ArticlePDF Available

Improving the Effectiveness of Suspect Interrogations

November 2015
Annual Review of Law and Social Science 11(1)

DOI:10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120814-121657

Authors:

Christian A. Meissner

Iowa State University

Christopher E. Kelly

Saint Joseph's University

Skye A. Woestehoff

Coastal Carolina University

The last two decades of research on interrogation were spurred, in large part, by the specter of false confessions and the resulting miscarriages of justice. More recently, interest in the topic has been fueled by the need for developing evidence-based methods that improve the collection of diagnostic confession evidence and accurate intelligence from human sources. In this review, we update the research on false confessions and describe recent assessments of scientifically validated approaches for obtaining cooperation, eliciting confessions, and detecting deceit. Studies are summarized through the prism of accusatorial versus information-gathering approaches to interrogation – the former rely upon psychological manipulation and control-based methods, whereas the latter focus on developing rapport and cooperation to elicit an account that can be strategically addressed via evidence presentation. The review concludes with recommendations for additional research to further improve the effectiveness of interrogations across a variety of contexts.

Content uploaded by Christian A. Meissner

Content may be subject to copyright.

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 1

Improving the Effectiveness of Suspect Interrogations

Christian A. Meissner

Iowa State University

Christopher E. Kelly

Saint Joseph’s University

Skye A. Woestehoff

University of Texas at El Paso

In press at the Annual Review of Law & Social Sciences.

Authors Note

Christian A. Meissner (corresponding author), Department of Psychology, Iowa State

University, cmeissner@iastate.edu. Christopher E. Kelly, Department of Sociology and Criminal

Justice, Saint Joseph’s University, c.kelly@sju.edu. Skye A. Woestehoff, Department of

Psychology, University of Texas at El Paso, sawoestehoff@miners.utep.edu.

This review was supported by the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (J-FBI-10-

009). Statements of fact, opinion, and analysis in the paper are those of the authors and do not

reflect the official policy or position of the FBI or the US Government.

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 2

ABSTRACT

The last two decades of research on interrogation were spurred, in large part, by the specter of

false confessions and the resulting miscarriages of justice. More recently, interest in the topic has

been fueled by the need for developing evidence-based methods that improve the collection of

diagnostic confession evidence and accurate intelligence from human sources. In this review, we

update the research on false confessions and describe recent assessments of scientifically

validated approaches for obtaining cooperation, eliciting confessions, and detecting deceit.

Studies are summarized through the prism of accusatorial versus information-gathering

approaches to interrogation – the former rely upon psychological manipulation and control-based

methods, whereas the latter focus on developing rapport and cooperation to elicit an account that

can be strategically addressed via evidence presentation. The review concludes with

recommendations for additional research to further improve the effectiveness of interrogations

across a variety of contexts.

Keywords: interrogation, interviewing, confession, deception, credibility assessment

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 3

Improving the Effectiveness of Suspect Interrogations

For more than a century, legal scholars and social scientists have sought to understand the

incidence of false confessions in our criminal justice system leading to wrongful conviction of

the innocent (Bedau & Radelet, 1987; Borchard, 1932; Drizin & Leo, 2004; Münsterberg, 1908;

Wigmore, 1899). Empirical study on this issue has identified a variety of factors that produce

unreliable confession evidence, including certain characteristics that render individuals more

vulnerable to interrogation and the role of situational factors, including accusatorial tactics that

can lead an innocent person to confess. Research-based recommendations for reducing the

incidence of false confessions have emanated from this body of research (Kassin et al., 2010;

Lassiter & Meissner, 2010).

While law enforcement practices within the United States have been slow to change in

the wake of this research (Kelly & Meissner, 2015), recent public debate over the use of so-

called “enhanced interrogation techniques” has led the U.S. Government to begin evaluating its

interrogation practices. A study by the Intelligence Science Board (Fein, 2006) concluded that

current military, intelligence, and law enforcement interrogation practices lack any scientific

assessments of validity. In 2009, the Obama administration initiated the first federally-funded

research program on interrogation since the 1950s; now in its fifth year, the effort is beginning to

identify productive, evidence-based methods of interviewing suspects and is engaging federal

training facilities in both evaluations of current practice and the introduction of novel approaches

(Brandon, 2014).

Other countries have responded in a more progressive manner – for example, several

high-profile cases involving false confessions led England and Wales to enact the Police and

Criminal Evidence (PACE) Act of 1984 (Home Office, 2003), which prohibited the use of

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 4

psychologically manipulative techniques and mandated the recording of custodial interrogations.

A subsequent national review initiated by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the

relevant government ministry led to development of the PEACE model of investigative

interviewing (Planning and Preparation; Engage and Explain; Obtain an Account; Closure; and

Evaluation; see Bull & Soukara, 2010; Clarke & Milne, 2001; Milne & Bull, 1999). Recent field

and laboratory evaluations of this information-gathering approach suggest that it can facilitate

true confessions and protect against the incidence of false confessions (Meissner et al., 2014).

In the current review, we provide an update on research assessing various factors that

lead to false confessions in the interrogation room (see Kassin, 2008). We then turn our attention

to more recent studies that have investigated the effectiveness of existing and novel approaches

to interrogation, including distinctions between accusatorial and information-gathering

approaches to interrogation and the various techniques the underlie them. We conclude the

review by identifying issues that require further research and offering recommendations for

advancing research in this area.

RESEARCH ON FALSE CONFESSIONS: DISPOSITIONAL AND SITUATIONAL

FACTORS

In 1982, George Allen Jr. was mistaken as the perpetrator of a sexual assault and

homicide. Despite realizing that Allen was not the suspect they had originally identified,

investigators engaged in an aggressive accusatorial interrogation that ultimately produced a false

confession. During the interrogation, the detective falsely claimed to have evidence against Allen

and convinced him that his only option was to confess to the crime. Allen had been previously

diagnosed with schizophrenia and claimed to have been intoxicated during the interrogation.

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 5

Despite being innocent of the crime and having no knowledge of the event, the detective scripted

Allen’s confession through the use of leading questions, prompting him to alter his statements

when they were inconsistent with case facts. Allen was ultimately (wrongfully) convicted based

upon his confession and was exonerated 30 years later (www.innocenceproject.org).

False confessions, which comprise nearly 30% of the first 325 wrongful convictions

identified by The Innocence Project, have been the subject of significant scientific scrutiny

(Kassin et al., 2010; Lassiter & Meissner, 2010), including archival analyses (Drizin & Leo,

2004; Leo & Ofshe, 1998; Garrett, 2015) and experimental investigations (Kassin & Kiechel,

1996; Russano, Meissner, Narchet, & Kassin, 2005). Taken together, the literature suggests that

both situational and dispositional risk factors can play an important role in producing false

confessions.

Situational Risk Factors

In their review of 125 cases of proven false confession in the United States, Drizin and

Leo (2004) found that lengthy interrogations were common within the sample (see also Garrett,

2015; Malloy, Shulman, & Cauffman, 2014). Lengthy interrogations can lead to sleep

deprivation, impaired decision-making, and the desire to escape the situation (cf. Kassin et al.,

2010). People may focus on the immediate benefits of confessing (e.g., ending the interrogation),

perhaps without considering the long-term consequences (Madon, Guyll, Scherr, Greathouse, &

Wells, 2012; Madon, Yang, Smalarz, Guyll, & Scherr, 2013), with lengthy interrogations

exacerbating this tendency (Madon et al., 2013). Similarly, juveniles’ false confessions are

related to police refusals (e.g., to take a break; Malloy et al., 2014), suggesting that false

confessions may be motivated at least in part by certain immediate benefits such as ending the

interrogation (Gudjonsson, 2003).

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 6

An interrogator’s expectation that the suspect is guilty can also place innocent suspects at

risk. Before conducting an interrogation, investigators often attempt to evaluate a suspect’s

nonverbal behavior to determine whether they are being deceptive (Inbau, Reid, Buckley, &

Jayne, 2013). As discussed later, nonverbal behaviors are a poor indicator of deception (DePaulo

et al., 2003) and police officers, while confident in their decisions, are inaccurate at

differentiating deceptive and truthful suspects (Kassin, Meissner, & Norwick, 2005; Meissner &

Kassin, 2002). Thus, innocent suspects may be identified as deceptive and questioned by an

interrogator who holds a strong expectation regarding the suspect’s guilt (Kassin, 2005). This

expectation of guilt leads interrogators to use more guilt-presumptive interrogation techniques,

which increases suspects’ perceived pressure to confess (Hill, Memon, & McGeorge, 2008;

Kassin, Goldstein, & Savitsky, 2003) and ultimately produces a cycle of behavioral confirmation

that can lead to confession by the innocent (Narchet, Meissner, & Russano, 2011).

Certain accusatorial interrogation techniques, such as minimization and maximization,

have also been shown to increase the risk of false confession. Interrogators will often sympathize

with a suspect and attempt to minimize their perceptions of responsibility or blame by offering

face-saving excuses and justifications for the crime; at other times interrogators will exaggerate

the seriousness of the crime and present evidence that does not exist. Such techniques have been

shown to convey implicit promises of leniency and implicit threats of harsher punishment,

respectively (Kassin & McNall, 1991). While minimization and maximization techniques used in

conjunction have been shown to increase the likelihood of false confessions (Horgan, Russano,

Meissner, & Evans, 2012; Narchet et al., 2011), minimization may be particularly problematic

(Klaver, Lee, & Rose, 2008; Narchet et al., 2011; Russano et al., 2005).

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 7

The presentation of false evidence, a form of maximization, is another interrogation

technique that can produce false confessions. False evidence can induce innocent suspects to

confess when it is presented as a direct claim (Kassin & Kiechel, 1996; Nash & Wade, 2009;

Perillo & Kassin, 2011), when an insinuation (or “bluff”) is presented suggesting that the

evidence may exist (Perillo & Kassin, 2011), or when evidence is fabricated and presented to the

subject (Nash & Wade, 2009). Innocent suspects appear to confess in response to false evidence

because they believe that the evidence will ultimately prove their innocence (Perillo & Kassin,

2011) or because they come to believe they actually committed the crime (Kassin & Kiechel,

1996). Such internalized false confessions are more likely to occur when the evidence is

fabricated and presented to the subject (Nash & Wade, 2009), when the evidence is presented

with a delay after the incident, and when the evidence is presented more than once (Wright,

Wade, & Watson, 2013).

Dispositional Risk Factors

Certain characteristics of the suspect can also increase their risk to providing a false

confession. For example, certain individuals are more suggestible – they are more likely to

acquiesce to leading questions or change their answers in response to feedback from an authority

figure (Drake, 2010; Gudjonsson, 2013). Certain populations may also be particularly vulnerable

in an interrogation; for example, juveniles are more compliant with authority figures (Grisso et

al., 2003), and individuals with intellectual disabilities (Gudjonsson & Henry, 2003) or mental

illnesses (Gudjonsson, 2003) have been shown to be more suggestible. Innocence itself has also

been identified as a false confession risk factor (Kassin, 2005).

Archival analyses of false confessions (Drizin & Leo, 2004; Garrett, 2015), surveys

(Goldstein, Condie, Kalbeitzer, Osman, & Geier, 2003; Grisso et al., 2003; Gudjonsson,

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 8

Sigurdsson, Asgeirsdottir, & Sigfusdottir, 2006), and laboratory experiments (Candel,

Merckelbach, Loyen, & Reyskens, 2005; Redlich & Goodman, 2003) have shown that juveniles,

particularly those who are younger, are at increased risk to falsely confess. Juveniles are more

likely to falsely confess following the presentation of false evidence (Redlich & Goodman, 2003)

and frequently report that they falsely confessed to protect someone else (Malloy et al., 2014;

Viljoen, Klaver, & Roesch, 2005). One reason that age may be a risk factor is that juveniles are

more likely to comply with authorities and are less cognizant of the consequences of their

decisions (Grisso et al., 2003), favoring short-term benefits over long-term costs. Juveniles’

decisions tend to be motivated more by rewards, rather than risks (cf. Steinberg, & Scott, 2003),

leading many juvenile false confessors to believe they would be allowed to go home if they

confessed (Drizin & Leo, 2004).

Factors such as intellectual disability and mental illness can also lead to false confessions

(Clare & Gudjonsson, 1995; Redlich, Kulish, & Steadman, 2011). Individuals with intellectual

disabilities are more suggestible (Gudjonsson & Henry, 2003) and are likely to acquiesce to

leading questions or change their responses when an authority figure suggests they answered

incorrectly (Everington & Fulero, 1999; O’Connell, Garmoe, & Goldstein, 2005). False

confessions due to mental illness are often associated with anxiety and depression (Gudjonsson

et al., 2006), as well as the tendency to fantasize (Horselenberg et al., 2006) and difficulty in

differentiating fact from fiction (Gudjonsson, 2003; Leo, 2009).

Finally, individuals may be at increased risk for a false confession because of their

innocence. Innocent suspects believe that their innocence will be readily apparent to

interrogators (Kassin, 2005), which leads them to waive their Miranda rights and talk to the

police (Kassin & Norwick, 2004). Innocent suspects may also experience less stress during an

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 9

interrogation, suggesting that they do not feel as threatened by the situation (Guyll, Madon,

Yang, Lannin, & Scherr, 2013). However, interrogators have difficulty identifying innocence

(Kassin et al., 2005) and innocent suspects may actually experience harsher interrogations than

do guilty suspects – interrogators who believe that a suspect is guilty will employ more

interrogation techniques and conduct longer interrogations, placing greater pressure on the

innocent suspect to confess (Kassin et al., 2003; Narchet et al., 2011). In relenting to the demand

for a confession, innocent suspects may continue to believe that their innocence will be

recognized and assume that the evidence will later exonerate them (Perillo & Kassin, 2011).

