Nature of c rime. Some authors have noted a difference in the rate of con-
fession depending on the type of crime, especially when comparing non - violent
and violent crimes. Neubauer (1974) observed that those who committed a
non - violent crime were twice as likely to confess than those who committed
a violent crime (56% vs. 32%). For some, the most diffi cult type of crime to
confess to is sexual crime (Holmberg & Christianson, 2002 ; St - Yves, 2002;
2006b ). This could be explained by the negative perception (e.g., shame,
rejection, humiliation) associated with this type of crime. However, other
studies have found no signifi cant relationship between the type of crime and
confession rate (Moston et al ., 1992 ; Deslauriers - Varin, 2006 , Deslauriers -
Varin et al ., 2009 ). Moston et al . (1992) contended that prior research looking
at the possible link between the type of crime committed and confession and
fi nding a signifi cant connection used inappropriate methodology. They argued
that prior studies had not taken into account the possible interactions between
the type of crime committed and situational factors, such as access to legal
advice and the quality and/or strength of evidence.
Seriousness of c rime. It would be logical to think that the more serious the
crime, the fewer people will confess because they fear the consequences; more
serious crime usually leading to heavier penalties. That is the fi nding of empiri-
cal studies that have examined police interrogations held in various police
departments (Neubauer, 1974 ; Moston et al ., 1992 ; Phillips & Brown, 1998 ;
St - Yves, 2002 ). However, Moston et al . (1992) stress that the infl uence of
other relevant variables, such as the more frequent use of an attorney in cases
of serious crime, should not be ignored.
In the studies mentioned above, the majority of the individual and crimi-
nological factors have not received unanimous support regarding their role in
the confession process during police interrogation. Confessing is a complex
process which cannot be explained by one factor alone but, rather, by a series
of factors that interact. To date, only a few studies have analysed or considered
these interactions (Deslauriers - Varin et al ., 2009 ). Studies need to carry out
multivariate, rather than bivariate, statistical analyses to check not only the
unique effect of each variable but also their interaction with the other factors
included in the model, thus helping to get an overall picture of the direct and
indirect relationships explaining the decision - making process of confession of
a crime.
6
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing
Contextual f actors
Recent studies show that contextual factors have most impact in the confession
process of a suspect (Deslauriers - Varin & St - Yves, 2006 ; Deslauriers - Varin
et al ., 2009 ; St - Yves & Tanguay, 2009 ). The main contextual factors are: the
quality/strength of the evidence (real or perceived); access to legal advice; and
strategies and techniques of interrogation.
Quality/ s trength of the e vidence. Even if the decision - making process of
the confession is often affected by a combination of factors (Gudjonsson,
2003 ; St - Yves, 2004a ), the suspect ’ s perception of the strength of the evidence
against him or her is a determining factor in the process of confession. Two -
thirds of suspects (66.7%) admitted their crime when the evidence against
them appeared strong to them, compared to a third (36.4%) when the strength
of the evidence seemed modest, and one in ten (9.9%) when there was little
or no evidence (Williamson, 1990 ). Gudjonsson et al . observed that nearly
70% of people interrogated by police admitted that they would not have con-
fessed if they had not been suspected by police. Of those, between 55% and
60% said that they confessed because they were convinced that police had
enough evidence against them (Gudjonsson & Petursson, 1991 ; Gudjonsson
& Bownes,
1992 ; Sigurdsson
& Gudjonsson,
1994 ). In a study of adult
offenders sentenced to a federal term (two years or more), we observed that
the rate of confession almost doubled (from 31.4% to 55.6%) when the evi-
dence was perceived by the suspect as being relatively strong (Deslauriers -
Varin,
2006 ; Deslauriers
- Varin
& St
- Yves,
2006 ). In a logistic regression
model, the suspects perceiving the strength of the evidence against them as
good were three time more likely to confess during police interrogation
(Deslauriers - Varin et al ., 2009 ). The explanation is simple: in the face of over-
whelming evidence, denial is useless. For the suspect, there are only two pos-
sible choices: to remain silent or to give a version that will give him or her an
opportunity to explain (while minimizing) his behaviour and/or ‘ save face ’ .
