Confessions Selected by Consequences: An Operant Analysis of False Confessions and Interrogation Techniques

Abstract

Documented cases of innocent persons in the United States having confessed to crimes that they did not commit have become commonplace since the emergence of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing as a means for confirming a person’s innocence or guilt. The risk of imprisoning any more innocent individuals on the basis of false confessions warrants a closer look at the contingencies that give rise to this kind of tragedy. Using Skinner’s (1957, Verbal Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall) and Palmer’s (1991, “A Behavioral Interpretation of Memory,” in L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase [Eds.], Dialogues on Verbal Behavior [pp. 261–279], Reno, NV: Context Press) analyses of verbal behavior and memory, this article explores how verbal episodes between suspects and law enforcement can culminate in a false admission of guilt. In addition, to try to identify the variables that might lead to high rates of false confessions in the United States, this article examines some of the contingencies under which law enforcement investigations operate. Finally, we provide some recommendations for how the behavior analyst can fulfill the role of an expert witness, how to take into consideration a systemic and cultural perspective, and how to incorporate some technological safeguards and additional precautions when interacting with vulnerable populations.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Bang, B. L., Stanton, D., Hemmens, C., & Stohr, M. K. (2018). Police recording of custodial interrogations: A state-by-state legal inquiry. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 20(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461355717750172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 139-140 (1968).

  3. Callahan.mysite.com. (1994). Aerial photos. Retrieved from http://callahan.mysite.com/wm3/img/aerial_photos.html. Accessed 1 Dec 2018.

  4. Cappellino, A. (2018, July). Daubert vs. Frye: Navigating the standards of admissibility for expert testimony. The Expert Institute. Retrieved from https://www.theexpertinstitute.com/daubert-vs-frye-navigating-the-standards-of-admissibility-for-expert-testimony/

  5. Catania, A. C. (1998). Learning. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895).

  7. Crosbie, J. (1998). Negative reinforcement and punishment. In K. A. Lattal & M. Perone (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in human operant behavior (pp. 163–189). Boston, MA: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Crowe v. County of San Diego, 9 S. Ct. (2010).

  9. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

  10. Donahoe, J. W., & Palmer, D. C. (1993). Learning and complex behavior (1st ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fantino, E. (1998). Behavior analysis and decision making. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 3, 355–364. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1998.69-355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).

  13. Fulero, S. (2004). Expert psychological testimony on the psychology of interrogations and confessions. In G. D. Lassiter (Ed.), Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment (pp. 247–263). Boston, MA: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gaffan, D. (2002). Against memory systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 357(1424), 1111–1121. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2002.1110

  15. Garrett, B. L. (2011). Convicting the innocent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Garrett, B. L. (2015). Contaminated confessions revisited. Virginia Law Review, 101(2), 395–454.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Glenn, S. S. (1989). Verbal behavior and cultural practices. Behavior Analysis and Social Action, 7(1–2), 10–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Glenn, S. S., Malott, M. E., Andery, M. A. P. A., Benvenuti, M., Houmanfar, R. A., Sandaker, I., et al. (2016). Toward consistent terminology in a behaviorist approach to cultural analysis. Behavior and Social Issues, 25, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v25i0.6634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gudjonsson, G. H., & Pearse, J. (2011). Suspect interviews and false confessions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 33–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410396824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Guerin, B. (1992). Behavior analysis and the social construction of knowledge. American Psychologist, 47(11), 1423–1432. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.11.1423

  21. Gupta, B. S., & Shukla, A. P. (1989). Verbal operant conditioning as a function of extraversion and reinforcement. British Journal of Psychology, 80, 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1989.tb02302.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Han, S., & Dobbins, I. G. (2009). Regulating recognition decisions through incremental reinforcement learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(3), 469–474. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.3.469

  23. Harris, M. (1979). Cultural materialism. New York, NY: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  24. The Innocence Project. (2017). DNA exonerations in the United States. Retrieved from https://www.innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/. Accessed 1 Dec 2018.

