only slightly better than chance with trained investigators not performing any better, cognitive and story-based cues have been found to be more effective o Truth tellers more inconsistent in their story than liars and tell with more variation Other - Rapport is important, silence sometimes works, consider the culture - Self disclosure - person As disclosure will effect person B, more = more from B, especially with certain individual characteristics likely high self-monitors - Social norms: descriptive (groups perception of what is done in a situation) and injunctive (groups perception of what is approved or disapproved of in the culture) - Persuasion theories: persuade interviewees to divulge info that goes against self interests, some techniques can even work outside someone's awareness, also social influence - Negotiation research: individualists vs. cooperators, punitive capability - degree to which an individual can adversely affect an opposing party's outcomes, factors that support effective negotiation = perspective taking and empathy Further research - Variety of tactics that make up minimization and when they are best used/worst - Interpreter effect on diagnostic value of interrogative approaches - Aspects of context serve as priming cues - HUMINT metrics to use: diagnostic value of info obtained, high validity and usefulness - How to move from lab setting to operational or field setting - Investigator training Both have a risk for the interviewee for talking (crim = jail or HUMINT being found out for talking - though this is similar for informants in crim context) Not in paper: The laws that apply in HUMINT are different, like no Miranda in the other countries, prisoner of war/intelligence asset - differences in level of protection - Also, HUMIT uses Army Field Manual (has about 19 different techniques, some similar to Reid, not much research on these techniques) vs. Crim uses Reid - HUMINT has interrogator, an analyst, and interpreter in the room, crim = maybe 2 detectives involved but likely it

Lassiter & Meissner, 2010

Illusory causation: factors that may not be truly causing a person's behavior have been shown to be perceived as causal simply because they are more visually prominent or salient to observers - Suspect admissions could be seen as voluntary rather than because of interrogator pressure, camera perspective bias o Suspect focus = most voluntary, equal = less voluntary, interrogator = least voluntary o Has been found in lay persons, judges, and police (but these were simulated confessions not real, so have to adjust to be more realistic) - For a real confession video o Participants who evaled suspect focus judged it to be more voluntary than those in the transcript or audio only condition, but equal focus was same as transcript or audio o When content the same: participants viewed suspect focus as more voluntary and guilty than the interrogator focus Fundamental attribution error: favor dispositional explanation over situational, but does this effect accuracy (judgements that match the facts of the case) - Simulated confession: Participants judged suspect as less likely to be guilty and less voluntary confessing in interrogator focus than in suspect or equal focus - Real confession: observers faired no better than chance, interrogator focus has relatively greater accuracy than equal and equal focus was better than suspect o Adding in audio only and transcript, as well as suspect face or body only views § Found that interrogator focus produced greater accuracy than suspect face or suspect focus but was comparable to suspect body, audio only, and transcript - Adding in an explicit threat (illegal): conviction rate lower for versions with direct threat, but camera format still exerted an effect - interrogator focus and transcript lowest, followed by equal focus, and highest conviction in suspect - Dual focus study (split screen), viewing both faces vs equal focus that was the profile of each: suspect focus = most guilt/voluntary, dual comparable to equal and audio only o Second study on accuracy: failed to confirm an advantage for dual, finding it comparable to suspect and suspect face focuses Policy recommendations - Record in entirety, equal focus or interrogator only focus (don't do dual) - If already filmed from suspect focus, translate into transcript for trial Though videotapes are considered an objective record, clearly different people see different things

Evans et al., 2013

Key distinction between police interrogation and HUMNIT context is outcome metric: confession vs. actionable information, and HUMINT can be a high value detainee involved in a crime or someone who isn't directly involved but has information This study will compare accusatorial and info gathering approaches in a HUMINT relevant paradigm, thinking info gathering will be better Method - Info vs. accuse, and guilt vs innocence - Adapted the cheating paradigm, Guilty: confederate had a cheat sheet provided by a friend who had previously attended the study and called friend with questions not on the cheat sheet, also took down notes for friend who would be taking the study later, Innocent: called friend to complain about the study and mentioned that a friend would be taking the study later o Interrogator said too many answers were correct/suspicious o So it had past, present, and future sheeting - Accusatorial script: maximizing and fear-based approaches and minimizing approaches - Info gathering: used elements of the CI (free recall) asked some follow up questions - THEN: participants watch videos of these interviews without knowing guilt and asked about pressure on interviewee and behaviors of the interviewee Results - Guilty reported more details than innocent - Info gathering reported more details than accuse - Info spent more time talking than accuse - Info led to more admissions o Guilty made more admissions in info than in accuse - Coded for whether participant mentioned: cheat sheet, other participant receiving answers, other participant copying o Overall, 78% mentioned the cheat sheet, 59% receiving answers, 8% copying - Observational stage o Sig main effect for culpability and interrogation approach o Interaction § Innocent interviewees rated as more confident § Guilty as more nervous § Nervousness rating of innocent across both interrogation approaches was sig, innocent more nervous in accuse than info (self-fulfilling prophecy) § Greater pressure on innocent interviewee in accuse than info, same for guilt but effect was smaller o No false confessions in this study: no one was told how the cheating happened (answer you are looking for) so they don't give that answer, have to suggest to get the false confession - for lab based one Discussion - Pattern suggests different mechanisms at work for guilt vs. innocent o Anx from guilty transgression vs. from the interview itself - Future research should modify the paradigm to investigate the provision of false information - Need more applicable scenarios with more representative samples

