This is the latest of our articles where we summarize key papers in Deception Science. We hope that this aids you in your work as a due-diligence pro, since so many of us depend on the statements made by other people in our evaluations.
In this article we provide a redux for “Police interrogations through the prism of science.”[i] The paper covers police interrogations as conducted globally for decades and as authentically portrayed in popular entertainment, too.
Normally we cover the entirety of a paper, but in this instance, we believe this paper does a fantastic job of summarizing the evidence for why the typical police interrogation, not only does not work, but also is dangerous if what you care about is uncovering truth. Therefore, we are only summarizing the first half of the paper which covers the poor record of typical police interrogations.
Next, the findings of “Police interrogations through the prism of science” are perfectly complementary of our article, “Deception Detection: The Pan-Cultural Fiction of Body Language.” Importantly, some of Deception And Truth Analysis’ competition ground their work in pseudo-scientific police interrogation techniques and body language. Ouch!
[Note: It is our opinion that some of our competitors directly use some of these techniques in their work or are inspired to imitate them.]
Police interrogations through the prism of science: Study Details
Dr. Areh sought to compare and contrast two major approaches to gathering information from human sources; in doing so, he summarizes the major findings of the research that examines the two techniques.
The two techniques are:
- Technique 1: Obtaining suspects’ incriminating statements and admissions.
- Technique 2: Using the investigative interview technique to gather information.
Technique 1 is a traditional technique which severely elevates the risk of eliciting false confessions. It generally is accusatorial or coercive since the goal is to force suspects to admit to a crime.
By contrast, Technique 2, the Investigative Interview, seeks to gather accurate information to exclude or to accuse a suspect in a criminal investigation. Additionally, this technique has a lower probability of false confessions due to much lower levels of psychological pressure. What is more, Technique 2 is more ethically acceptable, is grounded in science, improves information gathering accuracy, and has been shown to be as effective as coercive interviews in criminal investigations.
Police interrogations through the prism of science: Major Findings
1. There is a widespread belief that most police investigations rely upon the evidence gathered in forensic science. But in North America and the UK it remains the case that a majority of cases lack material evidence. Therefore, interviewing of suspects is central to police “solving” crimes.
2. Up until the 1960s police interrogation techniques were coercive and in the worst cases could involve shoving, tying up, slapping, assault, threats, sensory discomfort (the infamous bright light shone in interviewee faces), and deprivation of sleep, water, food, and access to proper sanitation.
3. After the 1960s most, though the methods changed, police interrogations retained the same goal of eliciting confessions or incriminating statements and not on establishing the truth. The methods were deliberate psychological manipulation using deception, trickery, lying, and establishing control through dependency on police authorities.
4. In UK of the early 1990s interrogation tactics rooted in scientific research started to spread across western democracies. But the evolution is not complete.
5. Though some researchers (Kelly, Miller, Redlich, & Kleinman, 2013) identify up to 71 different interrogation techniques, they may be more generalized into two categories: accusatorial or information-gathering.
6. Accusatorial/coercive interviews have three main phases:
a. Custody and isolation, designed to increase an interviewee’s anxiety.
b. Confrontation, where the interviewee is treated as an offender and confronted with incriminating evidence. If the interviewee denies or resists the pressure, interrogators are taught to undermine and suppress these denials.
c. Demonstration of sympathy to gain the interviewee’s trust. Interrogators use techniques that aim to minimize the seriousness of the offense, offering moral justification, and implying that their advantages or more lenient consequences in exchange for confessions.
7. Accusatorial/coercive interviews are scientifically controversial because they:
a. Make use of untested and subjective techniques to detect lies.
b. Presume interviewees are guilty which engages interrogators’ confirmation bias.
c. Frequently use non-standardized procedures which can be altered randomly and are not supported legally.
d. Are frequently unethical and can violate a person’s human rights.
Police interrogations through the prism of science:Sub-Findings
1. Most famous and widespread of the accusatorial/coercive interrogations is the Reid Technique. It was developed by lawyers Inbau and Reid in the early 1940s and gained rapid acceptance despite its creators having no background in psychology or other scientific disciplines. In fact, scientists regard their work as pseudo-science.
2. The Reid Technique advocates deception, lying, and psychological pressure, but does not advocate physical threats and abuse. Its goal is to elicit confessions.
3. Some researchers report a success rate of the Reid Technique of up to 85% (Horvath, Jayne, & Buckley, 1994), but this estimate is based on a study that has been widely criticized for lacking scientific rigor. Independent research results do not corroborate the claims made by Reid Technique boosters.
4. Most researchers find that the Reid Technique cannot separate truth tellers from liars (Kassin, 2008). Further, it has been shown that while The Reid Technique can elicit confessions from guilty suspects these are largely the result of the social influence on the suspect of the interrogator, and not on the technique itself.
Quotes of Note
- “The increased level of interest [in police interrogations] is primarily the result of many notorious errors of the legal system and the police, due primarily to inappropriate training of interrogators and a low awareness of risks associated with psychological manipulation of suspects.”
- “A clear lack of scientific psychological knowledge has often led to the expansion of pseudo-scientific practices employed by professionals without a background in psychology. Consequently, investigators tend to rely on common sense assumptions and employ investigative practices based on the suppositions of professional authorities, which are often theoretically unfounded and have not been scientifically proven.”
- “[T]he validity of coercive or accusatorial interrogation techniques is not scientifically tested and is thus based only on the assumptions and authority of their authors.”
[i]Areh, Igor. “Police interrogations through the prism of science.” Horizons of Psychology, 25, 18-28 (2016)
0 Comments