THEORIES OF CONFESSION: PROCESSES THAT DISTINGUISH TRUE AND FALSE

ADMISSIONS

Several theories have been proposed to account for why an individual may confess (see

Gudjonsson, 2003; Houston, Meissner, & Evans, 2014). Some are based upon internal processes

(e.g., Reik, 1959), while others also take into consideration situational factors (e.g., Gudjonsson,

2003; Hilgendorf & Irving, 1981). For example, Reik (1959) suggests that feelings of guilt result

from transgressions of societal or moral norms, and that this internal state is likely to produce

anxiety and discomfort. Confession of the transgression is therein believed to alleviate such

negative internal states. Decision-making models have also been developed, such as that first

proposed by Hilgendorf and Irving (1981). These accounts suggest that suspects subjectively

evaluate the cost-benefit ratio associated with confession based upon the variety of possible

actions currently available to them, the proximate and distal benefits and costs associated with

such actions, and the probabilities associated with such benefits and costs (cf. Gudjonsson, 2003;

Madon et al., 2012). Finally, other theories of confession focus upon the social pressure and

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 10

anxiety of the interrogation itself, particularly when suspects actively deceive the interrogator

with regard to their culpability. For example, Jayne (1986) argues that interrogators should

increase the anxiety experienced by a suspect during an interrogation to increase their discomfort

associated with being deceptive. A suspect’s decision to confess is then proposed to be

associated with a reduction in negative emotions. A cognitive behavioral model proposed by

Gudjonsson (2003) incorporates many of these theoretical perspectives. The model purports that

the likelihood of confession is influenced by the antecedents (e.g., isolation, emotional distress)

and consequences (both proximal and distal) associated with the action. In general, the model

addresses a variety of psychological, criminological, and situational factors that may lead to

confession, and offers predictions regarding factors that are likely to increase the likelihood of a

false confession.

Although the theories of confession described above do not readily identify the

psychological processes leading to true vs. false confessions, recent research has begun to fill

this gap. For example, three surveys of incarcerated individuals have assessed the various

motivations leading to true and false confessions. In the first study, Sigurdsson and Gudjonsson

(1996) surveyed prisoners in Iceland and found that perceived pressure to confess, intimidation

by the interrogator, and fear associated with the consequences of not confessing were

significantly higher for false confessions. In contrast, true confessions were more likely to result

from a desire to relieve distress and feelings of guilt. Redlich and colleagues (2011) conducted a

similar survey with incarcerated adults in the U.S. who had been diagnosed with serious mental

illness. Consistent with prior work, Redlich et al. found that false confessions were related to

social pressure by the interrogator, as well as perceived short-term gains in confession (such as

terminating the interrogation), and perceived leniency in sentencing if they confessed. True

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 11

confessions, in contrast, were more likely to reference feelings of guilt, perceptions of the

strength of evidence, and beliefs that their responsibility for the crime would inevitably be

revealed. Finally, a recent survey by Malloy and colleagues (2014) assessed motivations to

provide true and false admissions in a sample of incarcerated youths in the U.S. (ages 14 to 17).

Their findings largely replicate that of previous adult samples, with false confessions emanating

from feelings of pressure and duress, perceptions of reduced consequences associated with

confession, and the desire to protect another individual. Lengthy interrogations also increased the

likelihood of a false confession. True confessions, on the other hand, were principally motivated

by feelings of guilt and a desire to behave honestly, though perceptions of police pressure were

also noted.

As discussed below, laboratory studies have been conducted to assess the diagnostic

value of certain interrogative approaches in producing true vs. false confessions (cf. Russano et

al., 2005). These studies also frequently assess the psychological factors that lead a subject to

confess, including the anxiety experienced, beliefs regarding the consequences associated with

confessing (or not), perceptions of the evidence, feelings of guilt or remorse, and perceptions of

the pressure being placed upon them by the interrogator. In a meta-analysis of available

experimental studies, Houston, Meissner, and Evans (2014) largely replicated the pattern of

effects observed in prior survey studies: true confessions were significantly associated with

individuals’ feelings of guilt or remorse, perceptions of the strength of evidence, and beliefs

about the consequences of confession; false confessions were associated with the social pressure

being placed upon them by the interrogator and beliefs regarding the consequences associated

with not confessing.

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 12

Taken together, the available research provides support for the important role of

perceived consequences in yielding confessions – though such a factor appears to influence both

the guilty and innocent alike. Beyond this, it appears that true and false confessions may be

distinguished by the influence of internal (e.g., feelings of guilt or remorse) vs. external (e.g.,

social pressure emanating from the interrogator) psychological motivations, respectively. As

described below, these psychological factors may also be key to understanding the diagnostic

utility of interrogative approaches (cf. Horgan et al., 2012; Narchet et al., 2011).

MODERN INTERROGATION PRACTICES: WHAT APPROACHES ARE USED AND

HOW EFFECTIVE ARE THEY?

Interrogations conducted by professionals today are likely to include a mix of effective

approaches that yield valid information from a suspect, and those that are less effective and/or

more likely to produce evidence of false information. To ultimately understand the efficacy of

modern interrogative approaches, researchers must study the use of interrogative techniques in

vivo (i.e., in their naturalistic context) and further evaluate their findings in vitro (i.e., in a

controlled, experimental setting; see Dunbar & Blanchette, 2001). In the current section, we note

how social scientists have successfully undertaken both in vivo and in vitro research on

interrogation practices to evaluate the modern interrogation landscape. First, we describe a series

of in vivo approaches that include observational studies of real interrogations, as well as

structured interviews and representative surveys of interrogation professionals. These studies

seek both to understand the use of interrogative approaches and to assess the extent to which

certain techniques are effective in yielding confessions or admissions. Second, we describe in

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 13

vitro, experimental research that has assessed the causal influence of modern interrogative

approaches on true and false confessions.

We pause here to note that several frameworks have been offered to characterize modern

interrogative approaches. One primary distinction has been proposed between the use of

accusatorial approaches in North America and the development of information-gathering

approaches in the United Kingdom, Australia, and elsewhere (Bull & Soukara, 2010; Meissner

et al., 2014). Key differences in the two methods lay in their approach to developing and

maintaining rapport, the use of psychological manipulation and theme development, and the

presentation of evidence. Other researchers have proposed a singular taxonomy to assess the use

of interrogative approaches across contexts – for example, Kelly, Miller, Redlich, and Kleinman

(2013) identified more than 70 unique interrogation techniques and sorted them into one of six

conceptual domains: rapport and relationship building, emotion provocation, context

manipulation, confrontation/competition, collaboration, and presentation of evidence. These

“meso-level” domains have been used by researchers to both describe the phenomenon of

interrogation and to assess the effectiveness of certain approaches. Based upon the Kelly et al.

domain, accusatorial approaches can be described as involving minimal rapport development and

collaboration, with a greater focus on emotion provocation and confrontation, and the use of

context manipulations that promote isolation and anxiety while presenting evidence in a manner

that overwhelms and “maximizes” a suspect’s perception of the interrogator’s belief in guilt.

Information-gathering approaches, in contrast, can be described as involving extensive rapport

development and collaboration approaches, a minimal degree of emotional provocation and

confrontation/competition, and the development of contexts that facilitate openness and

cooperation while presenting evidence in a more strategic, systematic manner to confront a

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 14

suspect’s claims. The efficacy of these are explored below via in vivo and in vitro

methodologies.

in vivo Studies of Modern Interrogation Practices

Accusatorial, confession-focused, approaches. As described above, accusatorial

interrogation strategies typically emphasize the domains of emotion provocation and

confrontation/competition in order to manipulate the suspect into offering a confession. The

earliest, and most frequently cited, in vivo studies focused their observations on those techniques

that were associated with false confessions. For example, Leo (1996) reported that techniques

related to the emotion provocation domain, including appeals to the suspect’s self-interest,

appeals to the suspect’s conscience, and use of moral justifications, were used frequently and

were associated with providing incriminating information. Feld (2013), in his study of 16- and

17-year old suspects, reported comparatively lower rates of emotion provocation techniques;

instead, Feld’s sample involved an increased use of confrontation/competition techniques such as

accusing the suspect of lying and urging the suspect to tell the truth. King and Snook (2009),

meanwhile, found that tactics related to both emotion provocation and confrontation/competition

were likely to result in full or partial confessions in a Canadian sample of adult suspects.

These observations of psychologically manipulative techniques are largely bolstered by

the seminal self-report survey of North American law enforcement interrogators conducted by

Kassin et al. (2007). Investigators in the sample reported that the techniques related to emotion

provocation and confrontation/competition – i.e., minimization and maximization – were among

those most frequently employed (e.g., appealing to self-interest, offering moral justifications).

More recently, expressly applying the domain framework to a survey of U.S. law enforcement

and military interrogators, Redlich, Kelly, and Miller (2014) found that emotion provocation was

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 15

the second most frequently used domain, while confrontation/competition was the least favored.

Interrogators’ perceptions of effectiveness largely followed this pattern across four interrogation

outcomes – intelligence gathering, confession and prosecution, tactical interrogation, and

strategic interrogation – and across three distinct interrogation vignettes where participants

selected techniques they might employ.

Presentation of evidence in accusatorial interrogations is typically conducted in a

confrontational manner – the evidence is generally presented by the interrogator in a monologue

designed to demonstrate the strength of the case against the suspect. Feld (2013) classified

confronting the suspect with evidence as a maximization technique, and the Kassin et al. (2007)

survey asked specifically about the use of bluffs and presentations of false evidence (such as

telling the suspect he/she failed a polygraph test). While observational research on the timing and

format of evidence presentation is lacking, nearly all observational and survey studies report

high levels of confronting suspects with evidence of guilt.

Assessments of rapport and relationship building in the context of accusatorial

interrogations have received relatively less attention. Several recent studies, however, have

reported promising findings on the use and importance of rapport even in an otherwise

accusatorial setting. For example, respondents to the Kassin et al. (2007) survey rated

establishing rapport as among the most frequently employed techniques, while investigators

responding to the Redlich et al. (2014) survey rated rapport and relationship building as the

most favored interrogation domain. A recent survey by Vallano, Evans, Schreiber Compo, and

Kieckhaefer (in press) focused exclusively on rapport-building techniques in a sample of U.S.

investigators and found broad support for the use of such techniques, including both verbal (e.g.,

establishing common ground) and nonverbal (e.g., displaying empathy) approaches.

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 16

With respect to the use of rapport and relationship-building tactics in practice, Kelly,

Redlich, and Miller (in press) conducted a content analysis on a U.S. sample of interrogation

recordings and found that most interrogators utilized such approaches. However, when

interrogations were disaggregated by whether or not the suspect confessed, those that ended with

the suspect denying involvement had the greatest emphasis on presentation of evidence, emotion

provocation, and confrontation/competition tactics. Not surprisingly, Kelly et al. reported

significant, positive correlations between these three domains, suggesting that evidence was

likely disclosed to suspects in an aggressive or manipulative manner.

In the U.S., Russano, Narchet, Kleinman, and Meissner (2014) conducted in-depth

interviews with a sample of U.S. military and intelligence interrogators, many of whom had

experience with high-value targets. Russano and colleagues applied the Kelly et al. (2013)

domain framework and reported that rapport and relationship-building and emotion provocation

were most frequently employed and perceived to be most effective when compared with

confrontation/competition. Although interrogators appeared to recognize and highlight the

importance of rapport, Russano and colleagues found less consensus among the interrogators

with respect to how it might be defined or specific tactics that might facilitate its development

with a subject.

Information-gathering approaches. Concurrent with research focusing on emotion

provocation and confrontation/competition methods in North America, a competing model of

interrogation has been developed in the United Kingdom that is more aligned with the domains

of rapport and relationship building, collaboration, and a more strategic form of presentation of

evidence. The PEACE model of investigative interviewing briefly described above (Baldwin,

1993; Milne & Bull, 1999; Williamson, 1993) came about as a result of several high-profile

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 17

miscarriages of justice in the United Kingdom (e.g., the “Guildford Four” and “Birmingham

Six”), and represents a repudiation of the accusatorial model of interrogation that focuses on

obtaining confessions.

The first major evaluation of PEACE found that initial implementation of the model was

promising, if uneven, with improvements in giving suspects proper caution regarding their rights

and the increased use of open-ended questions (Clarke & Milne, 2001). Further, the PEACE

method is predicated on a robust supervision and training regime (Clarke, Milne, & Bull, 2011)

and “advanced interviewing” training (see Griffiths & Milne, 2006) that was based upon a

survey of British investigators that confirmed the need for specialized training and wide-spread

adoption of the tenants of the model (Soukara, Bull, & Vrij, 2002). While subsequent

observational studies found some slippage in it implementation, the non-coercive tactics

contained in the PEACE model are largely employed today (Soukara, Bull, Vrij, Turner, &

Cherryman, 2009; Walsh & Milne, 2008).