Scherr et al., 2018

Literature review: Phenomenology of innocence: innocence is a risk factor for suspects waiving their interrogation rights, believe they have nothing to hide and the truth will set them free - Exhibit lower physiological reactivity and less stress, behaviorally: higher likelihood of waiving, willingness to consistently divulge information (guilty: disclosure depends on how they perceive that the interrogator is well-informed about relevant information) - Innocents also motivated by factors such as belief in a just world (lower levels = higher likelihood of complying with social pressures) Acquiescence bias: mindless tendency to agree and comply, accede to interrogators common ploys - Critically thinking about all of the requests one receives on a daily basis would be nearly impossible because of the time and cognitive resource demands. To compensate, people tend to mindlessly agree in most situations. - Especially in affirming requests of "yes" vs. objecting with "no" - Reasons: avoid being disliked, protect self-image, socially desirably responding vs. causing conflict, low effort - In preinterrogation contexts, powerful number of social influences that exist in these environments such as believing waiving is expected and typical, feature symbols of authority and legitimacy, high stress A majority of suspects forgo their rights, with innocents especially likely to offer waivers Guilty and innocent individuals likely exploit distinct decision-making strategies (Study idea?) Acquiescence hypothesis - predicts that guilty individuals will sign both forms at similar rates and innocent individuals will also sign both forms at similar rates Knowing hypothesis - as innocent suspects become increasingly cognizant of their situation, they will be more likely to sign the waiver form than the invoke form - indicating the phenomenology of innocence can override powerful cognitive heuristics like the Acquiescence bias Method - Participants & Design (N = 178 after 7 dropped) o Predominantly white, female, avg. age 19, college undergraduates o 2 (status: innocent vs guilty) x 2 (rights form: waive vs. invoke) between subjects design o All participants were accused of wrongdoing (Russano cheating paradigm), lead to believe they would meet with the lead professor and told they could have a student advocate with them, participants were provided a waive or invoke form and to mirror social influence tactics in naturalistic pre-interrogations participants were told the form wasn't important and was a formality o Decision to sign the form or not was the main dependent variable - Materials o history of arrests o rights forms: identical in length with changed word of waive or invoke and they provide a signature o knowing assessment: four questions to assess participants ability to know and appreciate their decisions and coding summed out of 6 § define waive or invoke § articulate what the rights form they were administered comprised (coded for mentioning student advocate and waive/invoke) § identify the form given (nothing, waive, invoke) § recall what they were told about the form (nothing, that it was important, or formality/unimportant) o stress assessment - for during accusation, 7 questions on a seven-point Likert scale, high values = more stress o suspicion check o signature decision rational: asked why they did or didn't sign and were coded relating to Acquiescence, innocence, guilt, or good reason - Procedure: participant and confederate given consent, then individual and team logic problems and told to work alone on individual and together on team. Status manipulation (guilt/innocence) occurred while working on the logic problems - innocent worked alone and followed the rule and in guilty the confederate solicited help, then experimenter "graded" the problems, experimenter then accused the participant of cheating and informed they will meet with the main professor and could have a student representative with them, then another individual brought in the waive/invoke form and gave the formality/unimportant instruction, then they did the remaining questionnaires Results Main: - Innocent participants reported less stress - Maximum likelihood regression where participants signature decisions were regressed on status, rights form, and participants degree of knowing: participants degree of knowing was associated with signature decision o Three-way interaction of status, rights form, and knowing on signature decision § Unknowing innocent participants signature decisions didn't differ depending on whether they were given waive or invoke form (supports Acquiescence hypothesis) § Unknowing guilty participants signature decisions didn't differ depending on whether they were given waive or invoke form (supports Acquiescence hypothesis) § Innocents characterized as knowing were more likely to sign the waive form than invoke form (supports knowing hypothesis) § Guilty characterized as knowing were less likely to sign the waive form than invoke form (mindful decisions in their best interest) Exploratory: - Signature decision rational: o Acquiescence responses were most frequently cited explanations among unknowing innocent (more often than knowing innocents - but not significantly) o Innocent related responses were most frequently cited explanations among knowing innocents (more often than unknowing innocents - but not significantly) o Unknowing guilty participants cited acquiescence most often and significantly more often than their knowing counterparts o Valid responses were most frequently cited explanations among knowing guilty participants and significantly more than their unknowing counterparts Discussion - Two factors that may motivate phenomenology of innocence: just world beliefs (assume the world is a fair place and people get what they deserve) and illusion of transparency (people's tendency to overestimate how apparent their internal states are to others, research has shown that innocent individuals believe that their innocence is more apparent relative to how obvious guilty individuals believe their status is to interrogators, thus questioning is harmless and could be advantageous) - Lacking safeguard: knowing guilty individuals made mindful decisions in their best self-interests also making them refrain from offering info and only disclosing information to the extent that they believe interrogators have evidence against them; Miranda isn't effectively fulfilling their intended function; because interrogators have a difficult time telling innocent from guilty - innocents tendency to waive their rights sets them on trajectories to not be aided by legal counsel and be exposed to police intimidation during the interrogation o Recommendations: remove all manipulative and coercive strategies from pre-interrogation process - this study suggests doing this would benefit unknowing suspects because not confronted with tactics capitalizing on their compliance and benefits knowing innocents because trivializing can reinforce idea that talking with interrogator could be beneficial (waiver rates for innocents have been shown to drop without manipulating techniques); explicitly inform all suspects of option to waive or invoke - could give suspects awareness vs. mindlessness - been shown to drop innocents tendency to waive their rights Limitations: homogenous college undergraduate sample, likely to not have experienced same things as a naturalistic suspect/pre-interrogations, magnitude of effects found may be different in real world as suspects see more stress and coercion and in turn more likely to acquiescence Future study could manipulate level of knowingness by potentially varying cognitive load of participants

