Forensic Psychology

by Graham M Davies

  The information gathering approach is typified by the interviewing model known by the acronym PEACE. The PEACE model consists of five stages:

  P – prepare and plan (refers to pre-interview procedures)

  E – engage and explain (when beginning the interview interviewers are to establish rapport and fully explain the reason for the interview)

  A – account (the interview itself, where the interviewee provides an account which is followed by open-ended and exploratory questions)

  C – closure (the interview closes with the interviewee given a chance to ask questions, before it is explained what will happen next)

  E – evaluate (review of the information gathered during the interview).

  The PEACE model emphasizes the importance of treating the suspect with respect, developing and maintaining rapport, and using open-ended or exploratory questions while avoiding the use of leading questions. Since England and Wales adopted the PEACE model a number of other countries have followed suit and have replaced traditional accusatorial procedures with information gathering interviews. The growing list includes Australia, New Zealand, Norway, and Scotland (Bull & Soukara, 2010).

  This section has focused on what police officers are told to do. Directives of course, by no means guarantee behavior. In the next section we will examine how police officers actually carry out suspect interviews.

  8.3 WHAT OFFICERS DO

  Numerous studies have examined how officers in fact conduct suspect interviews. These have predominantly taken the form of survey studies (e.g. Soukara, Bull, & Vrij, 2002) or observational/archival studies (e.g. Leo, 1996), but also include some experimental or quasi-experimental studies (e.g. Häkkänen, Ask, Kebbell, Alison, & Granhag, 2009). The majority of this research has been conducted in the United States and the United Kingdom. However, studies with a more international focus also exist. This includes studies with samples from Australia (Dixon, 2007), Canada (Deslauriers-Varin, Lussier & St-Yves, 2011), China (Alison, Kebbell, & Leung, 2008), Finland (Häkkänen et al., 2009), Japan (Wachi et al., 2014), and Sweden (Holmberg & Christianson, 2002).

  Although earlier examples exist (e.g. Witt, 1973, Irving, 1980) the majority of the studies on police interviewing practices stem from the early 1990s and onwards. The directives of PACE meant that from the mid-1980s all suspect interviews in England and Wales were required to be audio recorded. This resulted in an abundance of high quality data from real life interviews, ideal for the interested researcher. Seminal studies on the topic mapped in detail the interview behavior of British officers (Baldwin, 1992, 1993) and examined how the context, such as the strength of evidence, affected interview behavior (Moston, Stephenson, & Williamson, 1992). For example, Baldwin (1993) reviewed video or audio recordings of 600 interviews conducted by English and Welsh police forces. Baldwin’s review was damning of the ongoing practices in Britain, concluding that the majority of interviews in the sample were conducted poorly. Baldwin found that many interviews were minimally planned and lacked structure. Others were marked by the use of leading questions, presumptions of guilt, and poor general interview techniques (e.g. interrupting the suspect). Generally speaking, many of the behaviors observed by Baldwin strode against the “truth seeking” ethos of the PEACE model. These findings demonstrate a discrepancy between the government directives on the one hand and the behavior of interviewers on the other.

  To lessen this discrepancy an extensive training program on the PEACE model was instigated in 1999 throughout England and Wales (Clarke & Milne, 2001). Following this program, a marked improvement in interview procedures was noted. In brief, a shift was evident towards a more information-gathering interview style in line with the PEACE model (Bull & Soukara, 2010, Clarke & Milne, 2001; Clarke, Milne, & Bull, 2011). In comparison to Baldwin’s (1992, 1993) studies it seems that today’s interviewers take more care in preparing their interviews and widely use non-coercive open questioning methods. However, deviations from the PEACE model were still observed. These included the use of leading questions, repeating questions, and positive confrontation (Bull & Soukara, 2010).