One of the more thorough examinations of the PEACE model involved interrogations of

benefits fraud suspects in the United Kingdom. Like previous studies, Walsh and Bull (2010a)

found that interrogators were apt to employ open-ended questions but were less skilled in other

areas of the model such as rapport building. In later analyses, they found that where the elements

of PEACE were properly demonstrated, such as the use of appropriate questioning, challenging

suspects accounts with evidence presentation, and adaptive questioning during the interview,

suspects were more likely to provide full accounts of their crimes (Walsh & Bull, 2010b) and

interviewers were able to overcome suspect denials (Walsh & Bull, 2012). Moreover, Walsh and

Bull (2012a) found that both confrontation/competition and emotion provocation techniques,

favored in accusatorial interrogations, were associated with suspects’ continued denials (see Bull

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 18

& Soukara, 2010, for more on “shifting” from denial to admission). Recently, Walsh and Bull (in

press) observed that a gradual method of evidence presentation across the interview resulted in

more complete accounts from suspects than either early or late full disclosure of the evidence.

The information-gathering approach is not the sole provenance of the United Kingdom,

however, and research emanating from other nations is finding support for rapport and

relationship building and collaboration in suspect interviews. Surveys of interrogation

professionals and evaluations of suspect interviews in Finland (Hakkanen, Ask, Kebbell, Alison,

& Granhag, 2009), Sweden (Holmberg & Christensen, 2002), and Australia (Kebbell, Alison,

Hurren, & Mazerolle, 2010; Powell, Day, Benson, Vess, & Graffam, 2014) have found a

preference for and effectiveness with a rapport-based approach. For instance, Holmberg and

Christensen’s study of individuals convicted of sex offenses found that a dominant attitude, or

approaches related to confrontation/competition such as demonstrating impatience or aggression,

was related to suspect denials. Alternatively, a humane approach, characterized by rapport and

relationship building techniques such as expressing empathy and a positive attitude toward the

suspect, produced higher levels of admissions. Very similar results were found among an

Australian sample of individuals convicted of sex crimes, including the relative ineffectiveness

of emotion provocation techniques (Kebbell et al., 2010).

Elsewhere, drawing upon interviews with police and military interrogators in Australia,

Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea, and Sri Lanka, Goodman-Delahunty and colleagues

examined high-value interrogations in three novel yet interconnected ways. First, Goodman-

Delahunty, O’Brien, & Gumbert-Jourjon (2014) framed interrogation in procedural justice terms

where perceptions of the authorities’ legitimacy are based on the fair treatment of those subjected

to the authority. The researchers found that interrogators viewed rapport and relationship

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 19

building as an essential element to procedural justice objectives, which, in turn, led to favorable

outcomes such as eliciting reliable information. Second, Goodman-Delahunty and Howes (in

press) found that principles of persuasion (Cialdini, 2006) such as liking and reciprocity were

most closely associated with rapport and relationship building. Finally, Goodman-Delahunty,

Martschuk, and Dhami (2014) conducted interviews with interrogators and high-value detainees

for a unique perspective from both sides of the proverbial interrogation table. Similar to Kelly et

al.’s (2013) domains, Goodman-Delahunty et al. reduced interrogation methods to coercive and

non-coercive types of legalistic, physical, cognitive, and social strategies. They reported that

non-coercive social strategies that included rapport, procedural justice, and reciprocity

(constructs from the previous work) significantly increased information disclosure, and further

that rapport specifically had a large effect on early disclosure. Interestingly, and in line with the

findings reported by Kelly et al. (in press) regarding presentation of evidence, Goodman-

Delahunty et al. (2014) reported that evidence disclosure decreased suspect cooperation.

Unfortunately, the authors were unable to assess qualitative aspects related to the format of

evidence presentation in the sample of interrogations.

Perhaps the most complete evaluation of rapport and relationship building (and other

behaviors) was conducted by Alison et al. using the ORBIT model (Observing Rapport-Based

Interpersonal Techniques; Alison, Alison, Noone, Elntib, & Christiansen, 2013). Combining

fundamental elements of Motivational Interviewing (MI; Miller & Rollnick, 2009) from the

therapeutic counseling literature together with Leary’s (1955) interpersonal theories, Alison et al.

examined adaptive (positive) and maladaptive (negative) interactions between investigators and

suspects in a sample of UK counter-terrorism interrogations. The authors found that adaptive

interrogator behaviors – those based on rapport and principles of MI – were related to adaptive

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 20

suspect behaviors in the form of increased motivation and information yield. In a subsequent

analysis, Alison, Alison, Noone, Elntib, Waring, and Christiansen (2014) found that these same

adaptive interrogator behaviors significantly reduced suspects’ use of counter-interrogation

tactics.

As demonstrated in our review of accusatorial and information-gathering approaches,

researchers have examined a broad spectrum of methods that are used to various degrees in the

field. Kelly et al.’s (2013) domain framework, however, provides a language with which the in

vivo studies can be more appropriately compared, and the research presented above suggests that

an approach based on rapport and relationship building, collaboration, and a non-coercive style

of presentation of evidence is more effective at eliciting confessions, suspects accounts, and

cooperation.

in vitro Studies of Modern Interrogation Practices

While in vivo studies of interrogation can offer a perspective on the likelihood that a

certain method will produce an admission or confession, field studies are ultimately unable to

establish the ground truth of a suspect’s statement. Such studies also suffer from issues of

internal validity in that they lack appropriate experimental controls (and in some cases

appropriate sampling methods) to establish causal conclusions. In contrast, in vitro studies

conducted under controlled, experimental conditions can offer causal determinations of both the

effectiveness of an interrogation method and the diagnostic value of the confession obtained. In

doing so, however, laboratory studies sacrifice a degree of external validity (Meissner, Hartwig,

& Russano, 2010). In response to this, researchers have developed creative paradigms that

preserve a high degree of experimental realism and invoke realistic consequences perceived by

participants to be of sufficient severity (e.g., Evans, Meissner et al., 2013; Kassin & Kiechel,

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 21

1996; Nash & Wade, 2009; Russano et al., 2005). Below we briefly review the available

experimental research assessing modern accusatorial and information-gathering interrogation

approaches.

Accusatorial, confession-focused, approaches. Accusatorial approaches often involve

the development of interrogation themes that seek to minimize a suspect’s perceptions of their

own culpability and, therein, the consequences associated with confession. Such approaches also

involve the presentation of evidence, sometimes including false evidence or an insinuation

(“bluff”) of possible evidence, in a manner that seeks to maximize a suspect’s perceptions of

their guilt and engender a feeling that there is “no way out” of the situation – except to provide a

confession. When combined with context manipulations that lead a suspect to feel isolated and

“boxed-in”, accusatorial methods can prove quite successful in producing a confession (see

Meissner et al., 2014).

Experimental research on accusatorial approaches has demonstrated that certain

techniques, such as minimization tactics (Horgan et al., 2012; Klaver et al., 2008; Narchet et al.,

2011; Russano et al., 2005) and false evidence ploys (Horselenberg, Merckelbach, & Josephs,

2003; Horselenberg et al., 2006; Kassin & Kiechel, 1996; Klaver et al., 2008; Nash & Wade,

2009; Perillo & Kassin, 2011; Redlich & Goodman, 2003; Wright et al., 2013), can increase the

likelihood of a false confession from an innocent suspect. Across a sample of 14 experimental

studies, Meissner et al. (2014) observed that accusatorial approaches significantly increased the

likelihood of both true and false confessions when compared with a “direct questioning” control

condition. These studies also offer an opportunity to assess the psychological mechanisms

leading to confession – with findings suggesting that minimization tactics influence a suspect’s

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 22

perception of the consequences associated with confession, while maximization tactics increase

perceived social pressure from the interrogator (Horgan et al., 2012; Narchet et al., 2011).

Information-gathering approaches. Few studies have experimentally assessed the

potential for information-gathering approaches; the available literature, however, suggests that

such approaches can significantly improve the effectiveness and diagnostic value of confession

evidence. For example, Narchet et al. (2011) found that non-coercive, information-gathering

methods of interrogation preserved a high rate of true confessions while significantly reducing

the likelihood of false confessions when compared with approaches involving minimization and

maximization. Meissner and colleagues (see Meissner et al., 2010, 2014) directly assessed the

utility of information-gathering approaches (compared with accusatorial approaches); across two

studies, they found that information-gathering methods reduced the odds of a false confession by

74% and increased the odds of a true confession by 85%. A meta-analysis of these effect sizes

by Meissner et al. (2014) suggested that information-gathering approaches are significantly more

diagnostic – increasing the likelihood of true confessions and reducing the likelihood of false

confession – when compared with accusatorial approaches. A recent study by Evans, Meissner et

al. (2013) demonstrated that information-gathering approaches also significantly increase

admissions from the guilty, and increase the amount of critical details elicited. Taken together,

the available literature suggests that approaches that promote a rapport-based, collaborative

exchange and facilitate the reporting of details by the suspect can produce more effective and

diagnostic confession evidence.

ENHANCING THE INFORMATION-GATHERING APPROACH: A SCIENCE-BASED

PERSPECTIVE

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 23

In recent years, scholars have begun to shift their focus from assessing interrogation

methods that elicit false confessions to the development and validation of methods that yield

more diagnostic evidence and encourage information exchange. This positive, empirical

perspective has been grounded in psychological theory and has frequently involved collaboration

with interrogation professionals (Meissner et al., 2010). The tactics have largely been designed to

advance an information-gathering approach to interrogation, including methods that improve the

development of rapport and cooperation, interviewing approaches that facilitate accurate recall

from memory, and evidence disclosure techniques that are more strategic and diagnostic. These

approaches have also been shown to yield a corollary benefit – they improve assessments of

credibility in an interrogative context. In this section, we briefly review the latest science-based

approaches to interrogation and credibility assessment.

Developing Rapport

The development of rapport is an often cited and much celebrated aspect of modern

interrogation practice (Abbe & Brandon, 2013, 2014; Oxburgh & Ost, 2011; St-Yves, 2006;

Vallano & Schreiber Compo, 2015; Vanderhallen & Vervaeke, 2014). As noted previously,

surveys and interviews of law enforcement demonstrate wide support for the use of rapport and

relationship building approaches (Goodman-Delahunty et al., 2014; Kassin et al., 2007; Redlich

et al, 2014; Russano, Narchet, Kleinman, & Meissner, 2014; Vallano et al., in press), and these

methods are associated with confessions (Alison et al., 2013), more complete accounts (Walsh &

Bull, 2012), and reduced counter-interrogation strategies (Alison et al., 2014). Despite this

consensus, Russano and colleagues (2014) found that interrogators variously defined rapport as a

working relationship, the suspect simply being willing to talk, the development of trust, and

mutual respect; and their respondents offered a variety of perspectives on strategies that may

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 24

facilitate rapport, from treating the person kindly and humanely, to finding commonalities or just

getting the person to talk.

While various components of rapport have been assessed in the literature (see Vallano &

Schreiber Compo, 2015), the most notable theoretical model is that offered by Tickle-Degnen

and Ronsenthal (1990). The authors distinguish three (primarily behavioral) facets of rapport:

mutual attention (degree of engagement between the interactants), positivity (positive evaluations

of one another, including warmth, friendliness, respect, and liking), and coordination

(synchronicity of behavior between the interactants). Measurement scales such as the Working

Alliance Inventory (Horvath & Greenberg, 1989) and the Interaction Questionnaire (Vallano &

Schreiber Compo, 2011) have been used to evaluate the development of rapport in investigative

interviewing studies (see also, Duke, 2013). Assessments of verbal behavior, such as Language

Style Matching (Niederhoffer & Pennebaker, 2002), have also been used to measure

coordination aspects of rapport in interrogative contexts (Driskell, Blickensderfer, & Salas, 2013;

Richardson, Taylor, Snook, Conchie, & Bennell, 2014).

Specific tactics that facilitate rapport have also been described in the literature. Abbe and

Brandon (2014) offer the most complete taxonomy, focusing on seven tactics that have been

empirically validated, including:

• use of immediacy behaviors, such as leaning forward, engaging eye contact, and reducing

physical distance, that demonstrate interest and engagement;

• active listening skills, such as backchannel responses and paraphrasing (consistent with

Motivational Interviewing, see Alison et al., 2013; Miller & Rollnick, 2009), that convey

attention to the subject;

• verbal and nonverbal mimicry, which have been shown to facilitate trust;

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 25

• self-disclosure of personal information to promote liking and positivity;

• establishing common ground with respect to interests, identity, or attitudes, which can

promote liking and collaboration;

• engaging in continued contact and exposure to facilitate positivity; and finally

• identifying opportunities to contrast the behavior of the interactant, as subjects may also

feel greater comfort complementing the behavior of the interrogator.

Abbe and Brandon (2013) note that rapport tactics may invoke various principles of social

influence (Cialdini, 2006), operating via interest, identity, or relational motivations (Kelman,

2006). As noted previously, Goodman-Delahunty and Howes (in press) found that liking and

reciprocity were most closely associated with rapport and relationship building, while Goodman-

Delahunty et al. (2014) found that such social influence tactics significantly increased

information disclosure in a sample of high-value interrogations.

Recent experimental research has demonstrated that rapport tactics increase perceived

liking and positivity toward an interviewer (Kieckhaefer, Vallano, & Schreiber Compo, 2014;

Vallano & Schreiber Compo, 2011). Experimental studies on the value of rapport in adult

witness interviews suggest that rapport tactics can increase cooperation and reporting of accurate

information (Collins, Lincoln, & Frank, 2002; Holmberg & Madsen, 2014; Kieckhaefer et al.,

2014; Vallano & Schreiber Compo, 2011). Although few experimental studies have been

conducted to assess the role of rapport in an interrogative context, a recent study by Evans,

Houston, Meissner et al. (2014) explored the influence of emotional approaches on perceived

rapport and information disclosure – the authors found that positive emotional approaches, such

as positive affirmations, expressing interest, and instilling calm, significantly reduced anxiety

and increased feelings of rapport. Further, a positive emotional approach also significantly

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 26

strengthened the relationship between perceived rapport and the elicitation of information. While

the available evidence from in vivo studies of interrogation suggest the important role of rapport

in promoting cooperation and eliciting admissions from criminal suspects, further in vitro studies

are needed to understand the causal mechanisms that mediate the influence of rapport tactics.

