Content uploaded by Christian A. Meissner
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Christian A. Meissner on Jul 22, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
The importance of a laboratory science for improving the diagnostic value of confession evidence
... Tunnelblick; Findley und Scott 2006;Volbert und May 2016). Dabei ignorieren sie oftmals das Risiko, dass sie durch Minimierung und Maximierung falsche Geständnisse erlangen können und es dadurch zu einer falschen Bestätigung ihrer Schuldüberzeugung kommen kann (Leo 2020;Meissner et al. 2010). Ihre Fehleinschätzungen werden in solchen Fällen nicht korrigiert, sondern vielmehr verstärkt (Narchet et al. 2011). ...
... Allgemein erhöhen Minimierungs-und Maximierungstaktiken die Wahrscheinlichkeit von wahren Geständnissen, aber insbesondere auch von falschen Geständnissen (Meissner et al. 2010). Dadurch führen sie zu einer geringeren Diagnostizität (d. ...
Einzelberichte deuten auf die Verwendung von Vernehmungstaktiken in Deutschland hin, die die Schwere der Tat und die Konsequenzen eines Geständnisses herunterspielen (Minimierung) und die vorhandenen Beweise und die Schwere der Konsequenzen von bestreitenden Aussagen übertreiben (Maximierung). Forschungsarbeiten zeigen jedoch, dass solche Taktiken die Rate falscher Geständnisse erheblich erhöhen. Es wird im vorliegenden Beitrag argumentiert, dass Minimierungs- und Maximierungstaktiken darauf abzielen, eine Aussagemotivation bei Beschuldigten (Zwischenziel) herzustellen, die in
eine Geständniserlangung übergehen soll (Hauptziel). Diese Annahme gründet auf einer vorgenommenen Systematisierung und Abgrenzung einzelner Vorgehensweisen dieser Taktiken. Außerdem erklärt der Beitrag kursorisch die sozialpsychologischen
Wirkungsweisen dieser Taktiken auf Geständnisentscheidungen. Dies soll helfen, zukünftig Wirkungsweisen einzelner Vorgehensweisen differenzierter wissenschaftlich zu untersuchen, besser zu verstehen und theoretisch zu begründen.
... Related to this is the observation from scholars that in the field of memory, certain memory tasks used in research say little about how witness, victims, and suspects remember traumatic experiences (e.g., Brewin, 2022;De Prince et al., 2004; but see also Otgaar et al., 2022). This argument has also been put forward when examining certain paradigms that have been used to experimentally elicit false confessions (e.g., Meissner et al., 2010). ...
Psychologists are sometimes asked to provide their expert opinion in court on whether memories of victims, witnesses, or suspects are reliable or not. In this article, we will discuss what expert witnesses can reliably say about memory in the legal arena. We argue that before research on memory can be discussed in legal cases, this research should ideally meet the following three conditions: replicability, generalizability, and practical relevance. Using a fictitious false memory case, we offer a guide to how psychologists should critically examine whether a particular segment of memory research is in line with these three conditions. We show that the area of false memory broadly fits these conditions but that for areas such as eyewitness identification and false confessions, there is limited discussion on which effect sizes are of interest in legal cases. We propose several recommendations that expert witnesses can use when they evaluate the validity of statements such as working with scenarios (e.g., statements are valid or not). Being transparent about the limits and strengths of memory research will assist triers of fact in their decision-making process.
... Kommt es dann in Vernehmungen durch problematische Vernehmungstaktiken zu geständigen Aussagen, erfolgt hier die subjektive Bestätigung, dass die Taktiken wirksam sind. Dies missachtet jedoch, dass Minimierung und Maximierung auch dann zu einer subjektiven Bestätigung der Schuldüberzeugung und Wirksamkeit der Taktiken führen können, wenn das Geständnis falsch ist (siehe hierzu auch Leo 2020; May 2021; Meissner et al. 2010). ...
Polizeiliche Entscheidungsträger*innen und Ermittelnde in Deutschland erhalten regelmäßig Aus- und Fortbildungsangebote zu Methoden der Lügenerkennung und zu Vernehmungstaktiken für Beschuldigte, die teilweise unseriös sind. Keinesfalls
sollten ineffektive oder ungeprüfte Methoden und Taktiken durch die Polizei angewandt werden, da sie gravierende Folgen für unschuldige Personen (z.B. Freiheitsentzug, soziale Schäden) und die Bevölkerung (z.B. weitere Straftaten durch die eigentlichen Täter*innen, sinkendes Vertrauen in die polizeiliche Ermittlungstätigkeiten) nach sich ziehen können. Besonders problematisch sind pseudowissenschaftliche Angebote, die nicht systematisch geprüfte oder nachweislich ineffektive Inhalte vermitteln, jedoch wissenschaftlich begründet scheinen (z.B. aufgrund des Titels oder der Berufsbeschreibung der anbietenden Personen). Dieses Positionspapier will diese Problematik beleuchten und Personen aus der polizeilichen Lehre und Praxis dazu anregen, Angebote kritisch zu prüfen und schwerpunktmäßig theoretisch fundierte und nachgewiesenermaßen effektive Methoden zum Einschätzen von Falschaussagen (z.B. anhand von Widersprüchen) und Konzepten zur Vernehmung Beschuldigter anzuwenden.