  In the United States, the paper titled Inside the Interrogation Room by Leo (1996) is generally regarded as the first in-depth analysis of American police officers’ interview practices. The study consisted of contemporaneous observations of 122 police interviews over a nine-month period, as well as the analysis of 60 hours of recorded interviews. For each interview Leo coded for the presence of 25 different interview tactics, a list he had derived from interview manuals, police training courses, and depictions of techniques used in popular culture. The most frequently used tactics that Leo observed can broadly be categorized as accusatorial interview techniques, and are likely to have been strongly influenced by the Reid technique. For example, in 85% of the interviews, suspects were confronted with evidence of their guilt at the outset of the interview; in 66% of the interviews, officers undermined the suspect’s denial of guilt; while in 22% of interviews, officers minimized the moral seriousness of the offense.

  PHOTO 8.1 Leo(1996) concluded that accusatorial interviewing had been strongly influenced by the Reid technique.

  Source: © zoranm/Getty Images

  In a survey study approximately 10 years later, 631 American police officers were asked to rate how regularly they used a list of 15 different interview techniques (Kassin et al., 2007). The results broadly corroborate those of Leo (1996) in showing that police officers tend to avail themselves of accusatorial methods advocated by many interrogation manuals. For example, 22% of officers rated that they always confront a suspect with evidence of their guilt. It should be noted, however, that physically intimidating interview practices were almost never advocated in the survey study (Kassin et al., 2007) and almost never observed by Leo. Furthermore, many officers (32%) in Kassin et al.’s survey study reported that they always attempted to establish rapport with the suspect in order to gain their trust. Research on interview practices suggests that Canadian officers use similar techniques to their American counterparts. This is evident through the obvious influence of the Reid technique on Canadian interviewing practices (King & Snook, 2009). At the level of question type, a study of 80 police interviews found that officers predominantly used closed yes/no questions or probing questions and rarely included open-ended questions (Snook, Luther, Quinlan, & Milne, 2012).

  One of the aims of this line of research is to categorize and systematize the different techniques used by police officers. In a groundbreaking review article, Kelly, Miller, Redlich, & Kleinman (2013) collated every single interview technique that had been identified by researchers. The review consisted of 45 studies and two interview manuals. In all, the authors identified 824 techniques, which were whittled down to 71 unique techniques. These were conceptually grouped into six broader categories. The first category – rapport and relationship building – included such specific techniques as showing kindness and respect to the suspect or finding common ground. The second category – context manipulation – covered such specific techniques as considering the time of day and the interviewer’s physical appearance. The third category – emotion provocation – included such techniques as appealing to the suspect’s conscience and exaggerating their fears. The fourth category – confrontation and competition – encompassed techniques such as not allowing denials from the source and adopting a non-friendly stance. The fifth category – collaboration – included techniques such as offering rewards for information from the suspect. The sixth and final category – presentation of evidence – concerned when and how an interviewer presented evidence to a suspect.

  These six meso-level categories are thought to capture all suspect interviewing techniques that researchers have identified.1 Simply identifying these categories, however, says little about the frequency of their use (and nothing about their effectiveness). In a follow up study Kelly Redlich, & Miller (2015) addressed this issue. Participants, 265 officers from an international sample, rated on a five-point
scale the frequency with which they used 66 specific interview techniques. Each technique belonged to one of the six meso-level categories. Techniques from the rapport and relationship building categories were reported as being the most commonly used. Techniques from the confrontation and competition were reported as the least commonly used. There was little difference in reported use between the remaining categories.

  8.4 WHAT OFFICERS SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT DO

  So far this chapter has examined what officers are told to do in interviews and what they actually do. In the remaining sections, the focus will turn to what officers should and should not do in interviews. That is, the remaining sections will focus on which techniques are more or less effective and which techniques are more or less likely to put innocent suspects at risk.