Eliciting Information from Memory – The Cognitive Interview for Suspects

Interrogation training in the U.S., as well as other countries that rely upon accusatorial

approaches, rarely considers the importance of human memory and recall processes in the

elicitation of information from suspects; instead, any such training on memory elicitation is

relegated to interviewing cooperative witnesses, while the interrogation of suspects emphasizes

assessments of credibility and tactics that are likely to produce an admission of guilt (Fisher &

Perez, 2007; Leins, Fisher, Pludwinski, Rivard, & Robertson, 2014). Given the confirmatory and

confession-focused nature of accusatorial interrogations, the potential for memory contamination

and confabulation leading to false information or false admissions is rather significant (Garrett,

2015; Loftus, 2011; Shaw & Porter, 2015). In contrast, information-gathering approaches

encourage the use of open-ended, non-suggestive questioning tactics (Clark & Milne, 2001;

Walsh & Bull, 2010b). Interrogators are further trained to use good elicitation methods that

(when combined with rapport-based approaches) seek to elicit a complete narrative from the

suspect (Milne & Bull, 1999).

Over the past several decades, researchers have investigated a variety of mnemonic

approaches to improve the recollection of subjects in an investigative interview (Fisher, 2010;

Fisher & Perez, 2007). Likely the most studied interview protocol is the Cognitive Interview (CI;

Fisher & Geiselman, 1992). The CI was developed based upon theories of cognition and

memory, an appreciation for the social dynamics underlying an investigative interview, and an

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 27

understanding of communication patterns in forensic contexts (Fisher & Geiselman, 2010).

While the structure of the CI has developed over time based upon its empirical assessment, it

generally includes the following key elements:

• instruct subjects that they should play an active role in the interview by generating

information absent necessary prompting by the interviewer;

• encourage subjects to provide as much detail as possible based upon their memory, while

also discouraging them from guessing about details that are unclear or feeling as though

they must “fill in the gaps”; subjects should only report information that they can

accurately recall;

• develop rapport with the subject and place them at ease with respect to the interview;

encourage them to engage in a cooperative exchange with the investigator;

• ask the subject to engage in mental context reinstatement by closing their eyes (to reduce

distraction) and recollecting the various sensory details associated with the event or

incident;

• require that the investigator primarily use open-ended questions and that she or he refrain

from interrupting the subject during the recall process;

• utilize witness-compatible questioning by engaging in active listening and structuring the

flow and type of questions to align with the subject’s recollections; this may include

allowing the subject to respond using non-verbal channels (such as drawing a sketch or

replicating the gait or behavioral interactions associated with the recollection); and

finally,

• following an initial free recall episode, offer the subject a variety of mnemonic

approaches or cues to facilitate recollection; for example, interviewers may ask the

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 28

subject to recall the details in reverse chronological order or to adopt a different

perspective.

The CI has been shown to produce robust and replicable increases in recollection when

compared with standard interview approaches used by many law enforcement agencies – for

example, Rivard, Fisher, Robertson, and Mueller (2014) compared the CI to the U.S. Federal

Law Enforcement Training Center’s “five-step interview protocol” (which is trained to hundreds

of federal investigators each year), finding that the CI elicited approximately 80% more relevant

information than the five-step method while producing no significant differences in overall

accuracy of the information reported. Such results are consistent with the large, significant

increase in correct recall observed in the most recent meta-analysis of the CI literature conducted

by Memon, Meissner, and Fraser (2010).

While too few studies have investigated the specific components of the CI (Memon et al.,

2010), several facets of the interview protocol likely contribute to the robust increases in recall.

First, as described in the prior section, development of rapport has been shown to improve recall

from cooperative subjects (Collins et al., 2002; Holmberg & Madsen, 2014; Kieckhaefer et al.,

2014; Vallano & Schreiber Compo, 2011). Second, communication aspects of the CI are critical

to encouraging subjects to report details, even when they believe they are unimportant – for

example, Leal, Vrij, and colleagues (2015) demonstrated that providing a detailed, unrelated

narrative (“model statement”) to the subject prior to their providing an account significantly

increased the recall of details by truthful subjects. Finally, the mnemonics incorporated into the

CI are very effective in eliciting additional information; Leins, Fisher, and colleagues (2014)

found that such mnemonic prompts doubled the amount of information recalled when compared

with unaided free recall.

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 29

The CI aligns quite well within an information-gathering framework, and in fact the CI is

trained as an advanced interviewing skill within the UK’s “tiered” system (Fisher, Milne, & Bull,

2011). Geiselman (2012) has offered a version of the CI “for Suspects” – as described below,

Geiselman and others (see Sooniste, Granhag, Strömwall, & Vrij, in press) have demonstrated

that the protocol promotes an important corollary benefit in facilitating the discrimination of

truth and deception. Further, recent experimental research suggests that inclusion of CI

components can facilitate the collection of guilty knowledge and key admissions in an

interrogative context (Evans, Meissner 2013), and aid the recollection of sources in a human

intelligence context (Leins et al., 2014).

Presenting Evidence to Motivate an Admission

Research has consistently demonstrated that a suspect’s perception of the evidence

against them is an important motivational factor that predicts true confessions (Horgan et al.,

2012; Houston et al., 2014; Moston, Stephenson, & Williamson; 1992; Redlich et al., 2011);

however, the presentation of false evidence has also been shown to produce false confessions

(Nash & Wade, 2009; Perillo & Kassin, 2011). Studies have also suggested that the method of

evidence presentation may be critical. For example, evidence presentation formats differentiate

accusatorial and information-gathering approaches – whereas investigators from an accusatorial

framework often utilize evidence to overwhelm the subject and seek an admission or confession

(including the exaggeration or presentation of false evidence), investigators from an information-

gathering framework present evidence to identify contradictions in the subject’s account. A

further distinction regards the manner in which evidence is temporally presented, with

confession-seeking approaches generally preferring a concurrent “monologue” and information-

gathering approaches preferring the presentation of evidence gradually over time (Walsh & Bull,

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 30

in press). Experimental research has also demonstrated that late disclosure of strong evidence is

most likely to produce a confession (Sellers & Kebbell, 2009), and that an awareness of possible

evidence that could be disclosed by the interrogator increases the extent to which guilty

participants offer more critical disclosures (Luke, Dawson, Hartwig, & Granhag, 2014).

Hartwig and colleagues (Hartwig, Granhag, Stromwall, & Doering, 2010; Hartwig,

Granhag, Stromwall, & Vrij, 2005; for a review, see Hartwig, Granhag, & Luke, 2014) have

proposed that appropriate disclosure of evidence can be effective due to its influence on a

suspect’s information management strategy – if a suspect initiates a cooperative exchange, they

will seek to maintain an appearance of credibility; and if critical information must be protected,

they are likely to engage in either avoidance strategies or denials until such time as it might be

impossible to do so. The authors’ “Strategic Use of Evidence” (SUE; Hartwig et al., 2005, 2014;

see also, Dando & Bull, 2011) approach seeks to initially gain the cooperation of the subject and

to elicit an open-ended narrative. After the subject has committed to an account, evidence

disclosure strategies can be used to strategically confront the subject. Taken together, this

research suggests that:

• late disclosure of evidence is superior to early disclosure;

• disclosure of stronger evidence is more effective than weaker evidence; and

• gradual disclosure of evidence appears to be more effective than a single disclosure

monologue, particularly if the interrogator moves systematically from weaker to stronger

evidence types.

Assessing Credibility – Cognitive-Based Interviewing Approaches

The current science-based perspective on interrogations suggests that information-

gathering approaches, including those that facilitate rapport, seek to enhance memory, and

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 31

strategically disclose evidence, are more likely to yield critical information from suspects. These

methods of elicitation also produce a corollary benefit – they can facilitate assessments of

credibility in the interrogation booth (for reviews see Granhag, Vrij, & Verschuere, 2015; Vrij,

2008).

Accusatorial and information-gathering approaches differ rather significantly in their

perspective on deception: while accusatorial methods focus on non-verbal and paraverbal cues

associated with anxiety, information-gathering methods prioritize verbal or cognitive cues to

deception associated with the manner in which subjects tell their story. In the most

comprehensive meta-analysis to date, DePaulo et al. (2003) observed that behavioral and

paraverbal cues to deception are quite faint; however, a majority of the most reliable indicators

involved cognitive cues to deception that relate to the way in which individuals recall an event.

Not surprisingly, a recent meta-analysis of the training to detect deception literature observed

that training individuals to recognize cognitive cues to deception led to significantly better

performance on a subsequent detection task when compared with training on non-verbal or

paraverbal cues (Hauch, Sporer, Michael, & Meissner, 2014).

Given the potential for cognitive cues to improve the discrimination of liars and truth tellers,

researchers have explored the manner in which interviewing approaches might magnify these

differences and therein facilitate detection (Vrij & Granhag, 2012, 2014). Studies suggest that

information-gathering approaches can prove more cognitively demanding (Vrij, Mann, & Fisher,

2006) and produce more verbal or cognitive cues to deception (Vrij, Mann, Kristen, & Fisher,

2007) when compared with accusatorial methods. Notable examples of interviewing approaches

that facilitate the detection of deception include:

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 32

• using the Cognitive Interview to elicit accounts (Geiselman, 2012; Sooniste et al., in

press), including mnemonics such as reverse order recall (Evans, Michael, Meissner, &

Brandon, 2013; Vrij et al., 2008) and encouraging detailed recall via a model statement

(Leal et al., 2015); such tactics reveal differences in the details reported and the cognitive

operations of liars and truth tellers;

• asking unanticipated questions, such as spatial/temporal information or a request to draw

a sketch (Leins, Fisher, Vrij, Leal, & Mann, 2011; Vrij et al., 2009), to induce greater

verbal inconsistency and variation in details reported; and

• disclosing evidence in a strategic manner, including late (rather than early) disclosure of

evidence following a narrative recall by the subject (Hartwig et al., 2005) and the gradual

disclosure of evidence over time (Dando & Bull, 2011) to reveal greater statement-

evidence inconsistencies in liars.

A recent training validation of this cognitive-based approach to deception detection suggested

that interrogators could be trained to employ the methods, and that use of the methods both

enhanced the elicitation of information and facilitated the discrimination of liars and truth tellers

(Vrij, Leal, Mann, Vernham, & Brankaert, in press). Hartwig and colleagues have also

demonstrated that strategic evidence disclosure techniques can be effectively trained, and that

use of the approach can significantly improve deception detection performance (Hartwig,

Granhag, Stromwall, & Kronkvist, 2006).

LOOKING FORWARD: DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Shortly after his inauguration in 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 13491

that created a Special Task Force on Interrogations and Transfer Policies to “establish a

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 33

specialized interrogation group to bring together officials from law enforcement, the U.S.

Intelligence Community and the Department of Defense to conduct interrogations in a manner

that will strengthen national security consistent with the rule of law”. In August of that same

year, the Task Force recommended that a new interagency collaboration be formed, called the

High Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG). In addition to its operational duties, the HIG

was tasked with creating a program of research to evaluate best practices in lawful interrogation.

Since that time, researchers from the United States, Europe, Australia and elsewhere have been

working to fulfill the Task Force’s mandate and a “science of interrogation” has begun to emerge

(Brandon, 2014). While the HIG’s operational mandate is primarily aimed at the collection of

human intelligence (HUMINT) in a national security context, many of the techniques developed

and assessed by researchers have been shown to be applicable to law enforcement contexts as

well (Evans, Meissner, Brandon, Russano, & Kleinman, 2010; Hartwig, Meissner, & Semel,

2014; Redlich, 2007). For example, a recent survey demonstrated that across a variety of

interrogation methods, outcomes, and scenarios, few differences emerged between law

enforcement and HUMINT interrogators on the techniques perceived as most effective (Redlich

et al., 2014; see also Neuman & Salinas-Serrano, 2006; Russano, Narchet, Kleinman, &

Meissner, 2014). Nevertheless, future research is needed to consider how the various settings,

goals, and outcomes of an interrogation may lead to important differences in the effectiveness of

interrogative approaches across law enforcement, military, and intelligence operations.

A comprehensive understanding of modern interrogation also requires that we consider

cultural and linguistic issues. For example, a subject’s cross-cultural perspective could influence

the effectiveness of certain interrogative approaches (e.g., Beune, Giebels, & Sanders, 2009;

Beune, Giebels, & Taylor, 2010). Interpreters may also play an important and understudied role

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 34

in the effectiveness of interrogations (Russano, Narchet, & Kleinman, 2013), from the elicitation

of information, to the development of rapport and assessments of credibility (e.g., Ewens, Vrij,

Leal, Mann, Jo, & Fisher, 2014). Further, differences in language fluency may also influence the

efficacy of certain approaches to credibility assessment (e.g., Evans, Michael, Meissner, &

Brandon, 2013; Da Silva & Leach, 2013).