Madon et al., 2017

Looking at suspect resistance to interrogation pressure through the lens of a stress and coping framework - Police interrogation initially mobilizes suspects to resist interrogative influence in a manner akin to fight or flight, but subsequently erodes their resistance through a process of self-regulatory decline as they continue to cope - biphasic process: mobilization (study 1) and self-regulatory decline (study 2) Stress and coping - Stress signals threat and mobilizes response - Emotional arousal may narrow attention - Wises coping strategy might be to prolong the experience of stress in service of one's long-term goals o But repeatedly overriding the impulse requires self-control which requires resources and can lead to decline, thus leading to passivity and impaired performance on subsequent acts that require self-control Biphasic process in interrogation - Early questions is initial threat that mobilizes to cope with interrogation demands effecting them physiologically, cognitively, emotionally, and behaviorally to facilitates suspects resistance to the pressures - Self-regulatory decline: in subsequent phases of the interrogation after overriding the impulse get fatigue, cog impairment, and emotional distress that makes them vulnerable to the pressures o Result in inconsistencies, unrestrained nonverbal behaviors, overwhelmed by cog demands associated with lying leading to self-incrimination, succumbing to misinformation or suggestive questioning Using the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (GSS) as a measure of interrogative suggestibility Experiment 1: initial confrontation stage of questioning (mobilization), using cheating paradigm (accused v. not) Experiment 2: used Madon repeated questioning paradigm Suggestibility with GSS: 3 scores (yield 1- prior to the interpersonal pressure/internalization measure, yield 2, shift) y2 and shirt are after, show compliance and are more susceptible to the psychological response to interrogation pressures - Yields were calculated by summing the number of times participants gave the suggested response - Shift: summing the number of times that participants gave a different answer to the same question across the 2 phases Results experiment 1 - The accusation caused stress related physiological reactivity indicative of mobilization o Innocent people shown less physiological reactivity than guilty - may not feel threatened by the police - Guilty participants showed more suggestibility at yield 1 o Guilt didn't influence yield 2 - Accusation didn't influence yield 1 but did at yield 2 and shift o Accused showed less suggestibility at both o Innocents were similarly resistant - ACT scores predicted lower suggestibility for all three (measure of intelligence) - No effect for memory Discussion - Experiment 1 supported mobilization with accusation phase and its resistance to suggestibility (no diff guilty or innocent) Results Experiment 2: used repetitive question paradigm, either answered the repetitive question for depletion and some didn't for no depletion - Depletion condition showed greater fatigue, and lower mood - Depletion didn't effect yield 1, but did influence yield 2 and shift o Depleting had more suggestibility at 2 and shift - Memory didn't effect anything again - This supports the decline posited General discussion - Influence of suggestibility that goes beyond that attributable to individual differences - Can't address how long someone is capable of resisting pressure, also actual interrogation may result in greater mobilization o Most interrogations are less than 2 hours, so may be biggest problem for really long, but less than 2 hours you may be fine - Some vulnerabilities may quicken the decline - They saw decline but no self-regulatory failure (fatigue and decline occurred, not giving up I guess)