... The findings complement the findings from individual case studies (Gudjonsson, 2018). Laboratory studies have also furthered our understanding of the processes and mechanisms involved in false confession (Clare and Gudjonsson, 1995;Meissner et al., 2010). It is the combination of real-life case studies of false confession, experimental research emerging in the 1990s, and community studies that have advanced the scientific basis of the psychology of false confessions. ...
This review shows that there is now a solid scientific evidence base for the “expert” evaluation of disputed confession cases in judicial proceedings. Real-life cases have driven the science by stimulating research into “coercive” police questioning techniques, psychological vulnerabilities to false confession, and the development and validation of psychometric tests of interrogative suggestibility and compliance. Mandatory electronic recording of police interviews has helped with identifying the situational and personal “risk factors” involved in false confessions and how these interact. It is the combination of a detailed evaluation and analysis of real-life cases, experimental work, and community (and prison/police station) studies that have greatly advanced the science over the past 40 years. In this review, the story of the development of the science during this “golden era” is told through the three established error pathways to false confessions and wrongful convictions: misclassification, coercion, and contamination. A case study of a major miscarriage of justice is used to highlight the key issues at each stage of the error pathways and it shows the continued resistance of the judiciary to admit mistakes and learn from them. Science is a powerful platform from which to educate the police and the judiciary.
... Specifically, researchers investigate effective and non-effective interviewing methods used in interviewing resistant sources (Evans, Meissner, Brandon, Russano, & Kleinman, 2010). To overcome such resistance and obtain information from suspects, investigators have shifted from using inhumane, physically coercive tactics into subtler, more effective, psychologically-based methods (Meissner, Russano, & Narchet, 2010). One of these psychologically based methods is rapport-building (Abbe & Brandon, 2014). ...
The purpose of this study was to investigate the role of rapport building and
types of interviewing techniques on elicitation of information from guilty, lying resistant suspects during an investigative interview setting. One type of a rapport building technique that I examined was displaying instances of empathy. Additionally, I examined the relationship between rapport building via displaying empathy and using a cognitive- based interviewing technique on elicitation of information. I hypothesized that interviewers building rapport via displaying empathy would elicit more information than interviewers not building rapport, interviewers using the cognitive-load interview technique would elicit more information than using a non-cognitive based interview technique and interviewers building rapport via displaying empathy and using the cognitive-load technique would elicit more information than interviewers building rapport and using a non-cognitive based interview technique. Participants (n = 154) took part in a mock-crime experiment wherein they stole a confidential folder from a processor’s office and were told not to disclose that information during an investigative interview. As predicted, the results showed that interviewers who built rapport via displaying empathy elicited more information than interviewers who did not build rapport. Interviewers using the cognitive-load interview elicited more information than when they did not use a cognitive-based interviewing technique and finally, when interviewers built rapport and used the cognitive-load interview they elicited more information than when they did not build rapport and used a non-cognitive based interviewing technique.
... The scientific study of investigative interviewing has proliferated in the past two decades or so. Both the PACE and PEACE models and some of their individual components (e.g., strategic disclosure of evidence, use of open-ended questions) have been studied in the field and in the laboratory (Bull & Soukara, 2009;Meissner, Russano, & Narchet, 2010; see also Clarke & Milne, 2001 for an evaluation). Similarly, numerous experiments have been conducted on general (e.g., minimization and maximization; Russano, Meissner, Narchet, & Kassin, 2005) and more specific accusatorial methods (e.g., presenting false evidence; Redlich & Goodman, 2003). ...
... Second, although we made efforts to ensure psychological realism for our participants, the current study is still a laboratory experiment, using interview scripts, which limits its applicability in the field and the recommendations we can provide practitioners based upon our findings. Experimental research on interview and interrogation approaches are important for understanding cause-and-effect relationships (see Meissner, Russano, & Narchet, 2010). ...
We sought to identify motivations to resist cooperation in intelligence interviews and develop techniques to overcome this resistance. One source of resistance can arise because of concerns for affiliations (e.g., “I do not want to inform on my friends/family/fellow countryman”). We investigated two avenues of rapport building—approach and avoidance— designed to overcome this concern. In a modified cheating paradigm, our participants (N = 116) became affiliated with a confederate who they then witnessed cheating. Participants were interviewed about the event in a 2 (approach: present vs. absent) 2 (avoid: present vs. absent) design. The interviewer used either an approach technique that aligned them with the interviewer (portrayed as a morally good person) or an avoid technique that moved them away from the culprit (portrayed as nefarious), neither, or both. The approach technique increased rapport between the interviewer and participant. However, the avoid technique decreased the amount information elicited. When submitted to a mediation model, the approach technique had a positive indirect effect on information yield via perceived rapport and cooperation, while this was not the case for the avoid technique. An exploratory moderator analysis revealed that sympathy for the confederate moderated the effect of the avoid technique on information disclosed, where the more sympathy a participant felt for the confederate, the less information he or she provided. Implications for interviewing are discussed.