Of the six domains from Kelly et al.’s (2013) taxonomy discussed in the present review,

one in particular – context manipulation – clearly requires additional consideration by

researchers. The physical space where an interrogation is conducted is often described in major

training manuals (e.g., Inbau et al., 2013), including the size of the room, and the type of

furnishings it should and should not contain. Indeed, Kassin et al. (2007) reported that two of the

most common techniques from their survey involved isolating the suspect from friends and

family and conducting the interrogation in a small room. These conditions are often intended to

exert control over the suspect and to instill a sense of hopelessness. Yet, contextual priming

could also act to facilitate openness, develop rapport, promote honest and accountable responses,

or enhance feelings of guilt or remorse (cf. Klauer & Musch, 2003) – factors that could increase

the effectiveness of information-gathering approaches and further lead to diagnostic outcomes.

Finally, we close by noting that the study of interrogation methods, approaches, tactics,

techniques, and procedures will benefit from greater interaction between foundational theory in

the psychological and social sciences, and its assessment and application in both in vivo (real

world) and in vitro (laboratory) contexts (cf. Lane & Meissner, 2008). In addition, training

studies must be developed to ensure the efficacy and integrity of methods as they are “given

away,” and experimental field studies must be coordinated to ultimately demonstrate the

effectiveness of science-based methods when compared with current practices. Facilitating a

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 35

successful transition from research to practice will ultimately require open dialogue, the

development of trust, and productive collaborations between scientists and practitioners.

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 36

REFERENCES

Abbe, A., & Brandon, S. E. (2013). The role of rapport in investigative interviewing: A review.

Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 10, 237-249. doi:

10.1002/jip.1386

Abbe, A., & Brandon, S. E. (2014). Building and maintaining rapport in investigative interviews.

Police Practice and Research, 15, 207-220. doi: 10.1080/15614263.2013.827835

Alison, L., Alison, E., Noone, G., Elntib, S., Waring, S., & Christiansen, P. (2014). Whatever

you say, say nothing: Individual differences in counter interrogation tactics amongst a

field sample of right wing, AQ inspired and paramilitary terrorists. Personality and

Individual Differences, 68, 170–175. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.04.031

Alison, L. J., Alison, E., Noone, G., Elntib, S., & Christiansen, P. (2013). Why tough tactics fail

and rapport gets results: Observing Rapport-Based Interpersonal Techniques (ORBIT) to

generate useful information from terrorists. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19,

411–431. doi:10.1037/a0034564

Baldwin, J. (1993). Police interview techniques: Establishing truth or proof? British Journal of

Criminology, 33, 325–352.

Bedau, H. A., & Radelet, M. L. (1987). Miscarriages of justice in potentially capital cases.

Stanford Law Review, 40, 21–179.

Beune, K., Giebels, E., & Sanders, K. (2009). Are you talking to me? Influencing behavior and

culture in police interviews. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 597-617. doi:

10.1080/10683160802442835

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 37

Beune, K., Giebels, E., & Taylor, P. J. (2010). Patterns of interaction in police interviews: The

role of cultural dependency. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 904–925.

doi:10.1177/0093854810369623

Borchard, E. M. (1932). Convicting the innocent: Errors of criminal justice. New Haven, CT:

Yale University Press.

Brandon, S. E. (2014). Towards a science of interrogation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28,

945-946. doi: 10.1002/acp.3090

Bull, R. (Ed.). (2014). Investigative interviewing. New York, NY: Springer.

Bull, R., & Soukara, S. (2010). Four studies of what really happens in police interviews. In G. D.

Lassiter & C. A. Meissner (Eds.), Police interrogations and false confessions: Current

research, practice, and policy recommendations. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Candel, I., Merckelbach, H., Loyen, S., & Reyskens, H. (2005). “I hit the Shift-key and then the

computer crashed”: Children and false admissions. Personality and Individual

Differences, 38, 1381-1387. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.005

Cialdini, R. B. (2006). Influence: The psychology of persuasion (Revised). New York, NY:

Harper Collins.

Clare, I. C. H., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1995). The vulnerability of suspects with intellectual

disabilities during police interviews: A review and experimental study of decision-

making. Mental Handicap Research, 8, 110-128. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-

3148.1995.tb00149.x

Clarke, C., & Milne, R. (2001). National evaluation of the PEACE investigative interviewing

course. Police Research Award Scheme. London, England: Home Office.

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 38

Clarke, C., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2011). Interviewing suspects of crime: The impact of PEACE

training, supervision and the presence of a legal advisor. Journal of Investigative

Psychology and Offender Profiling, 8, 149–162. doi:10.1002/jip.144

Collins, R., Lincoln, R., & Frank, M. G. (2002). The effect of rapport in forensic interviewing.

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 9, 69-78. doi: 10.1375/132187102760196916

Da Silva, C. S., & Leach, A. (2013). Detecting deception in second-language speakers. Legal &

Criminological Psychology, 18, 115-127. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8333.2011.02030.x

Dando, C. J., & Bull, R. (2011). Maximising opportunities to detect verbal deception: Training

police officers to interview tactically. Journal of Investigative Psychology & Offender

Profiling, 8, 189-202. doi:

DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H.

(2003). Dues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74-118. doi: 10.1037/0033-

2909.129.1.74

Drake, K. E. (2010). The psychology of interrogative suggestibility: A vulnerability during

interview. Personality & Individual Differences, 49, 683-688. doi:

10.1016/j.paid.2010.06.005

Driskell, T., Blickensderfer, E. L., & Salas, E. (2013). Is three a crowd? Examining rapport in

investigative interviews. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 17, 1-13.

doi: 10.1037/a0029686

Drizin, S. A., & Leo, R. A. (2004). The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world.

North Carolina Law Review, 82, 891-1007

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 39

Duke, M. C. (2013). The development of the rapport scales for investigative interviews and

interrogations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas at El Paso: El

Paso, TX.

Evans, J. R., Houston, K. A., Meissner, C. A., Ross, A. B., LaBianca, J. R., Woestehoff, S. A., &

Kleinman, S. M. (2014). An empirical evaluation of intelligence-gathering interrogation

techniques from the United States Army Field Manual. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28,

867-875. doi: 10.1002/acp.3065

Evans, J. R., Meissner, C. A., Brandon, S. E., Russano, M. B., & Kleinman, S. M. (2010).

Criminal versus HUMINT interrogations: The importance of psychological science to

improving interrogative practice. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 38, 215-249.

Evans, J.R., Meissner, C.A., Ross, A.B., Houston, K.A., Russano, M.B., & Horgan, A.J. (2013).

Obtaining guilty knowledge in human intelligence interrogations: Comparing accusatorial

and information-gathering approaches with a novel experimental paradigm. Journal of

Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2, 83-88. doi:10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.03.002

Evans, J. R., Michael, S. W., Meissner, C. A., & Brandon, S. E. (2013). Validating a new

assessment method for deception detection: Introducing a Psychologically Based

Credibility Assessment Tool. Journal of Applied Research in Memory & Cognition, 2, 33-

41. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.02.002

Everington, C., & Fulero, S. M. (1999). Competence to confess: Measuring understanding and

suggestibility of defendants with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 37, 212-220.

doi: 10.1352/0047-6765(1999)037<0212:CTCMUA>2.0.CO;2

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 40

Ewens, S., Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S., Jo, E., & Fisher, R. P. (2014). The effect of interpreters

on eliciting information, cues to deceit and rapport. Legal and Criminological

Psychology. doi: 10.1111/lcrp.12067

Dunbar, K., & Blanchette, I. (2001). The in vivo/in vitro approach to cognition: The case of

analogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 334-339.

Fein, R. (2006). Educing information: Science and art in interrogation - Foundations for the

future (Intelligence Science Board Study on Educing Information Phase 1 report).

Washington, DC: National Military Intelligence College Press.

Feld, B. C. (2013). Kids, cops, and interrogation: Inside the interrogation room. New York, NY:

New York University Press.

Fisher, R. P. (2010). Interviewing cooperative witnesses. Legal & Criminological Psychology,

15, 25-38. doi: 10.1348/135532509X441891

Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992). Memory-enhancing techniques for investigative

interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers.

Fisher, R. P., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2011). Interviewing cooperative witnesses. Currrent

Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 16-19. doi: 10.1177/0963721410396826

Fisher, R. P., & Perez, V. (2007). Memory-enhancing techniques for interviewing crime

suspects. In S. Christianson (Ed.), Offenders’ memories of violent crimes (pp. 329–350).

Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Garrett, B. L. (2015). Contaminated confessions revisited. Virginia Law Review, 101, 395-458.

Geiselman, R. E. (2012). The Cognitive Interview for Suspects (CIS). American Journal of

Forensic Psychology, 30, 5-20.

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 41

Goldstein, N. E. S., Condie, L. O., Kalbeitzer, R., Osman, D., & Geier, J. L. (2003). Juvenile

offenders’ Miranda rights comprehension and self-reported likelihood of offering false

confessions. Assessment, 10, 359-369. doi: 10.1177/1073191103259535

Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Howes, L. M. (in press). Social persuasion to develop rapport in

high-stakes interviews: qualitative analyses of Asian-Pacific practices. Policing and

Society, (ahead-of-print), 1-21.

Goodman-Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N., & Dhami, M. K. (2014). Interviewing high values

detainees: Securing cooperation and reliable disclosures. Applied Cognitive Psychology,

28, 883–897. doi:doi: 10.1002/acp.3087

Goodman-Delahunty, J., O'Brien, K., & Gumbert-Jourjon, T. (2013). Police professionalism in

interviews with high value detainees: Cross-cultural endorsement of procedural

justice. JIJIS, 13, 65.

Granhag, P. A., Vrij, A., & Verschuere, B. (2015). Detecting deception: Current challenges and

cognitive approaches. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Griffiths, A., & Milne, R. (2006). Will it all end in tiers? In T. Williamson (Ed.), Investigative

interviewing; Research rights and regulation (pp. 167–189). Cullompton: Willan.

Grisso, T., Steinberg, L., Woolard, J., Cauffman, E., Scott, E., Graham, S., Lexcen, F., Reppucci,

N. D., & Schwartz, R. (2003). Juveniles’ competence to stand trial: A comparison of

adolescents’ and adults’ capacities as trial defendants. Law and Human Behavior, 27,

333-363. doi: 10.1023/A:1024065015717

Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook.

Chichester, England: Wiley.

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 42

Gudjonsson, G. H. (2013) Interrogative suggestibility and compliance. In A. Ridley et al.’s

(Eds.), Suggestibility in legal contexts: Psychological research and forensic implications.

John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Oxford. doi: 10.1002/9781118432907

Gudjonsson, G. H., & Henry, L. (2003). Child and adult witnesses with intellectual disability:

The importance of suggestibility. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 8, 241-252.

Gudjonsson, G. H., Sigurdsson, J. F., Asgeirsdottir, B. B., & Sigfusdottir, I. D. (2006). Custodial

interrogation, false confession and individual differences: A national study among

Icelandic youth. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 49-59. doi:

10.1016/j.paid.2005.12.012

Guyll, M., Madon, S., Yang, Y., Lannin, D. G., & Scherr, K. (2013). Innocence and resisting

confession during interrogation: Effects on physiologic activity. Law and Human

Behavior, 37, 366-375. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000044

Häkkänen, H., Ask, K., Kebbell, M., Alison, L., & Granhag, P. A. (2009). Police officers’ views

of effective interview tactics with suspects: The effects of weight of case evidence and

discomfort with ambiguity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 468–481.

doi:10.1002/acp.1491

Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., & Luke, T. (2014). Strategic use of evidence during investigative

interviews: The state of the science. In D. C. Raskin, C. R. Honts, & J. C. Kircher (Eds.),

Strategic use of evidence during investigative interviews: The state of the science.

Elsevier.

Hartwig, M., Granhag, P.A., Strömwall, L.A., & Doering, N. (2010). Impression and information

management: on the strategic self-regulation of innocent and guilty suspects. Open

Criminology Journal, 3, 10-26.

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 43

Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Stromwall, L. A., & Kronkvist, O. (2006). Strategic use of

evidence during police interviews: When training to detect deception works. Law and

Human Behavior, 30, 603-619. doi: 10.1007/s10979-006-9053-9

Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Vrij, A. (2005). Detecting deception via

strategic disclosure of evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 469 – 484.

doi:10.1007/s10979-005-5521-x

Hartwig, M., Meissner, C. A., & Semel, M. D. (2014). Human intelligence interviewing and

interrogation: Assessing the challenges of developing an ethical, evidence-based

approach. In R. Bull (Ed.), Investigative interviewing. New York, NY: Springer.

Hauch, V., Sporer, S. L., Michael, S. W., & Meissner, C. A. (in press). Does training improve the

detection of deception: A meta-analysis. Communication Research. doi:

10.1177/0093650214534974

Hilgendorf, E. L., & Irving, M. (1981). A decision-making model of confessions. In M. Lloyd-

Bostock (Ed.), Psychology in legal contexts: Applications and limitations (pp. 67-84).

London: MacMillan.

Hill, C., Memon, A., & McGeorge, P. (2008). The role of confirmation bias in suspect

interviews: A systematic evaluation. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 357-371.

doi: 10.1348/135532507X238682

Holmberg, U., & Christianson, S.-A. (2002). Murderers’ and sexual offenders’ experiences of

police interviews and their inclination to admit or deny crimes. Behavioral Sciences &

the Law, 20, 31–45. doi:10.1002/bsl.470

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 44

Holmberg, U., & Madsen, K. (2014). Rapport operationalized as a humanitarian interview in

investigative interview settings. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 21, 591-610. doi:

10.1080/13218719.2013.873975

Home Office. (2003). Police and criminal evidence act 1984. Codes of practice A-E revised

edition. London: HMSO.