Access to l egal a dvice. The offi cial caution can infl uence the decision to
confess or not to the police. In Canada, the caution is made to any person in
custody, arrested or not, and interrogated for a crime he or she is likely to be
implicated in. And contrary to the practice in the USA and the UK, Canadian
law does not recognize the moral necessity for the attorney to be present in
the interrogation room; it only recognizes the right to inform the suspect of
his or her right to remain silent and to contact an attorney immediately, usually
by telephone. However, in accordance with the law on judicial procedures for
teenagers, there is an exception when the person interrogated is aged between
12 and 18. However, it is left to the discretion of the police offi cer whether
to allow the attorney to be present during the interrogation. In such a case,
the attorney would become a witness and could be summoned as such if the
statement is disputed and a voir dire becomes necessary. Beyond the caution,
The Psychology of Suspects’ Decision-Making during Interrogation
7
police offi cers will generally insist that the suspect contacts an attorney and
will make sure that this strictly confi dential conversation is entirely satisfactory
to the suspect. Usually, the attorney will recommend that his/her client
remains silent during the police interrogation. Sometimes, the attorney will
even describe to the client the usual process of police interrogation and the
most frequent strategies used by police offi cers to persuade suspects to confess.
If the perception of the strength of the evidence is a major determining
factor in the decision to confess, availing oneself of the right to contact an
attorney seems to be the factor that might best explain why some suspects do
not confess or refuse to cooperate with the police (Moston, Stephenson &
Williamson, 1992 ; Leo, 1996 ; Phillips & Brown, 1998 ; Deslauriers - Varin et al .,
2009 ). Moston et al . (1992) found in their study that one suspect in two
(50%) who did not consult an attorney confessed compared to 30% of those
who did. Pearse et al . (1998) and Phillips & Brown (1998) found that suspects
who used their legal right to contact an
attorney were four times less likely to
confess to the police. The results recently obtained in a predictive model of
confession make it possible to quantify the actual impact of this factor: access
to legal advice reduced by 83% the odds of confessing (Deslauriers - Varin,
2006 ). This seems to confi rm the perception of some police offi cers, who
believe that suspects ’ access to an attorney is an impediment to their coopera-
tion (Leiken, 1970 ; Walsh, 1982 ). However, Moston et al . (1992) observed
that those choosing to remain silent are more likely to be sentenced than those
who deny their crime during interrogation. Thus, remaining silent is not always
an advantage.
Interrogation s trategies and t echniques. The literature promoting various
interrogation techniques is abundant. Kalbfl eisch (1994) reviewed more than
80 books on the subject, the majority of them from the USA. Most of these,
written by experienced investigators (see Macdonald
& Michaud,
1987 ;
Zulawski & Wicklander, 1992 ; Walters, 1995 ; Inbau et al ., 2001 ; Gordon &
Fleisher, 2002 ), aspire to give techniques to police offi cers to obtain confes-
sions. The most popular interrogation technique, not without controversy, is
the Reid technique (see www.reid.com ). According to the Reid Institute, this
method, developed in the 1950s and fi rst published in the 1960s, would be
effective 80% of the time. However, Gudjonsson (2003) doubts this high
success rate. In fact, confession rates found in North American studies, where
most of the investigators were trained in the Reid (or related) technique,
normally range between 42% and 57% (Neubauer, 1974 ; Leo, 1996 ; Cassell
& Hayman, 1998 ; St - Yves & Lavall é e, 2002 ; Deslauriers - Varin & St - Yves,
2006 ). Moreover, the mean confession rate (50%) has been relatively stable
for the last 40 years (Gudjonsson, 2003 ).
The actual effectiveness of various interrogation techniques is diffi cult to
measure. In a North American study, Leo
(1996) demonstrated that the
quantity and the nature of strategies used by police offi cers during interro-
gation infl uenced the rate of confession. Other than the use of a variety of
8
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing
interrogation strategies, appealing to the suspect ’ s conscience is the technique
that seems to have the greater infl uence on the confession process (Leo, 1996 ).
Other strategies, such as identifi cation of the contradictions in the suspect ’ s
denial and statement, using praise and fl attery, then allowing the suspect to
ease his guilt and justify himself, while giving him moral justifi cations or psy-
chological excuses, have also shown their effectiveness (Leo, 1996 ). This is
not surprising since those methods are inspired by factors – especially contex-
tual ones – that favour confession.
Everyone interrogated by police for a crime that they have actually com-
mitted lives with fear with regard to the consequences of their actions. These
stakes can become major obstacles that can hinder the confession process. The
role of the police offi cer will thus be to overcome these obstacles by stressing
the main facilitating factors, such as the quality/strength of the evidence
(which police offi cers do not always have) and internal pressures (guilt,
remorse). Despite all the efforts to obtain a confession and in spite of (some-
times) overpowering evidence, some people continue to deny or do not
confess. The major reason is probably fear of the consequences. Two major
types of consequences inhibit confession: real consequences and personal con-
sequences (Gudjonsson & Petursson, 1991 ; Gudjonsson & Bownes, 1992 ;
Sigurdsson & Gudjonsson, 1994 ). These inhibiting factors can obstruct the
confession process and help explain why, even though they have remorse and
think that police have enough or strong evidence against them, suspects can
still decide to deny their crime or to remain silent.