  8.4.1 False Confessions

  As noted above, the risk of false confessions has been central to policy changes in interview practices. Similarly, the topic of false confessions has been a driving force for empirical research on suspect interviewing (Meissner et al., 2014). Nonetheless, false confessions are not a new phenomenon. Throughout modern history miscarriages of justice due to false confessions have tarnished the work of police forces across the world (Kassin et al., 2010) and as early as 1908 they have been of interest for legal psychologists (Munsterberg, 1908).

  Gudjonsson (2003) distinguishes between three forms of false confession. Voluntary false confessions occur when an innocent suspect confesses to a crime without any external pressure or influence from the police. Such confessions can occur for example from a desire to protect the real culprit. Coerced-compliant false confessions occur when an innocent suspect confesses due to pressure imposed by the police, in the expectation that the confession will benefit them. Finally, in coerced-internalized false confessions, innocent suspects not only confess to the crime, but incorrectly believe that they are in fact guilty of it. Contemporary research on false confessions, like much research in forensic psychology, can be grouped into two categories: laboratory studies and field studies.

  Laboratory research on false confessions is exemplified by Kassin and Kiechel’s (1996) already classic study. The authors introduced an experimental set-up known as the crashed-computer paradigm. Participants were ostensibly recruited to take part in a reaction time study. Before beginning, they were explicitly told to avoid pressing the “ALT” key, because doing so would result in the computer crashing and all the data being lost. Unknown to the participant, the computer was programed to crash 60 seconds after the reaction time task had begun. The experimenter then accused the participant of pressing the “ALT” key and causing the crash, and encouraged the participant to sign a statement admitting that they had pressed the key. In total, 69% of the 75 subjects signed the confession, while 28% exhibited internalization of the act. Astonishingly, in the condition where there was false incriminating evidence (a confederate claimed to have seen the participant press the key) and where the participant was made to feel less certain about their actions (the reaction time task was played at a greater speed) 100% of the participants signed the confession. Numerous researchers have replicated and extended Kassin and Kiechel’s original study. These have examined other possible influences such as the accused’s age (Redlich & Goodman, 2003) and the consequences of the confession (Horselenberg, Merckelbach, & Josephs, 2003). In addition, researchers have developed new, more ecologically valid experimental set-ups, which include both guilty and innocent suspects (e.g. Russano, Meissner, Narchet, & Kassin, 2005). The conclusions from the studies point in the same direction in highlighting the relative ease with which false confessions can be elicited in the lab.

  Aside from simply showing that false confessions can occur, researchers have also shed a light on why they occur, identifying individual differences and interviewing practices that increase the risks of false confessions (Kassin & Gudjonsson, 2004). Gudjonsson’s work on suggestibility (1984, 1989, 1991) demonstrates that people differ in how willing they are to comply with others and how they react to external pressures to do so. It follows that individuals who are more suggestible are at greater risk of making false confessions. Other risk factors include the age of the suspect and a suspect’s mental ability, where younger suspects and suspects with intellectual disabilities are at greater risk of providing false confessions (Kassin & Gudjonsson, 2004). A number of features of the interrogation itself are likely to increase false confessions. For instance, longer interrogations or isolation periods are likely to increase false confessions (Drizin & Leo, 2004). So, too, is the presentation of false evidence (Kassin & Kiechel, 1996; Horselenberg et al., 2003; Redlich & Goodman, 2003), and minimisation procedures such as implied leniency (Russano et al., 2005). These findings have led to calls for reform from researchers. Recommendations include the mandatory recording of suspect interviews, prohibiting severely coercive techniques (e.g. presentation of false evidence), and introducing measures to safeguard vulnerable suspects (Kassin et al., 2010).

  PHOTO 8.2 Mandatory recording is regarded by many researchers as one of the keys to improved interviewing.