Horgan, A. J., Russano, M. B., Meissner, C. A., & Evans, J. R. (2012). Minimization and

maximization techniques: Assessing the perceived consequences of confessing and

confession diagnosticity. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 18, 65-78. doi:

10.1080/1068316X.2011.561801

Horselenberg, R., Merckelbach, H., & Josephs, S. (2003). Individual differences and false

confessions: A conceptual replication of Kassin and Kiechel (1996). Psychology, Crime

& Law, 9, 1-8. doi: 10.1080/1068316021000057631

Horselenberg, R., Merckelbach, H., Smeets, T., Franssens, D., Ygram Peters, G.-J., & Zeles, G.

(2006). False confessions in the lab: Do plausibility and consequences matter?

Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 61-75. doi: 10.1080/1068310042000303076

Horvath, A. O., & Greenberg, L. S. (1989). Development and validation of the working alliance

inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 223-233. doi: 10.1037/0022-

0167.36.2.223

Houston, K. A., Meissner, C. A., & Evans, J. R. (2014). Psychological processes underlying true

and false confessions. In R. H. Bull (Ed.), Investigative Interviewing (pp. 19-34). UK:

Wiley-Blackwell.

Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. C. (2013). Criminal interrogations and

confession (5th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 45

Jayne, B. C. (1986). The psychological principles of criminal interrogation. In Inbau, F. E., Reid,

J. E., & Buckley, J. P. (Eds). Criminal interrogation and confessions (3rd ed., pp. 327-

347). Baltimore, MD, USA: Williams & Wilkins.

Kassin, S. M. (2005). On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence put innocents at risk?

American Psychologist, 60, 215-228. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.3.215

Kassin, S. M. (2008). False confessions: Causes, consequences, and implications for reform.

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 249-253. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-

8721.2008.00584.x

Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010).

Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human

Behavior, 34, 3-38. doi: 10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6

Kassin, S. M., Goldstein, C. C., & Savitsky, K. (2003). Behavioral confirmation in the

interrogation room: On the dangers of presuming guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 27,

187-203. doi: 10.1023/A:1022599230598

Kassin, S. M., & Kiechel, K. L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: Compliance,

internalization, and confabulation. Psychological Science, 7, 125-128. doi:

10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00344.x

Kassin, S. M., Leo, R. A., Meissner, C. A., Richman, K. D., Colwell, L. H., Leach, A.-M., &

Fon, D. La. (2007). Police interviewing and interrogation: A self-report survey of police

practices and beliefs. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 381–400. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-

9073-5

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 46

Kassin, S. M., & McNall, K. (1991). Police interrogations and confessions: Communicating

promises and threats by pragmatic implication. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 233-251.

doi: 10.1007/BF01061711

Kassin, S. M., Meissner, C. A., & Norwick, R. J. (2005). “I’d know a false confession if I saw

one”: A comparative study of college students and police investigators. Law and Human

Behavior, 29, 211-227. doi: 10.1007/s10979-005-2416-9

Kassin, S. M., & Norwick, R. J. (2004). Why people waive their Miranda rights: The power of

innocence. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 211-221. doi:

10.1023/B:LAHU.0000022323.74584.f5

Kebbell, M., Alison, L., Hurren, E., & Mazerolle, P. (2010). How do sex offenders think the

police should interview to elicit confessions from sex offenders? Psychology, Crime &

Law, 16, 567-584.

Kelly, C. E. & Meissner, C. A. (in press). Interrogation and investigative interviewing in the

United States: Research and practice. In D. Walsh et al. (Eds.), Contemporary

developments and practices in investigative interviewing and interrogation: Volume II

(suspects). Routledge.

Kelly, C. E., Miller, J. C., Redlich, A. D., & Kleinman, S. M. (2013). A taxonomy of

interrogation methods. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19, 165–178.

doi:10.1037/a0030310

Kelly, C. E., Redlich, A. D., & Miller, J. C. (in press). Examining the meso-Level domains of the

interrogation taxonomy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. doi:10.1037/law0000034

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 47

Kelman, H. C. (2006). Interests, relationships, identities: Three central issues for individuals and

groups in negotiating their social environment. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 1-26.

doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190156

Kieckhaefer, J. M., Vallano, J. P., & Compo, N. S. (2014). Examining the positive effects of

rapport building: When and why does rapport building benefit adult eyewitness memory?

Memory, 22, 1010-1023. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2013.864313

King, L., & Snook, B. (2009). Peering inside a Canadian interrogation room: An examination of

the Reid Model of interrogation, influence tactics, and coercive strategies. Criminal

Justice and Behavior, 36, 674–694. doi:10.1177/0093854809335142

Klauer, K. & Musch, C. (2003). Affective priming: Findings and theories. In J. Musch & K. C.

Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and

emotion (pp. 9-50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Klaver, J. R., Lee, Z., & Rose, V. G. (2008). Effects of personality, interrogation techniques and

plausibility in an experimental false confession paradigm. Legal and Criminological

Psychology, 13, 71-88. doi: 10.1348/135532507X193051

Lane, S. M., & Meissner, C. A. (2008). A “middle road” approach to bridging the basic-applied

divide in eyewitness identification research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 779-787.

doi: 10.1002/acp.1482

Lassiter, G. D., & Meissner, C. A. (Eds.). (2010). Police interrogations and false confessions:

Current research, practice, and policy recommendations. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Leal, S., Vrij, A., Warmelink, L., Vernham, Z., & Fisher, R. (2015). You cannot hide your

telephone lies: Providing a model statement as an aid to detect deception in insurance

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 48

telephone calls. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 20, 129-146. doi:

10.1111/lcrp.12017

Leary, T. F. (1955). The theory and measurement methodology of inter-personal communication.

Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, 18, 147–161.

Leins, D. A., Fisher, R. P., Pludwinski, L., Rivard, J., & Robertson, B. (2014). Interview

protocols to facilitate human intelligence sources’ recollections of meetings. Applied

Cognitive Psychology, 28, 926-935. doi: 10.1002/acp.3041

Leins, D., Fisher, R. P., Vrij, A., Leal, S., & Mann, S. (2011). Using sketch drawing to induce

inconsistency in liars. Legal & Criminological Psychology, 16, 253-265. doi:

10.1348/135532510X501775

Leo, R. A. (1996). Inside the interrogation room. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86,

266-303. doi: 10.2307/1144028

Leo, R. A. (2009). False confessions: Causes, consequences, and implications. Journal of the

American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 37, 332-343.

Leo, R. A., & Ofshe, R. J. (1998). The consequences of false confessions: Deprivations of

liberty and miscarriages of justice in the age of psychological interrogation. Criminal

Law and Criminology, 88, 429-496.

Loftus, E. F. (2011). Intelligence gathering post-9/11. American Psychologist, 66, 532-541. doi:

10.1037/a0024614

Luke, T. J., Dawson, E., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2014). How awareness of possible

evidence induces forthcoming counter-interrogation strategies. Applied Cognitive

Psychology, 6, 876-882. doi: 10.1002/acp.3019

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 49

Madon, S., Guyll, M., Scherr, K. C., Greathouse, S., & Wells, G. L. (2012). Temporal

discounting: The differential effect of proximal and distal consequences on confession

decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 13-20. doi: 10.1037/h0093962

Madon, S., Yang, Y., Smalarz, L, Guyll, M., & Scherr, K. C. (2013). How factors present during

the immediate interrogation situation produce short-sighted confession decisions. Law

and Human Behavior, 37, 60-74. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000011

Malloy, L. C., Shulman, E. P., & Cauffman, E. (2014). Interrogations, confessions, and guilty

pleas among serious adolescent offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 181-193. doi:

10.1037/lhb0000065

Meissner, C. A., Hartwig, M., & Russano, M. B. (2010). The need for a positive psychological

approach and collaborative effort for improving practice in the interrogation room. Law

& Human Behavior, 34, 43-45. doi: 10.1007/s10979-009-9205-9

Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2002). ‘‘He’s guilty!’’: Investigator bias in judgments of truth

and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 469-480. doi: 10.1023/A:1020278620751

Meissner, C. A., Redlich, A. D., Michael, S. W., Evans, J. R., Camilletti, C. R., Bhatt, S., &

Brandon, S. (2014). Accusatorial and information-gathering interrogation methods and

their effects on true and false confessions: a meta-analytic review. Journal of

Experimental Criminology, 10, 459–486. doi:10.1007/s11292-014-9207-6

Memon, A., Meissner, C. A., & Fraser, J. (2010). The Cognitive Interview: A meta-analytic

review and study space analysis of the past 25 years. Psychology, Public Policy, and

Law, 16, 340-372. doi: 10.1037/a0020518

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 50

Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2009). Ten things that motivational interviewing is not.

Behavioural & Cognitive Psychotherapy, 37, 129-140. doi:

10.1017/S1352465809005128

Milne, R., & Bull, R. (1999). Investigative interviewing: Psychology and practice. Chichester,

England: Wiley.

Moston, S., Stephenson, G. M., & Williamson, T. (1992). The effects of case characteristics on

suspect behaviour during police questioning. British Journal of Criminology, 32, 23-39.

Munsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Narchet, F. M., Meissner, C. A., & Russano, M. B. (2011). Modeling the influence of

investigator bias on the elicitation of true and false confessions. Law and Human

Behavior, 35, 452-465. doi: 10.1007/s10979-010-9257-x

Nash, R. A., & Wade, K. A. (2009). Innocent but proven guilty: Eliciting internalized false

confessions using doctored-video evidence. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 624-637.

doi: 10.1002/acp.1500

Neuman, A. & Salinas-Serrano, D. (2006). Custodial interrogations: What we know, what we do,

and what we can learn from law enforcement experiences. In Educing Intelligence,

Interrogation: Science and Art, Phase 1 Report (pp. 141-233). Washington, DC: National

Defense Intelligence College

Niederhoffer, K. G., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2002). Linguistic style matching in social interaction.

Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21, 337-360. doi:

10.1177/026192702237953

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 51

O’Connell, M. J., Garmoe, W., & Goldstein, N. E. S. (2005). Miranda comprehension in adults

with mental retardation and the effects of feedback style on suggestibility. Law and

Human Behavior, 29, 359-369. doi: 10.1007/s10979-005-2965-y

Oxburgh, G., & Ost, J. (2011). The use and efficacy of empathy in police interviews with

suspects of sexual offences. Journal of Investigative Psychology & Offender Profiling, 8,

178-188. doi: 10.1002/jip.143

Perillo, J. T., & Kassin, S. M. (2011). Inside interrogation: The lie, the bluff, and false

confessions. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 327-337. doi: 10.1007/s10979-010-9244-2

Powell, M., Day, A., Benson, M., Vess, J., & Graffam, J. (2014). Australian police officers'

perceptions of sex offender registries. Policing and Society, 24, 120-133.

Redlich, A. D. (2007). Double jeopardy in the interrogation room for youths with mental illness.

American Psychologist, 62, 609-611. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X62.6.609

Redlich, A. D., & Goodman, G. S. (2003). Taking responsibility for an act not committed: The

influence of age and suggestibility. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 141-156. doi:

10.1023/A:1022543012851

Redlich, A. D., Kelly, C. E., & Miller, J. C. (2014). The who, what, and why of human

intelligence gathering: Self-reported measures of interrogation methods. Applied

Cognitive Psychology, 28, 817–828. doi:10.1002/acp.3040

Redlich, A. D., Kulish, R., & Steadman, H. J. (2011). Comparing true and false confessions

among persons with serious mental illnesses. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17,

394-418. doi: 10.1037/a0022918

Reik, T. (1959). The compulsion to confess: On the psychoanalysis of crime and punishment.

New York, USA: Farrar, Straus and Cudahy.

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 52

Richardson, B. H., Taylor, P. J., Snook, B., Conchie, S. M., & Bennell, C. (2014). Language

style matching and police interrogation outcomes. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 357-

366. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000077

Rivard, J. R., Fisher, R. P., Robertson, B., & Dana, H. M. (2014). Testing the Cognitive

Interview with professional interviewers: Enhancing recall of specific details of recurring

events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 917-925. doi: 10.1002/acp.3026

Russano, M. B., Meissner, C. A., Narchet, F. M., & Kassin, S. M. (2005). Investigating true and

false confessions within a novel experimental paradigm. Psychological Science, 16, 481-

486. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01560.x

Russano, M. B., Narchet, F. M., & Kleinman, S. M. (2014). Analysts, interpreters, and

intelligence interrogations: Perceptions and insights. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28,

829-846. doi: 10.1002/acp.3070

Russano, M. B., Narchet, F. M., Kleinman, S. M., & Meissner, C. A. (2014). Structured

interviews of experienced HUMINT interrogators. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28,

847–859. doi:10.1002/acp.3069

Sellers, S., & Kebbell, M. R. (2009). When should evidence be disclosed in an interview with a

suspect? An experiment with mock-suspects. Journal of Investigative Psychology and

Offender Profiling, 6, 151-160. doi: 10.1002/jip.95

Shaw, J., & Porter, S. (2015). Constructing rich false memories of committing crime.