Meissner et al., 2014

Meta-analysis on articles assessing influence of accusatorial v. info gathering methods to get true and false confessions, studies were either observational (field) or experimental (lab) - Goal: to eval diagnostic value of info gathering or accusatorial confessions - Diagnostic: produce a higher ratio of true to false confessions Accusatorial: establish control and psychological manipulation, goal of confession, uses anxiety based cures Info gather: rapport, direct and positive confrontation, goal of info, uses cognitive based cues (it gives more specifics about each but this has been covered in other articles) Method - Field studies o Intervention: actual law enforcement or military setting, observational or analysis of archival records o Outcomes: analysis of confessions o Population: suspects - Lab setting o Intervention: interviewing approach (info, accuse, control/direct questioning) o Outcome: proportion of true and false confessions, outcomes for guilty, innocent, or both o Population: mock suspects - Search strategy: searched databases, used key words, reviewed references sections of notable comprehensive reviews, contacted researchers, listserves, and gov agencies - Coding: for eligibility, then details of the study o Field: purpose, methods, characteristics of those observed, outcomes § 5 deemed eligible o Exper: method and manipulation, sample size, outcomes § 12 deemed eligible Field studies: 3 in UK, 1 Canada, 1 US - King and Snook 2009: 44 interrogations, reid technique, 50% suspects confessed, looked at Leo's 25 tactics - Leo 1996: 122 interrogations live 60 video, 64% confessed, looked at 25 tactics used - Pearse et al 1998: diffs in psychological vulnerabilities between those who did and didn't confess, coded for 3 interview tactics, UK and 160 suspects, 58% of cases had confessions, 50% for vulnerable and 60% for non - Soukara et al 2009: 80 audiotapes, looked at 17 tactics, UK, 31 of 80 confessed - Walsh and Bull 2010: social security fraud, 142 british suspects, looking at if interview was above at or below PEACE and the confession outcomes Lab: 11 US, 1 UK, 1 study looked at all 3, 1 examined info gathering, 10 contrasted control and accusatorial, 6 on true and false, 6 only on false, 11 studies used variations of Kassin and Kiechel (alt key) or russano cheating paradigm and 11 used undergrads - Billings et al 2007: how reinforcement influenced childrens willingness to falsely confess - Blair 2007: used Kassin and Kichel, and presented false evidence or min/max approach, no diffs found - Cole et al 2005: used Kassin and Kichel but breaking lamp not alt key because less ambiguous, got no false confessions - Hill et al 2008: self-selected into innocent or guilty, then asked guilty presumptive or neutral questions - no effect of interview style for true or false confessions - Kassin and Kiechel 1996: alt key, false evidence v. no false evidence - Meissner et al 2011: Russano paradigm, compared info v. accuse and control, info reduced likelihood of false confessions and increased likelihood of true confessions - Narchet et al 2011: studied role of interrogator perceptions of guilt and innocence, russano paradigm, looked at both info and accuse methods finding info slightly reduced false confessions - Newring and O'Donohue 2008: Kassin and Kichel, control v. reid, main outcome was false confessions - Perillo and Kassin 2011: Kassin and Kichel, looking at bluff technique (see above outline) - Redlich and Goodman 2003: Kassin and Kichel with juveniles 12-13, 15-16, in addition to college sample, outcome was false confession - Russano et al 2005a: cheating paradigm study, interviewed using minimization, deal of leniency, or both, or neither, ration of true to false C decreased with use of accuse methods - Russano et al 2005b: same paradigm as a but presented false evidence, guilty more likely to confess but no effect of false evidence Results - Field: no diag value because no ground truth o 3 articles assessed accusatorial and confessions, found to be associated with large and sig increase in confession rate o Two articles assessed info, found associated with large and sig increase in confession rates o 3 articles assessed questioning that could fall into either, no sig relationship - Lab o Direct q vs. accusatorial: accusatorial yielded sig increase in both true and false confessions, no sig difference on if used K & K or Russano paradigms o Direct q vs. info: 2 studies, info gathering yielded a greater frequency of true confessions but didn't sig influence false confessions o Accusatorial v. info v. direct: 3 studies, info gathering produced sig greater frequency of true confessions, while also significantly reducing false confessions compared to accusatorial o THUS - info gathering considered to be more diagnostic Discussion - Studies sparse, especially info gathering with true confessions (study?) - Great need for quasi experimental methods to be tried, such as using CI, telling suspects they are being recorded, or variables found in these studies - Recommends info gathering approach

Surmon-Böhr et al., 2020

Motivational interviewing: person centered, using client's own knowledge and expertise about themselves, goal-directive where therapist intentionally targets client's ambivalence about behavioral change - Acknowledges persons freedom of choice, diminishes defensiveness - Article looking at whether MI could be used by law enforcement with high value detainees Lit review - Half of offenders have claimed they were undecided about whether to confess before the interview - Interviewer behavior can effect confession decisions, principles of reactance (stop talking if pressured) - MI is a macrolevel approach, creating an atmosphere of empathy, partnership and honors autonomy, focus on reflective listening, summarizing, rolling with resistance (avoid argumentation/avoid reactance - inclination to do the opposite of what someone tells you to do), and developing discrepancies o ORBIT looks at these 5 for motivational interviewing: Autonomy, empathy, acceptance, evocation (ask questions that get at the heart/motivations of things, but not pushy), adaptation - goes with rolling with resistance - Strength of evidence highly influences detainee decision to talk o How and when it is presented effects cooperation Current paper looking at MI vs. MIIC (MI inconsistent) behavior - MI thought to yield more information Method - Used ORBIT coding framework o Assess rapport based skills o Detainee engagement rating (DER) o Yield of significant information gathered in the interview § Capability, opportunity, motive, PLAT (people, locations, actions, or timings) - Data: 2 sets of interview tapes (2004-2010 and 2012-2017 sets), combined 804 recordings of 75 detainees. Results: MI skills encouraged engagement, MIIC discouraged engagement - Detainee engagement rating associated with interview yield - Strong pos association between MI and DER - Global MI had sig indirect effect on yield, mediated by DER - Sig negative association between MIIC and DER - Sig neg indirect effect on DER, mediated by MI - Neg indirect effect of MIIC on interview yield mediated by reduced DER - Sig pos association between MIC and global MI skill - Sig pos indirect effect on DER mediated by global MI skill Discussion - MI skills encourage engagement, better than MIIC o Found regardless of cooperation level, so those who may be previously willing to talk chose not to during interview MIIC (which caused disengagement and stop talking) o Shows HVD contemplate engagement during interviews o More of a search for the truth approach/neutral o Develop discrepancies still may cause disengagement but could be beneficial for innocents - Think the same finding would be found in other suspect populations (here was HVD)