We call real consequences all concrete consequences that can happen or
worry a suspect while being interrogated for a crime he or she has committed.
Amongst the most usual real consequences, there is the fear of penal sanction
(Gudjonsson, 2003 ). Among people with no prior involvement with the crimi-
nal justice system, there is the fear of getting a criminal record and, especially,
facing the consequences of this, such as losing a job or having diffi culty fi nding
employment. The fear of legal sanctions is associated with loss of freedom
(imprisonment) and, in certain countries, with the death penalty. By confessing
their crime, certain suspects also fear the consequences they will have to
undergo if their statement incriminates others. Such consequences can become
more undesirable for the suspect than the penal sanction.
Amongst other probable consequences, there is the fear of losing loved ones
(spouse, children, family, friends). This fear is greater for individuals suspected
of a sexual crime, as well as the fear of losing their job, especially if the crime
has been committed at the place of employment. There are also fi nancial losses,
in particular regarding arson or major fraud. These consequences are poten-
tially real – this is the reason why they can inhibit the confession process – but
they are never immediate. Suspects can hope that their spouse will understand,
that the boss still needs them, that the judge will show clemency. Sometimes,
while discussing these fears with the suspect, the investigator can moderate
their inhibiting infl uence. However, the investigator cannot use promises or
The Psychology of Suspects’ Decision-Making during Interrogation
9
threats to reduce these inhibiting factors. The illusion of promises/advantages
or threats raises reasonable doubt regarding the free and voluntary nature of
the subsequent statement and the true culpability of the accused (see St - Yves,
in press ).
Personal consequences are often feared more than judicial consequences
because they are immediate and touch on integrity and self - esteem. As soon
as suspects confess, they lose dignity and respect, initially from the self and
then from people whom they care about. This is particularly true with sexual
crimes (Holmberg & Christianson, 2002 ). To mitigate the infl uence of these
inhibitors, the investigator often uses valorization or focuses on certain defence
mechanisms, such as minimization, projection and rationalization. However,
sometimes the investigator becomes an inhibiting factor because of his or her
attitude (St - Yves, 2004b; 2006a ).
Some recent studies have shown the importance of the quality of the
interviewer – interviewee relationship for the outcome of an investigative inter-
view, including the one made with the suspect. The preliminary steps that we
can fi nd in most interrogations conducted in North America are used not only
to evaluate the conscious state of mind of the subject ( ‘ operating mind ’ ), in
particular his aptitude to be interrogated by police, but also to establish a
trustful relationship with the suspect thus facilitating his
or her confession.
Indeed, active listening, empathy, openness, respect and the desire to discover
the truth, rather than to try at all costs to obtain a confession, are, we contend,
the essential qualities for carrying out investigative interviews (Shepherd, 1991 ;
Williamson, 1993 ; St - Yves, Tanguay & Cr é pault, 2004 ; St - Yves, 2006a ).
Are a ll i nterrogation t echniques and
s trategies a cceptable?
Although strong evidence is a determining factor in the confession process,
police offi cers often do not have strong enough evidence. Certain studies have
revealed that technical evidence (fi ngerprints, DNA, etc.) is only available in
10% of cases (Bottomley
& Coleman,
1980 ; Horvath
& Meesig,
1996 ).
Instead, much of the available evidence usually rests on statements, including
that given by the suspect.
Is it acceptable to use strategies and ruses to obtain a confession? This ques-
tion raises legal considerations (e.g., what is allowed by law in various coun-
tries?) and ethical considerations (i.e., what is morally acceptable?). This is a
subjective question that cannot be disassociated from the cultural and judicial
context in which the interrogation is conducted. In certain countries, torture
is common and legal. Furthermore, the perception and tolerance that the
population can have towards certain interrogation methods is probably closely
associated with the nature of the crime. The context can also infl uence the
10
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing
way interrogations are conducted. The war on terrorism has militarized crimi-
nal justice systems and changed the rules: ‘ Suspects are interrogated by military
in ways that would never be accepted by the ordinary courts with criminal
suspects ’ (Williamson, 2006 : 5).
In Canada and the USA, tribunals accept the use of certain strategies and
persuasive methods (see R v Oickle [2000] ). The Supreme Court of Canada
offers support for the investigator ’ s need to be less than truthful during an
interrogation. It referenced the often cited decision of Justice Lamer, who
wrote that a criminal investigation and the search for criminals is not a game
that has to follow the Queensbury rules (introduced in the nineteenth century
Handbook of Psychology of Investigative Interviewing: Current Developments and Future Directions Page 4