  Source: © Clayton Hansen/iStockphoto

  Though agreeing with these recommendations, others have argued that the time is ripe for researchers to go beyond simply saying what police officers should not do. They argue that research must also be conducted into viable alternative interview practices – to inform police officers what they should do (Meissner, Hartwig & Russano, 2010). A recent meta-analysis on interviewing practices and false confessions provides an apt example of how this can be achieved. Meissner et al. (2014) broadly categorized interview methods into information gathering or accusatorial, and examined how these influenced the rates of true and false confessions. Aggregating across three studies, results showed that information gathering methods produced more true confessions and fewer false confessions compared with accusatorial methods. The value of this meta-analysis is not only in once again highlighting known interview practices that increase false confessions, but in offering a viable alternative to these practices. In the following sections additional aspects will be examined that have been shown to be more or less effective for interviewing practices.

  CASE STUDY 8.1 THE INTERVIEWS OF STURE BERGWALL: A RECIPE FOR DISASTER

  The story about Sture Bergwall is a story about a miscarriage of justice of enormous proportions, even by international standards. Bergwall confessed to 29 murders that had taken place between 1964 and 1993, in Sweden, Finland, and Norway. Between 1994 and 2001 he was prosecuted and convicted for eight of these murders. For each case the main evidence was Bergwall’s own confession. In 2008 Bergwall retracted all his confessions and petitions for new trials were submitted. All appeals were granted, and after reviewing each individual case the prosecutors decided to drop the charges. The courts acquitted Bergwall in all cases. How this could happen can only be understood in the light of what is nothing short of a smorgasbord of investigative and procedural errors and biases, such as group think (within the prosecution team), confirmation biases (in terms of assessing of evidence), asymmetric scepticism (with respect to the suspect’s statements), and expert testimony (that should have been dismissed due to disqualification). Here we will focus on how Bergwall was interviewed. The Swedish Government’s Official Report The Bergwall Commission (SOU 2015:52) concluded that the interviews were characterized by a certain pattern; a pattern that was more or less the same for all of the investigations. Initially Bergwall’s statements were meagre in terms of details central to the case. In contrast, with respect to peripheral details such as his own and other people’s feelings, odors and descriptions of nature, Bergwall produced impressionistic accounts. That is, his statements were full of unverifiable details (e.g. “a car passed by, the windows were fogged up”). Bergwall often expressed doubt in his own memory and by observing the interviewer’s reactions he received feedback on whether his answers were in line with the facts of the investigation. In addition, the interviewer’s follow-up que
stions helped Bergwall to know if he was on the right track or not. In many instances the interviewer’s reactions made Bergwall adjust his answers in the desired direction. On numerous occasions the interviewer introduced details that Bergwall himself had never mentioned (e.g. a saw, a birthmark). By echoing the interviewer, this resulted in Bergwall producing details that corresponded well with what was known by the investigators. Equally important, when Bergwall gave incorrect answers, these were left without further notice or treated as “deliberate deviations”. Hence, regardless of their accuracy his answers added to the perception of his guilt. For two of the investigations Bergwall was presented with photos of the crime scenes and the victims to help him remember more. The result of this strategy was that Bergwall produced even more detailed statements. The Commission stated that Bergwall “…learned about certain circumstances with which his confessions should actually have been compared” (p. 24). In sum, using the right proportions of the ingredients above, one can create a very detailed and convincing false confession. What we have penned, based on the report, is a recipe for disaster. The Bergwall Commission concluded that criminal investigators should be “…continuously updated on interview and investigations methods, the current state of knowledge and the latest research findings” (p. 27). We could not agree more.

  8.4.2 Rapport

  Rapport is regarded by many as key to an effective interview (Vallano & Shreiber Compo, 2015). Establishing rapport is central to the PEACE model of interviewing and is also emphasized by the Reid technique. Furthermore, rapport is widely believed to both safeguard innocent suspects and increase the information yield and cooperation from guilty suspects. As previously noted, in survey studies with police officers, rapport is consistently reported as one of the most used techniques and important aspects of a police interview (e.g. Kelly et al., 2015). The current section will examine definitional issues of rapport and whether and how it can facilitate a suspect interview.