Gudjonnson, 2003

Psychological vulnerability: psychological characteristics or mental states which render a suspect prone, in certain circumstances, to providing information which is inaccurate, unreliable, or misleading Four groups of PVs: mental disorders, abnormal mental states, cognitive functioning, personality traits Mental disorders: person who suffers from a diagnosable psychiatric problem, including mental illness, learning disability, or personality disorder - Mental illness has perceptions, cognitions, emotions, judgements, and self-control adversely affected relating to misleading information providing - Breakdown in reality monitoring: impairs patient's ability to differentiate facts from fantasy (can happen without mental illness) - Depressive illness can cause one to ruminate and implicate themselves falsely, relieving feelings of free-floating guilt temporarily Learning disability: impair ability to give a detailed and coherent account of events to police - Can be confused when questioned, problems understanding the questions and articulating answers, not fully appreciate implications and consequences of their answers, be easily intimidated, don't understand their legal rights, acquiesce and suggestible. o Difficulty with free recall (but cog interview has been successfully used), but influenced by leading questions, confabulate, more readily make false confessions Abnormal mental states: no history of mental disorder - Phobic symptoms, panic attacks, extreme fear of being locked up, uncertainties over current predicament, state of bereavement, drug and alcohol intox or withdrawal, medical complaints o Makes them vulnerable to giving unreliable statements because of feelings of guilt and subjective distress Intellectual abilities - Limits can effect ability to understand questions, articulate answers, and appreciate implications of their answers - Many detainees have low intelligence so common to interrogate - Majority of appellants whose convictions were overturned due to unreliable confessions have borderline or low intelligence Personality characteristics - Suggestibility, compliance, and acquiescence - Extreme confabulation found in cases of personality disorders - Mental disorders such as learning disabilities and severe depression have impaired memory recall Learning disability as a vulnerability - 3 criteria (in England): significant impairment of intellectual functioning, social functioning, and age of onset before (but could be from cerebral trauma) - Adaptive/social functioning: ability of person to look after themselves day to day and adapt within social community, measured with direct observation and info from family - In America, majority of defendants with history of learning disability don't get pretrial evaluations, so only most severe get IDed o Police may be unaware of how to ID disability (young officers worse than experienced officers) o Clinical impressions by professionals can be misleading (make statements but only spent 5 minutes with person) o Defendants with disability may not tell officers because they don't realize they should or see the info as private/personal, deliberately try to cover it up o IQ: professionals differ on what upper level should be, standard error of measurement - variations in scores when tested at different times - can be a big swing § Certain subtests may be more relevant to legal context o Paper on one's rights can put someone with learning disability at disadvantage and reading out loud is problematic as fail to encode, just acquiesce/suggestible (learning disability person likely to answer yes/no with affirmative) § But normal intelligent people can be extremely suggestible so should be assessed rather than assumed on the basis of IQ score (also consider situational factors increasing suggestibility) o Intellectually disabled found that fewer than normal participants though suspect would be remanded to custody until trial, and allowed to go how after confessing to murder, and that interrogator would believe suspect if retracted a confessing, and that suspect needed legal advice, and were more likely to say no that legal advice was needed for innocent person § Impaired capacity to make rational decision making Social functioning scale: problems are it is time consuming, subjects tested are old, correlations to intelligence tests are low, subjective, not clear how these relate to legal issues

Miller et al., 2018

Purpose: empirically evaluate the degree to which self-reported, contemporary interrogation and interviewing practices vary among practitioners from countries with divergent approaches to questioning suspects, specifically US, Canada, several European countries, Australia, and New Zealand Background - Kelly et al Taxonomy of interrogations o Macro level: accusatorial - guilt presumptive using confrontational strategies and psych manipulation to get confessions, discusses Reid methods, and Canada's Mr. Big technique (undercover cop befriends suspect in prison to get confession), OR information gathering approach where goal is the truth, European countries, Australia and New Zealand have moved to this approach based on scientific principles to establish rapport and get info § Info gather is more open ended, such as PEACE, and recommend video recording, lists other variations of PEACE in other countries o They will examine the interrogation/interviewing as a continuum between these two approaches o Micro level: individual tactics o Meso level: 6 interrogation domains containing the individual tactics § Rapport and relationship building: working relationship § Context manipulation: alter physical space § Emotion provocation: target suspects emotions like moral rationalization § Confrontation/competition: zero-sum game between interrogator and interviewee where interrogator is meant to win, includes emphasizing authority or making direct accusations § Collaboration: equal partners to achieve mutually beneficial goal § Presentation of evidence: actual or false evidence presentation - American and canandian investigators have both been shown to overestimate the accuracy of their deception detection - Most previous studies have looked at individual countries, no direct comparisons, and this study is also getting respondents perceptions of their own and their countries interrogation approaches Method - 185 participants, all active investigators o Primarily male, 46 y/o, and avg. 20 yrs on the job o From 9 different countries: US n=62, Canada n=83, five European countries, new Zealand and Australia n=40 (grouped cause all do PEACE or similar) - Recruitment: phase 1 was only Americans with primarily national level investigators, phase 2 was the other countries - all survey materials written in English - Survey: asked respondents to estimate the percentage of time they and other interrogators are able to detect deception accurately, and the frequency of use of 10 deception detection techniques and then 65 techniques from the meso level groupings o Phase 2 were also asked to rate their own and their countries general interrogation/interviewing approaches from 1 (info gathering) to 10 (accusatorial) Results - Americans reported recording interviews about 50% of the time, Canada about 94% and EANZ 84% of the time - All groups reported using all deception detection techniques at least some of the time o Americans reported using nonverbal behavior more than Canada not EANZ, and paralinguistic and using repeated questions to check consistently more than both o EANZ used confronting with facts of case and having the interviewee go into detail more than both, but interpreting the answers less than Canada o All respondents reported their own deception detection accuracy as higher than other investigators, with Americans higher than EANZ o Americans and Canadians also rated other investigators as more accurate than EANZ did - All 3 groups reported using rapport and relationship building the most, Canadians the most o Within r & r domain, EANZ used suspects kindness and being patient more than US, US used more touching in a friendly manner (sim to Canada) o EANZ used emo provocation, context manipulation, presentation of evidence less than the other groups o US and C used emo provocation § US = exaggerating suspect fear, insulting sus, and instilling hopelessness more § C used flattering more o US and C manipulated context more than EANZ § But all 3 similar in positioning the sus and considering time of day o US and C used more presentation of evidence similar § US used more false evidence and direct accusing § C presented more actual evidence o Confrontation/competition § US highest rate of use, then C, then EANZ § But all 3 used emphasizing their authority and expertise and challenging sus values and for collab, all three used show concern and appeal to sus sense of cooperation - EANZ and C more toward info gathering, but EANZ more than C (made clusters) o Cluster 1: low mean score on both their own and countries approach, so info gathering leaning o Cluster 2: higher score, so more accusatorial § Both clusters used sim DD techniques with info using more having sus go into detail § Those in C2 used more emo prov, confrontation/competition, collab, and presentation of evidence (rapport same for both) § C2 more insults, maximizing, and instilling hopelessness, threatening, using deception, and disallowing denials, more presenting false evidence and bluffing § C1 used less basic or special rewards, confronting suspects with actual evidence more Discussion - US and C more accusatorial, but C is in flux - Not a random same of individuals from random selection of countries and didn't include some questions with the American sample - Combined 7 countries into 1 group - Western/Eurocentric - Could have been some misunderstandings because all questions were in English - Also the domains in the taxonomy could be viewed as indicative of either end of the spectrum (macro) depending on how they are used