Psychological Science, 26, 291-301. doi: 10.1177/0956797614562862

Sigurdsson, J. F., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1996). The relationship between types of claimed false

confession made and the reasons why suspects confess to the police according to the

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 53

Gudjonsson Confession Questionnaire (GCQ). Legal and Criminological Psychology, 1,

259-269. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8333.1996.tb00324.x

Sooniste, T., Granhag, P.A., Strömwall, L.A., & Vrij, A. (in press). True and false intentions:

Using the Cognitive Interview to magnify the differences. Scandinavian Journal of

Psychology.

Soukara, S., Bull, R., & Vrij, A. (2002). Police detectives’ aims regarding their interviews with

suspects: Any change at the turn of the millenium? International Journal of Police

Science & Management, 4, 101–104.

Soukara, S., Bull, R., Vrij, A., Turner, M., & Cherryman, J. (2009). What really happens in

police interviews of suspects? Tactics and confessions. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15,

493–506. doi:10.1080/10683160802201827

St-Yves, M. (2006). Psychology of rapport: Five basic rules. In T. Williamson (Ed.),

Investigative interviewing: Rights, research, regulation (pp.87-106). Portland, Or: Willan

Publishing.

Steinberg, L., & Scott, E. S. (2003). Less guilty by reason of adolescence: Developmental

immaturity, diminished responsibility, and the juvenile death penalty. American

Psychologist, 58, 1009-1018. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.12.1009

Tickle-Degnen, L., & Rosenthal, R. (1990). The nature of rapport and its nonverbal correlates.

Psychological Inquiry, 1, 285-293.

Vallano, J. P., & Schreiber Compo, N. S. (2011). A comfortable witness is a good witness:

Rapport-building and susceptibility to misinformation in an investigative mock-crime

interview. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 960-970. doi: 10.1002/acp.1789

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 54

Vallano, J. P., & Schreiber Compo, N. S. (2015). Rapport-building with cooperative witnesses

and criminal suspects: A theoretical and empirical review. Psychology, Public Policy,

and Law, 21, 85-99. doi: 10.1037/law0000035

Vallano, J. P., Evans, J. R., Schreiber Compo, N., & Kieckhaefer, J. M. (in press). Rapport-

building during witness and suspect interviews: A survey of law enforcement. Applied

Cognitive Psychology. doi: 10.1002/acp.3115

Vanderhallen, M., & Vervaeke, G. (2014). Between investigator and suspect: The role of

working alliance in investigative interviewing. In R. Bull (Ed.), Investigative

Interviewing (pp. 63-90). New York, NY: Springer

Viljoen, J. L., Klaver, J., & Roesch, R. (2005). Legal decisions of preadolescent and adolescent

defendants: Predictors of confessions, pleas, communication with attorneys, and appeals.

Law and Human Behavior, 29, 253-277. doi: 10.1007/s10979-005-3613-2

Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2

Ed.). Wiley, New York.

Vrij, A. & Granhag, P. A. (2012). Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the

questions asked. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 1, 110-117. doi:

10.1016/j.jarmac.2012.02.004

Vrij, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2014). Eliciting information and detecting lies in intelligence

interviewing: An overview of recent research. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28, 936-

944. doi: 10.1002/acp.3071

Vrij, A., Leal, S., Granhag, P. A., Mann, S., Fisher, R., Hillman, J., & Sperry, K. (2009).

Outsmarting the liars: The benefit of asking unanticipated questions. Law and Human

Behavior, 33, 159-166. doi: 10.1007/s10979-008-9143-y

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 55

Vrij, A., Leal, S., Mann, S., Vernham, Z., & Brankaert, F. (in press). Translating theory into

practice: Evaluating a cognitive lie detection training workshop. Journal of Applied

Research in Memory and Cognition. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.02.002

Vrij, A., Mann, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2006). Information-gathering vs accusatory interview style:

Individual differences in respondents' experiences. Personality and Individual

Differences, 41, 589-599. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.02.014

Vrij, A., Mann, S. A., Fisher, R. P., Leal, S., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2008). Increasing cognitive

load to facilitate lie detection: The benefit of recalling an event in reverse order. Law and

Human Behavior, 32, 253-265. doi: 10.1007/s10979-007-9103-y

Vrij, A., Mann, S., Kristen, S., & Fisher, R. P. (2007). Cues to deception and ability to detect lies

as a function of police interview styles. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 499-518. doi:

10.1007/s10979-006-9066-4

Walsh, D. & Bull, R. (2010a). Interviewing suspects of fraud: An in-depth analysis of

interviewing skills. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 38, 99-135.

Walsh, D. W., & Bull, R. (2010b). What really is effective in interviews with suspects? A study

comparing interviewing skills against interviewing outcomes. Legal and Criminological

Psychology, 15, 305-321. doi:10.1348/135532509X463356

Walsh, W. D., & Bull, R. (2012). How do interviewers attempt to overcome suspects’ denials?

Psychiatry, Psychology & Law, 19, 151-168. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2010.543756

Walsh, D. W., & Bull, R. (in press). The association between interview skills, questioning and

evidence disclosure strategies, and interview outcomes. Psychology, Crime & Law. doi:

10.1080/1068316X.2015.1028544

IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS 56

Walsh, D. W., & Milne, R. (2008). Keeping the PEACE? A study of investigative interviewing

practices in the public sector. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 39–57.

doi:10.1348/135532506X157179

Wigmore, J. (1899). Confessions: A brief history and criticism. American Law Review, 33, 376.

Williamson, T. M. (1993). From interrogation to investigative interviewing: Strategic trends in

police questioning. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 3, 89-99.

Wright, D. S., Wade, K. A., & Watson, D. G. (2013). Delay and déjà vu: Timing and repetition

increase the power of false evidence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 812-818. doi:

10.3758/s13423-013-0398-z

Interview and interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: A systematic review update and extension

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2024

Background False confessions are often the product of an interrogation process, and the method by which an interrogation is conducted likely affects both the rate of truthful confessions and false confessions. An optimal interrogation method will maximize the former and minimize the latter. Objectives The current study was a partial update and extension of Meissner and colleagues' (2012) prior Campbell systematic review titled Interview and Interrogation Methods and their Effects on True and False Confessions. Our objective was to assess the effects of interrogation approach on the rates of true and false confessions for criminal (mock) suspects. Search Methods PsycINFO, Criminal Justice Abstracts, and 15 other databases were searched starting October 20, 2022, with the final search conducted on May 23, 2023; together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with authors to identify additional studies. Selection Criteria All eligible studies experimentally manipulated interrogation approach (i.e., accusatorial, information‐gathering, or direct questioning) were conducted with mock suspects accused of wrongdoing where ground truth was known, and included information about confession rates. Data Collection and Analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Campbell Collaboration for our selection of studies and data collection. However, we developed our own risk of bias items and analyzed our data using network meta‐analysis methods. Data were synthesized via random‐effects network meta‐analysis based on the logged odds ratio. Main Results Across the 27 research articles that provided statistical information sufficient to calculate an effect size, 29 individual studies provided a total of 81 effect sizes. Most studies were conducted with college students in the United States. Overall, our risk of bias assessment indicated that authors generally adhered to double‐blind procedures and avoided selective reporting of outcomes. Of note, however, it was often unclear how violations of the randomization process were dealt with. For true confessions, there were 12 studies estimating the effect between accusatorial and direct questioning, five estimating the effect between information‐gathering and direct questioning, and another five estimating the effect between accusatorial and information‐gathering. Compared to information‐gathering, on average, the accusatorial conditions observed fewer true confessions, although not statistically significant (combined OR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.29, 1.05). The largest effects were between information‐gathering and direct questioning, with the former producing significantly more true confessions on average (combined OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.29, 4.59). This model showed good consistency between the direct and indirect effects. For false confessions, there were 20 studies estimating the effect between accusatorial and direct questioning, 4 studies estimating the effect between information‐gathering and direct questioning, and 7 estimating the effect between accusatorial and information‐gathering. On average, accusatorial conditions yielded more false confessions than direct questioning (combined OR = 3.03, 95% CI 1.83, 5.02) or information‐gathering (combined OR = 4.41, 95% CI 1.77, 10.97), both of which are statistically significant. In contrast, direct questioning and information‐gathering had roughly similar rates of false confessions with nonsignificant and small effects that slightly favored information‐gathering (combined OR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.27, 1.78). This model showed good consistency between the direct and indirect effects. For true confessions under a six‐node model, most of the direct, indirect, and combined network estimated mean odds ratios were not statistically significant. The only significant effects were for (1) information‐gathering versus direct questioning, with the former resulting in more true confessions (combined OR = 2.57, 95% CI 1.38, 4.78); and (2) accusatorial‐evidence ploy versus information‐gathering with the former resulting in fewer true confessions (combined OR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.16, 0.84). For false confessions under a six‐node model, we found significant effects for (1) accusatorial‐evidence ploys versus direct questioning, with the former resulting in more false confessions (combined OR = 2.98, 95% CI 1.59, 5.59); (2) accusatorial‐evidence ploys versus information‐gathering, with the former resulting in more false confessions (combined OR = 4.47, 95% CI 1.46, 13.68); (3) accusatorial‐other versus direct questioning, with the former resulting in more false confessions (combined OR = 3.12, 95% CI 1.37, 7.10); (4) accusatorial‐other versus information‐gathering, with the former resulting in more false confessions (combined OR = 4.67, 95% CI 1.61, 13.55); and (5) information‐gathering versus minimization, with the latter resulting in more false confessions (combined OR = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.08, 0.83). No other combined effects were significant. This model should be interpreted cautiously, however, as the Q statistics raised concerns regarding model consistency. Authors' Conclusions Overall, results support calls for reforming policies related to interviewing and interrogation practices to prohibit the use of accusatorial approaches and require the adoption of approaches that are science‐based.

Evaluations of procedural justice: what drives practitioners’ support for interview procedures?

Article

Mar 2025
PSYCHOL CRIME LAW

An online experimental survey examined the degree to which 377 international practitioners endorsed procedural justice principles in interviews. Participants were recruited through policing and intelligence agencies in 15 countries in the Asia Pacific and Europe. One section of the survey was administered as a 3 (Coercion: coercive, non-coercive, mixed) x 2 (Crime Harm: high, low) between-subjects experiment to test effects on practitioners’ evaluations of an interview vignette. We predicted that coercion and crime harm would interact to affect procedural evaluations, with tolerance of coercive procedures when the harm caused by a crime was high but not when crime harm was low. We also expected the effect of coercion on procedural evaluations to be mediated primarily by practitioner perceptions that the interview procedure would effectively gather useful information. Counter to these predictions, findings indicated that this sample of experienced practitioners strongly favoured non-coercive interview strategies, and their satisfaction with these procedures was driven equally by perceptions that these procedures were respectful of the detainee and effective in gathering useful information, and less strongly driven by perceptions that the detainee was treated as they deserved. Findings are discussed in terms of their implications for best practice in investigative interviewing.

Police-Induced Confessions, 2.0: Risk Factors and Recommendations

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2025

Executive Summary Throughout the world, confessions serve an important function in law enforcement and the administration of criminal justice. Analyses of wrongful convictions in the United States and elsewhere, however, have shown that admissions and confessions drawn from innocent people—a highly counterintuitive phenomenon—are a major contributing factor. In 2010, Kassin et al. published a Scientific Review Paper (SRP) in which they reviewed basic principles of psychology and forensic research that identified the types of police interrogation practices and suspect vulnerabilities that increase the risk. In light of additional exonerations and an explosion of new research, this article aims to update and expand that earlier review by considering not only the causes and correlates of false confessions but the harmful consequences that follow and the remedies that should be implemented to prevent their occurrence. This article is motivated by four objectives. The first is to bring together a multidisciplinary group of scholars (from clinical, social, cognitive, and developmental psychology; law and criminology) to review the state of the relevant science. Our second objective is to identify the personal and situational factors that compromise the reliability of confession evidence. Third, we seek to extend our analysis to the consequences of confessions—namely, their biasing effects on eyewitnesses, alibis, and forensic examiners; their tendency to increase the rate of false guilty pleas and jury convictions at trial; and the stigma that follows innocent confessors through the system, even after exoneration. Fourth, we summarize recent research on science-based cognitive alternatives to suspect interviewing that help to prevent police-induced false confessions. In light of data showing that Miranda warnings fail to safeguard the accused, we propose the following remedies: (1) mandate the video recording of all suspect interviews and interrogations in their entirety and from a “neutral” camera angle; (2) require that police have an evidence-based suspicion before commencing a guilt-presumptive interrogation; (3) curb the use of accusatorial tactics by imposing limits on detention and interrogation time and banning the presentations of false evidence and minimization themes that imply leniency; (4) adopt a science-based model of cognitive interviewing as an alternative; (5) protect youthful suspects and vulnerable adults by mandating the presence of a defense attorney, and a suitable appropriate adult where required; (6) shield lay witnesses and forensic examiners from confessions to ensure the independence of their judgments; and (7) abolish contributory clauses from compensation statutes that penalize innocent individuals who confessed and/or pled guilty. These reforms should help to prevent confession-based wrongful convictions and improve the administration of justice for all concerned.

Interviewing and interrogating suspects

Chapter

Jun 2024

Christopher E. Kelly

Evidence presentation in suspect interviews: A review of the literature

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2024

This review organises the literature on presenting evidence in police interviews for researchers and practitioners to capture the breadth of the topic, and it is organised around the question of why evidence is presented during an interview. The literature was also coded for what type of evidence is presented and with what technique, when evidence is presented, and how it is presented. We found no support for the notion that presenting evidence will overcome resistance and is likely to increase it, presenting evidence gradually and in a challenging manner is the most effective approach to credibility assessment and information disclosure.