... The extant research on investigative interviewing often utilizes both controlled laboratory experiments to assess the manipulated influence of interview tactics and field studies in which the influence of certain interview tactics are estimated based upon information that is coded from the interview (see Meissner, Kelly, & Woestehoff, 2015). These approaches precariously balance the need for internal and external validity, respectively (Meissner, Russano, & Narchet, 2010). In the present studies, we introduced an illegal behaviors paradigm that offers a mix of both internal validity (to experimentally manipulate an interview context or approach) and external validity (asking participants to describe a prior illegal behavior that was personally meaningful to them and negatively emotional). ...
Recent findings suggest that priming may be useful for facilitating disclosure in investigative interviews; however, the effects of priming on behavioral outcomes have been mixed. The current studies attempted to replicate the increase in information disclosure when the concept of “openness” is primed. We assessed the separate and combined influence of context reinstatement instructions and activation of the concept of openness (via lexical primes in Experiment 1, via contextual and embodiment primes in Experiment 2) on information disclosure. In doing so, we introduced a novel paradigm to investigate factors contributing to the elicitation of sensitive personal information that participants provided in written (Experiment 1) or verbal (Experiment 2) form. Participants (Experiment 1: N = 173; Experiment 2: N = 194) completed a checklist of illegal behaviors and misdeeds, then engaged in an unrelated task that was used to administer the priming manipulation (either the concept of “open” or “closed,” or a neutral prime). Participants then described a life event related to the most serious illegal behavior to which they had admitted, following either a direct request for information or a context reinstatement instruction. Across both experiments, context reinstatement led to robust increases in information disclosure. Though we failed to replicate prior effects of priming on disclosure, our observed effect sizes fell within the confidence intervals of previous studies. A meta-analytic assessment of priming across the two studies suggested a small, but significant increase in information elicitation, suggesting that investigators are best served using evidence-based interviewing tactics during investigative interviews.
This article provides a framework for the application of science-based interview methods to interviews conducted in both criminal and intelligence interview contexts. In these contexts, subjects frequently are antagonistic and many have experienced some kind of trauma. Similar to mental health professionals who conduct face-to-face interviews in prisons and hospitals, there is the need to gain as much valid and useful information as possible to make informed decisions. Our framework consists of three phases: in-depth planning, engagement, and sensemaking. We include a description of moments of a real-life criminal interview to illustrate the framework, and then briefly address some of the cultural and ethical challenges inherent to this domain.
Children in the United States are regularly subjected to police interrogations. The modern police interrogation, except in rare circumstances, no longer involves the physical abuse, extreme isolation, and sleep deprivation commonly known as the “third degree” but instead involves more psychologically based interrogation techniques (see Leo, this volume). These techniques, which combine “minimization” techniques like feigning friendship, flattery and false sympathy, with “maximization” techniques like lying about or exaggerating the strength of the evidence, are designed with one purpose in mind: to get the suspect to confess guilt. The leading interrogation manual, Criminal Interrogations and Confessions (2001) by Inbau, Reid, Buckley, and Jayne instructs police officers to use these same techniques with children and adults.
In recent decades, court cases in several countries have revealed some police interviewing of suspects to be grossly incompetent. However, few countries seem to have sought to improve this crucial aspect of policing, which is of great importance to society. However, in England and Wales in the last 20 years, the police service and the government have made pioneering attempts at improvement, these attempts largely being based on work by psychologists. This chapter provides an overview of these developments.
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?”).
This volume, a sequel to The Psychology of Interrogations, Confessions and Testimony which is widely acclaimed by both scientists and practitioners, brings the field completely up-to-date and focuses in particular on aspects of vulnerability, confabulation and false confessions. The is an unrivalled integration of scientific knowledge of the psychological processes and research relating to interrogation, with the practical investigative and legal issues that bear upon obtaining, and using in court, evidence from interrogations of suspects. Accessible style which will appeal to academics, students and practitioners. Authoritative integration of theory, research, practical implications and vivid case illustration. Coverage of topical issues like confabulation, false memory, and false confessions. Part of the Wiley Series in The Psychology of Crime, Policing and Law.
Confession, particularly false confession, is so self-evidently interesting to the psychologist that it might seem unnecessary to begin by defining where our interest in the topic lies. Nevertheless we wish to draw a distinction between confession as an interesting phenomenon to be studied for what it can tell us about human motivation and so on, and confession as a taxing practical problem for the legal profession. As applied psychologists our central concern is with the problem rather than the phenomenon itself.
With the introduction of recording facilities in police interview rooms, the techniques that officers adopt when questioning suspects are being increasingly subjected to scrutiny. The research reported in this article, based upon 600 audio and video tapes recorded in three police forces in 1989 and 1990, examines the way in which interviews with suspects were conducted. The study suggests that greater efforts will need to be made in the future if public concern about interview procedures is to be assuaged. © 1993 The Institute for the Study and Treatment of Delinquency.