Kelly et al., 2013

Purpose: to attempt to impose order on the vastness of knowledge that has come before and reframe the issues such that researchers and practitioners can make sensible use of the knowledge Background - Research today in interrogations focuses on either broad dichotomies (info v. accusatorial, min v. max) OR specific techniques o Lacking a taxonomy with a meso level - goal of this paper, which will be a testable theoretical model of how the interrogation domains may interact with and follow one another o Model proposed for interrogations, study idea: don't know how it works in an interview context with victims and witnesses o Broad dichotomies: minimization v. maximization, humane v. dominant techniques, info gathering v. accusatorial models, rapport v. control based techniques o Specific techniques: previous attempts have been made to group them but were too narrow in the defined categories for later additions ID and classification of techniques - Didn't look at deception detection, only techniques meant to elicit information, didn't include physical techniques like torture because illegal, didn't take into account effectiveness of the techniques just if used - Then did a literature review to determine techniques, parsed out duplicates or non-info eliciting techniques (did multiple phases of parsing), then created a classification scheme for the 71 final techniques o Grouped techniques according to their underlying principle or aim into 6 domains Mesolevel domains created: intended to be broad enough to add new techniques but specific enough to be meaningful conceptually - Rapport and relationship building: 14 techniques, defined as working relationship between operator and source based on a mutually shared understanding of each other's goals and needs, which can lead to useful, actionable intelligence or information - based in respect, trust, empathy, and reciprocity - Context manipulation: 11 techniques, altering the physical and temporal space where the interrogation occurs to maximize the probability of a successful outcome, not interactional like rapport, ex. Isolation, making room cold or hot, furniture arrangements - Emotion provocation: 12 techniques, targeting the source's raw emotions or any real or perceived evidence against the source, ex. exaggerate or alleviate fear, appeal to religion - Confrontation/competition: relying on threats or perceived punishment, 19 techniques, operator asserts authority and control over subject to gain compliance, relation becomes zero sum game where operator wins, may employ deception or express anger - Collaboration: relying on reward system, operator and source are more equal partners in which each has something to offer, could be tangible like food, or intangible like promise of better treatment, 7 techniques - Presentation of evidence: demonstrating to the source what authorities already know or claim to know in an attempt to glean more information, 8 techniques Interactive process of model - Second aim of this paper is a theoretical exploration of how the domains relate to one another in an interrogation, or ongoing relationship between operator and source, the proposed model is meant to be tested and edited accordingly - Rapport and relationship building is considered the central domain all spur off of as no other domain is possible/effective without it, with arrows going to and from it as one may return to rapport throughout the interrogation - Context manipulation envelopes model because the physical setting and noninterpersonal techniques ought to be considered in all interrogation settings and effect all other domains - Once rapport established and context set, interrogation can move to the other 4 domains o Emo provocation and presentation of evidence are thought to be mediators or intermediate domains for confrontation/competition and collaboration (both leading to either C/C and C), but C/C and C considered dead ends as they aren't link or directly lead to one another (have to go through intermediary or rapport) § Ex. Present fabricated evidence which could be coercive and lead to employing confrontation/competition techniques § Emo prov like flattery could go to adopting collab - Study idea: determine if there is an interactive virtual application in which a fake interrogation can take place. Actual interrogators choose which of the 71 techniques to employ, virtual interviewee responds (standardized), then repeat to determine the flow of these domains o May have pre interview to determine context manipulation, as well as include it to see if it is ever used within Conclusion Operators use constellation of techniques, each technique effects the effectiveness of the next, so any techniques diagnosticity when used alone may not be the same when used in conjunction with another

Lassiter, 2010

Recommend that all interviews/interrogations should be videotaped in their entirety and the camera angle should focus equally on the suspect and interrogator - Though it is far from certain whether this reform will reduce the number of wrongful convictions attributed to police induced false confessions - Anecdotally allowed people to see in hindsight that it was police induced, but non-biased may be better - Fundamental attribution error, expectancy effects, and naïve realism