Polizeiliche Beschuldigtenvernehmung: Vernehmungspraxis aus der Sicht von Polizeibeamtinnen und -beamten in Deutschland

Article

Full-text available

May 2024

Zusammenfassung Im Rahmen eines europäischen Forschungsprojekts gaben 321 deutsche Polizeibeamtinnen und -beamte der Schutz- und Kriminalpolizei Auskunft über ihre Perspektive und Praxis bei der Durchführung von Beschuldigtenvernehmungen. Mittels Onlinefragebogen wurden sie zu situativen Aspekten von Vernehmungen sowie personalen Faktoren der Beschuldigten und über sich selbst als Vernehmungsperson befragt. Ein Schwerpunkt der Befragung lag auf der Einschätzung der Anwendungshäufigkeit von Vernehmungstechniken. Insgesamt wurde vor allem der Einsatz informationssammelnder Techniken berichtet. So gaben fast alle Befragten (97,8 %) an, Beschuldigte mit Respekt zu behandeln. Daneben werden aber auch einige geständnisorientierte Techniken verwendet. Des Weiteren zeigen die Ergebnisse, dass die Mehrheit der Befragten (77,3 %) Vernehmungen nicht technisch aufzeichnet, obwohl sie dies eigentlich befürwortet. Beschuldigte werden im Durchschnitt 1–2 mal zur selben Tat vernommen und die Dauer einer Vernehmung beträgt durchschnittlich weniger als 1.5 Stunden. Mehr als die Hälfte der Beschuldigten (54,6 %) macht von ihrem Aussageverweigerungsrecht Gebrauch. Es wurde geschätzt, dass über die Hälfte der Beschuldigten (57,2 %) kein Geständnis ablegt und ein Drittel der Befragten gab an, schon einmal ein falsches Geständnis eines Beschuldigten erlebt zu haben. In der Diskussion wurden die Ergebnisse zu denen anderer europäischer Staaten und der initialen US-amerikanischen Untersuchung in Beziehung gesetzt, wobei nationale Unterschiede deutlich wurden.

The Effect of Confession Evidence on Jurors’ Verdict Decisions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2024

Objective: Over the past 4 decades, discrepant research findings have emerged in the juror–confession literature, prompting the need for a systematic review and meta-analysis that assesses the effect of confession evidence (coerced or noncoerced) on conviction rates and the efficacy of trial safeguards. Hypotheses: We did not predict any directional hypotheses. Some studies show increased convictions when a confession is present (vs. not), regardless of whether that confession was coerced; other studies demonstrate that jurors are able to discount coerced confessions. Studies have also demonstrated sensitivity effects (safeguards aided jurors in making appropriate decisions), skepticism effects (safeguards led jurors to indiscriminately disregard confession evidence), or null effects with regard to expert testimony and jury instructions. Method: We identified 83 independent samples (N = 24,860) that met our meta-analytic inclusion criteria. Using extracted Hedges’ g effect sizes, we conducted both network meta-analysis and metaregression to address key research questions. Results: Coerced and noncoerced confessions (vs. no confession) increased convictions (network gs = 0.34 and 0.70, respectively), yet coerced (vs. noncoerced) confessions reduced convictions (network g = −0.36). When jury instructions were employed (vs. not), convictions in coerced confession cases were reduced (this difference did not emerge for noncoerced confessions; a sensitivity effect). Expert testimony, however, reduced conviction likelihood regardless of whether a confession was coerced (a skepticism effect). Conclusion: Confession evidence is persuasive, and although jurors appear to recognize the detrimental effect of coercive interrogation methods on confession reliability, they do not fully discount unreliable confessions. Educational safeguards are therefore needed, but more research is encouraged to identify the most effective forms of jury instructions and expert testimony. One potential reform could be in the interrogation room itself, as science-based interviewing approaches could provide jurors with more reliable defendant statement evidence that assists them in reaching appropriate verdict decisions.

Applications of Legal Psychology in Japan: Current Practice, Research Knowledge, and Future Directions

Article

Mar 2024

Legal psychology is field of research which seeks to bring evidence-based practice to the vital work of the criminal justice system. This research is increasingly being conducted and its findings applied around the world. However, worldwide legal systems and their processes can vary greatly. In the current paper, we summarise discussions between legal psychology academics and criminal justice practitioners from Japan. Together, we examine how practices in the Japanese criminal justice system interact with the international evidence base for psychologically-informed ‘best practice’ approaches. Our discussion targets areas of popular study in legal psychology, focusing on concealed crime knowledge detection, line up identification procedures, and investigative interviewing of witnesses, suspects, and victims. Each section features a description of current Japanese practice, followed by a review of the current state of the relevant academic legal psychological literature. We then connect this practice and research synergy to a reflection with suggestions for future research. Taken together, our paper acts as a conduit to incentivise more research and practice collaboration for Japanese and non-Japanese audiences and presents opportunities for collective international legal psychology.

Police-Induced Confessions, 2.0: Risk Factors and Recommendations

Article

Jan 2025

“Doing Their Jobs”: Legal Regulation of Policing and Suicide Risk of Justice-Involved Persons in Singapore

Article

Full-text available

Nov 2024

Daryl W. J. Yang

Using the island nation-state of Singapore as a case study, this article conceptualizes the legal regulation of policing as a risk factor for suicide among justice-involved persons. Through the lens of legal epidemiology, it discusses public health research and criminal procedure jurisprudence to theorize the unintended consequences of the police “doing their job” in accordance with a legal framework that prioritizes crime control and order maintenance. It examines how two aspects of policing—the power of arrest and the interrogation process—may influence the mental health and suicide risk of justice-involved persons. This article thus calls attention to the role of law in shaping policing practices and their effects and lends support to calls for stronger due process protections from a public health perspective.

Detecting Deception: Current Challenges and Cognitive Approaches

Book

Full-text available

Jan 2015

Detecting Deception offers a state-of-the-art guide to the detection of deception with a focus on the ways in which new cognitive psychology-based approaches can improve practice and results in the field. Includes comprehensive coverage of the latest scientific developments in the detection of deception and their implications for real-world practice. Examines current challenges in the field - such as counter-interrogation strategies, lying networks, cross-cultural deception, and discriminating between true and false intentions. Reveals a host of new approaches based on cognitive psychology with the potential to improve practice and results, including the strategic use of evidence, imposing cognitive load, response times, and covert lie detection. Features contributions from internationally renowned experts.

The effect of rapport in forensic interviewing

Article

Jun 2002

The psychological literature suggests that establishing rapport between interviewer and subject – whether in clinical, experimental or forensic settings – is likely to enhance the quality of the interaction. Yet there are surprisingly few studies that test this assumption. This article reports a study of the effect of rapport on eyewitness recall of a dramatic videotaped event by creating three interviewer-attitude conditions – “rapport”, “neutral” and “abrupt”. Participants were randomly assigned to the three conditions, and recall was elicited by two methods – free narrative and a semi-structured questionnaire. The results indicate participants in the rapport interview recalled more correct information, and the same amount of incorrect information as participants in the other two conditions. However, prompting via the semi-structured questionnaire yielded additional correct as well as incorrect information for the neutral and abrupt conditions. The results are discussed for their relevance to interviews conducted in forensic settings, and to highlight the need for more specific and improved interview training for police and other justice personnel.

Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities in nonverbal and verbal lie detection

Chapter

Dec 2014

Aldert Vrij

People are generally poor at detecting deceit when observing someone’s behaviour or listening to their speech. In this chapter I will discuss the major factors (pitfalls) that lead to failures in catching liars: the sixteen reasons I will present are clustered into three categories: (i) a lack of motivation to detect lies; (ii) difficulties associated with lie detection; and (iii) common errors made by lie detectors. Discussing pitfalls provides insight into how lie detectors can improve their performance (for example, by recognising common biases and avoiding common judgment errors). The second section of this chapter discusses 11 ways (opportunities) to improve lie detection skills. Within this section, I first provide five recommendations for avoiding common errors in detecting lies. Next, I discuss recent lie detection research that introduces novel interview styles aimed at eliciting and enhancing verbal and nonverbal differences between liars and truth tellers. The recommendations are relevant in various settings, from the individual level (e.g., “Is my partner really working late?”) to the societal level (e.g., “Can we trust this suspect when he claims that he is not the serial rapist the police are searching for?”).

Dues to deception

Article

Jan 2003

Investigative Interviewing

Book

Jan 2014

Ray Bull

Between news stories of coerced confessions and the over-the-top interrogations shown in crime dramas, there seems to be no end of wrong ways to question suspects. And as wrong as these methods are, they are equally counterproductive when the resulting statements are based on questioners’ assumptions rather than the truth. The expert pages of Investigative Interviewing model an approach that reflects an ethical base –emphasizing persuasion rather than coercion –as well as the evidence base. International in scope, this innovative volume reflects sophisticated new interview methods and often surprising findings on the psychology of suspects, victims, witnesses, and law enforcement personnel. Topics cross criminal justice settings and contexts, such as when information should be disclosed to suspects, how interviews are conducted in international tribunals, and the emerging concept of human intelligence interviewing. Taken together, these chapters are a leading-edge guide to obtaining statements that stand up as reliable evidence. Included in the coverage: Investigative interviewing of sex offenders. Psychological processes underlying true and false confessions. Between investigator and suspect: the role of the working alliance in investigative interviewing. A training program for investigative interviewing of children. A systematic review of different types of consistency in truth tellers and liars. Prosecutors’ perceptions on improving child witness interviews about abuse. Suited to the researcher and the educator as well as the frontline professional, Investigative Interviewing heralds a major advance in forensics: education and training programs rooted in best practices for more effective interviewing--and consigning excessive interrogations to the fiction writers.

The relationship between types of claimed false confession made and the reasons why suspects confess to the police according to the Gudjonsson Confession Questionnaire (GCQ)

Article

Jan 1996

Jon Fridrik Sigurdsson

The study investigates differences in the factor scores on the revised version of the Gudjonsson Confession Questionnaire (GCQ) according to the type of claimed false confession made to the police during interviewing. The GCQ was factor analysed on 404 prison inmates and six factors emerged from a varimax rotation, which were used to study the perceptions and reactions of 61 inmates who claimed to have made a false confession to the police sometime in their lives. Their false confession was classified in two ways. Firstly, those who claimed to have made a false confession in order to protect somebody else were compared on the GCQ factor scores with those who claimed that they had confessed falsely for other reasons. Secondly, those inmates who claimed that they had made a coerced-compliant type of false confession were compared on the GCQ with those who had made a coercedinternalized false confession. As predicted, significant differences emerged with regard to the GCQ scores. The findings indicate that there is a significant relationship between the type of claimed false confession made and the participants' perceptions of their police interview.

Affective priming: findings and theories. Psychology of evaluation: affective processes in cognition and emotion. Lawrence Erlbaum

Article

Jan 2003

Between Investigator and Suspect: The Role of the Working Alliance in Investigative Interviewing

Chapter

Feb 2014

The importance of building rapport when interviewing witnesses and suspects is emphasized in many interview models developed in Europe as well as in the United States. The construct of rapport shows a number of similarities with the construct of the working alliance, which is already extensively examined in therapeutic settings. Despite the important predictive role found in therapy, the role of the working alliance in investigative interviewing was not addressed in police research. The present study aims at looking into possible benefits of using the theoretical framework and the operationalisation of the working alliance in order to gain insights into the dynamics of investigative interviewing. It is examined to what extent the working alliance contributes to satisfaction with the interview from both investigators and interviewees in actual interviews. It also considers which factors are important to the working alliance. Besides therapeutic factors the study also explores significant factors from investigative interviewing literature on building rapport. Self-report questionnaires completed by investigators and interviewees show the mediating role of the working alliance between empathy, interview style, clarity of the interview and interview satisfaction. The research findings will also be discussed in the light of interview training and follow-up. More in particular, experiences with building rapport from interview training will be presented as well as experiences from a supervision project on suspect interviewing. Finally, in light of the recent Salduz case law and the subsequent introduction of legal advice in Europe, police officers’ views on building rapport with suspects and lawyers are touched upon.

Kids, cops, and confessions: Inside the interrogation room

Article

Jan 2012

Barry C. Feld

Juveniles possess less maturity, intelligence, and competence than adults, heightening their vulnerability in the justice system. For this reason, states try juveniles in separate courts and use different sentencing standards than for adults. Yet, when police bring kids in for questioning, they use the same interrogation tactics they use for adults, including trickery, deception, and lying to elicit confessions or to produce incriminating evidence against the defendants. In Kids, Cops, and Confessions, Barry Feld offers the first report of what actually happens when police question juveniles. Drawing on remarkable data, Feld analyzes interrogation tapes and transcripts, police reports, juvenile court filings and sentences, and probation and sentencing reports, describing in rich detail what actually happens in the interrogation room. Contrasting routine interrogation and false confessions enables police, lawyers, and judges to identify interrogations that require enhanced scrutiny, to adopt policies to protect citizens, and to assure reliability and integrity of the justice system. Feld has produced an invaluable look at how the justice system really works.

Interrogative Suggestibility and Compliance

Article

Nov 2012

Gisli Hannes Gudjonsson

KEY POINTS DEFINITION AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF INTERROGATIVE SUGGESTIBILITY THE GUDJONSSON AND CLARK MODEL OF INTERROGATIVE SUGGESTIBILITY (1986) INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND THE GSS AND GCS MALINGERING ON THE GSS AND GCS CONCLUSIONS AND FORENSIC IMPLICATIONS REFERENCES