Woody & Forrest 2020 - chpt 2

Totality of the circumstances vs. one single cause of a false confession or wrongful conviction - Totality of the circumstances vs the fortitude of an individual contributes to the likelihood of a false confession (ex. Matt Livers; suggested by victims kids, questioned for hours for multiple days, designed interrogation to confirm officers existing theories - tunnel vision, individual circumstances - low IQ/susceptible resulting in contamination from officers, history of compliant behavior, accepting misleading information - suggestibility, denial of guilt lead to more intense interrogations, officers blinded from inconsistencies due to focus on confirming their own belief - confirmation bias, officers made threats and false evidence ploys, and illegal planting of evidence by forensic examiner) - Contamination is in nearly every false confession Research on interrogations and confessions exploded in the 1950s following the second world war/cold war - Interrogations shifted to omit physical coercion SERE: Survive, Evade, Resist, Escape training Interviews: the process of questioning an individual who is not a suspect but knows something about the alleged crime or about the people involved in the crime - Include: conversations with witnesses, potential suspects, family members of suspect or witnesses, or others. Officers emphasize rapport and relationship building at this phase. - Can transition to interrogations Interrogations: the process of questioning someone who is a suspect in a crime - Behavior Analysis Interview (BAI): with a person suspected of a crime, if this interview leads officers to believe that the suspect is guilty, they move into the full interrogation o Includes open-ended questions intended to be behavior provoking, encourage talking, carefully observe, has rapport/relationship building Deception detection - Assumes that individuals telling high-stake lies do not want to be cause and therefore show behavioral signs of lying that are recognizable to trained observers - BUT...interpersonal deception is common, liars typically employ countermeasures to hide their deception (know about things that make you look like a liar - lack of eye contact, so they make more eye contact) - thus making it hard to tell o Liars have been found to not make less eye contact than truth tellers o Liars generally fidget less than truth tellers - Manuals make suggestions on how to detect liars but there is a lack of evidence to support these recommendations and these recommendations are ripe for bias to effect them o How can an observer be consistent? What constitutes more/less/or typical eye movement/eye contact/sitting position? § Especially in the high stressful environment of police interrogation rooms, no matter if a liar or truth teller - Deception detection literature not cited by criminal justice scholars, instead they cite themselves so limited evidence to back up/base stuff on claims of officer experience/intuition instead of systematic experimental study (also conflict themselves) - Police use standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt considered 91%, but lie detection has been found to have only a 54% (chance) rate - Blair et al. note that police rarely employ behavioral deception detection in the absence of any context or evidence (COULD BE COOL RESEARCH IDEA) o This is recommended by the authors for veracity evaluations o Reid also recommends comparing deceptive behaviors against a baseline of observed individual behavior norms - but still claims certain signs still show deception - Police officers also have misplaced confidence in their deception detection o Kassin & Fong (1999) - compared trained and untrained participants and both performed poorly on deception detection, trained were slightly better but more confident and provided more justifications o More confidence, biases, and other interrogation characteristics can lead to misclassification errors - lead to confrontational interrogations Police biases - We rely on previous experiences and expectations for the future to navigate the world - Lay people interact with others with a truth bias, generally expecting that others do not lie - Police have a guilty bias, leading to more confrontational interrogations involving more pressure o Expect guilty and innocent to behave in different ways o Also may attend primarily or exclusively to information that confirms their beliefs o Exacerbate problem: lack of investigatory experience, desire to prevent more crimes/accelerate the intensity of the interrogation, increasing confidence of the investigator/increasing confirmatory thoughts § Will make interrogation room cold, fake polygraph results, false evidence ploy, long interrogation Suspects of concern - Experiencing traumatic events (commission or victim), including fidgeting and aversion to eyes similar to deception, inconsistent or limit in their reports - Trait vulnerabilities: children and people with mental illness or cognitive disabilities - may behave atypically - People of racial groups associated with crimes, stereotype threat in interrogations o When faced with negative stereotypes, we experience stress and this stress then interferes with performance § Found to have increased anxiety, greater use of countermeasures to control behaviors that may suggest guilt, greater self-reported likelihood of engaging in behaviors that may be associated with guilt (nervousness, etc.) Miranda - Waiving must be voluntary, knowingly, and intelligently - Required in custodial interrogations: when suspect is in police custody or has freedom of action curtailed and is facing questioning by police o Requirement that suspects request for an attorney must be clear and unambiguous - Many lay people believe most people understand their miranda rights, but misconceptions are common - Almost all suspects waive their rights - Innocent suspects are substantially more likely to waive their rights than are guilty suspects in experimental studies - Once suspects waive, suspects have to re-invoke - More experience suspects have in the criminal justice system, the less likely they are to waive but innocent suspects have no experience - Miranda have limited protections against false confessions, and waiving can make a confession seem voluntary Interrogation - Interrogation room is a context manipulation, small, hard straight backed chairs, privacy, minimal distractions, one-way mirror (recommended even though not needed with cameras anymore), social isolation, sensory deprivation, lack of control - Reid 9 steps: believed to be guilty after their BAI, suspects behavioral and verbal responses to questions should determine interrogators strategy o Positive confrontation - directly confront suspect of their guilt, after a short break, have a file or something in hand (potential false evidence ploy), open with short exact statement. Present interrogation themes like moral justification and minimization. Show understanding and sympathy. Use crime type, suspect values, if they already used one, or try some out until find right one § These tactics have lead to increased false confessions in studies, innocent will take these themes into their confessions - contamination o Third step: handle denials, interrupt or prevent it o Fourth step: overcome objections, incorporate objections into the interrogation themes o Fifth step: capture and retain suspect attention (cause may become quiet or disengage) like closing the physical space o Sixth step: handling the suspects passive mood, stay with suspect, show sympathy, keep them focused on the themes, lay groundwork for step 7 o Seventh step: alternative question to lead to admission, single question that contains a hidden question that is overlooked by the target - yes and no answers can be incriminating, only way to avoid legal complications is to actively step outside of the format of the question - has an illusion of simplicity o Eighth step: discussion and expansion of the admission to include additional details of the crime - transforming the admission to a confession o Ninth step: conversion of oral confession to written narrative § Officers expect confessions to have motivational, emotional, and sensory details so urge them to be included, and confessions with greater details affect jurors more powerfully · Both true and false confessions include these details

Najdowski et al., 2015

Unconsciously and automatically influence what police officers see, how they interpret that, and how they decide to act, but little has been done looking at how the stereotypes might influence the attitudes and behaviors of the targets themselves. Stereotype threat: concern one experiences when at risk of being perceived in light of a negative stereotype that applies to one's group. Shown to have the ironic effect on performance and behavior, which inadvertently increase an individual's likelihood of confirming the stereotype - Feel anxious and engage in self-regulatory efforts (depleting cog capacities), behaving in ways perceived as indicative of deception, being misclassified as guilty This study: investigate whether police encounters create stereotype threat and thus different psychological experiences of those encounters for blacks as compared to whites Study 1 Hypo: police encounters serve as a setting for blacks to experience stereotype threat - Supported by research documenting the negative stereotype of blacks prone to crime, and most blacks are aware of this stereotype - Expecting it to impact black men most Measures/procedure - Stereotype threat scale - Participants filled out self-report survey assessing their experiences of police-related stereotype threat and demographics Results - Sig main effect of race: blacks were sig more likely to agree that they experience stereotype threat in police encounters - No effect of gender or race/gender interaction, BUT black men sig agreed most Discussion - Intersectional research has found that compared with white women, black women are perceived as more masculine and more often miscategorized as men - Intersectional invisibility: black women become socially invisible - Police encounter in this study is very abstract so could have envisioned different kinds of encounters Study 2 - Very specific hypothetical encounter - Added new implicit measures of stereotype threat to determine automatic activation and increased cog accessibility of the stereotype of black criminality - Explicitly asked participants to report their expectations regarding the hypothetical police officer's next actions - Explores downstream effects - Expecting stereotype threat to result in anx related physiological arousal which may look like deception, worry and monitor their own behavior/take measures to disprove the stereotype Method - Thought induction task: hypothetical scenario - Implicit measures: spontaneous reaction measure (stereotype activation task), word-stem completion performance - Explicit measures: expectations about officer actions, about being accused, stereotype threat scale, anticipated anxiety scale, anticipated self-regulatory effort scale, anticipated suspicious behavior scale o Demos were done first as describing one's race was expected to prime participants racial identity to facilitate stereotype threat Results - Stereotype threat was activated and cog accessible sig for black men - Black and white men were similar in stereotype activation and expectations of the officer o Black men sig more likely to expect they would be accused by the officer and anticipated feeling more stereotype threat o Black men sig more likely to expect feeling anxious, engage in self-reg, and behave suspiciously - Suspicious behav among blacks o The more black criminal stereotype was activated for black men, the more neg they expected the officer's next action to be, the more likely they thought it was that they would be accused of wrongdoing, and the more concerned they anticipated feeling about being perceived as a criminal on the basis of their race o Expectations about being accused were sig and pos related to the degree to which black men expected to experience anxiety o Anx and self reg were sig related, being accused sig more likely to anticipate behaving suspiciously o Expected stereotype threat and officer action sig indirect effect on anticipated suspicious behavior o More stereotype, more self-reg, more suspicious behave o Neg expectation of officer action, less likely to engage in self-reg and less behav suspicious - White men o White men who spontaneously thought of the black criminal stereotype in reaction to the hypothetical encounter were sig less likely to anticipate they would behave suspiciously o Expecting to be accused sig and pos related to expectations about officer action and anticipated stereotype threat o Concern of accused sig more likely to feel anx and self-reg o Expectation of being accused had sig indirect effect on anticipated suspicious behavior through anticipated self-reg Discussion - All have same hypo encounter, racial diffs in anticipated anx, self-reg, sus behave, black sig more than white - Need larger sample size - Learned helplessness theory: individuals become motivationally, cognitively, and emotionally impaired in situations in which they believe their individual responses have no impact on uncontrollable outcome - Stereotype activation inoculated white men from expecting to behave suspiciously - stereotype lift: performance boost caused by the awareness that an outgroup is negatively stereotyped General discussion - Theory of reasoned action: intentions to engage in behavior accurately predicts actual behavior - Test the hypos in realistic circumstances like simulated police encounter (Interrogation study) o Objective measures or physiological measures in future o Activate the stereotype (maybe explicit way) o This activation in real life now since recent police encounters may be stronger o Vary the extent to which stereotype is relevant to the encounter o Test moderating variable like race of officer - Concerned of being subjected to biased policing can cause chronic health probs, increase cog load and impair executive functioning - If the social categorization of police as outgroup members and authorities representing white establishment is more salient than that of blacks as ingroup members, then blacks might experience just as much stereotype threat when interacting with black officers as white officers - Community policing programs could increase noninvestigatory police contacts with blacks and increase more positive expectations of encounters