  25. John E. Reid & Associates. (2018). Training courses on the Reid Technique of interviewing and interrogation. Retrieved from http://www.reid.com/pdfs/brochure.pdf

  26. John E. Reid & Associates. (2019, January). Classifying misrepresentations about law enforcement interrogation techniques. Retrieved from http://www.reid.com/pdfs/20180126.pdf

  27. Johnston, J. M., & Pennypacker, H. S. (2009). Strategies and tactics of behavioral research. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jolliffe, C., & Nicholas, M. (2004). Verbally reinforcing pain reports: An experimental test of the operant model of chronic pain. Pain, 107, 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2003.10.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kassin, S. M., Appleby, S. C., & Perillo, J. T. (2011). Interviewing suspects: Practice, science, and future directions. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532509X449361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 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, 49–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9217-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Koppl, R., & Sacks, M. (2013). The criminal justice system creates incentives for false confessions. Criminal Justice Ethics, 32, 1226–1162. https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2013.817070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kozinski, W. (2018). The Reid interrogation technique and false confessions: A time for change. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 16(2), 301–345.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Leo, R. A. (2008). Police interrogation and American justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  34. Leo, R. A. (2009). False confessions: Causes, consequences, and implications. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 37(3), 332–343.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 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. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 429–539. https://doi.org/10.2307/1144288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Leo, R. A., & Ofshe, R. J. (2008). The decision to confess falsely: Rational choice and irrational action. Denver University Law Review, 74(1997), 979-1122.

  37. Lindsley, O. R. (1991). From technical jargon to plain English for application. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24(3), 449. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1991.24-449.

  38. Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13, 585–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80011-3.

  39. Mazur, J. E. (2016). Learning and behavior (8th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  40. Merryman, B. B. (2010). Arguments against use of the Reid Technique for juvenile interrogations. Communication Law Review, 10(2), 16–29.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing between discriminative stimuli and motivational functions of stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1982.37-149.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Michael, J., Palmer, D. C., & Sundberg, M. L. (2011). The multiple control of verbal behavior. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 27(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393089.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

  44. Misskelley, J. L. (1993, June 3). Interviewed by Detective B. Ridge and Detective G. Gitchell [Tape recording]. Suspect Interview, West Memphis Police Department, West Memphis, Arkansas.

  45. Misskelley v. Arkansas, 323 Ark. 449, 915 S.W.2d 702 (1996).

  46. Newkirk Center for Science and Society at the University of California Irvine, the University of Michigan Law School, and Michigan State University College of Law. (2019). Ronald Jones. The National Registry of Exonerations. Retrieved from https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/casedetail.aspx?caseid=3340

  47. Ofshe, R. A., & Leo, R. J. (1997). The social psychology of police interrogation: The theory and classification of true and false confessions. Studies in Law, Politics and Society, 16, 189–251.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ofshe, R. J. (n.d.). Declaration of Richard Ofshe. Retrieved from http://www.norfolkfour.com/images/uploads/pdf_files/Declaration_of_Dr._Richard_Ofshe.PDF. Accessed 1 March 2019.

  49. Ortu, D., Becker, A. M., Woelz, T. A. R., & Glenn, S. S. (2012). An iterated four-player prisoner’s dilemma game with an external selecting agent: A metacontingency experiment. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 44(1), 111–120.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Ortu, D., & Cihon, T. M. (2019). A neuro-operant analysis of mnemonic recognition. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 42, 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-018-0142-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Palmer, D. C. (1991). A behavioral interpretation of memory. In L. J. Hayes & P. N. Chase (Eds.), Dialogues on verbal behavior (pp. 261–279). Reno, NV: Context Press.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Palmer, D. C. (2009). Response strength and the concept of the repertoire. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 10(1), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2009.11434308

  53. Palmer, D. C. (2016). On intraverbal control and the definition of the intraverbal. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 32, 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40616-016-0061-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Peterson, J. L. (1997, February 18). Interviewed by Detective Sergeant G. Somers and Sargent D. Heymes [Tape recording]. Suspect Interview, Geraldine Montgomery Homicide Investigation, Kalkaska Police Department, Kalkaska, Michigan.

  55. Reynolds, B. (2006). A review of delay-discounting research with humans: Relations to drug use and gambling. Behavioural Pharmacology, 17(8), 651–667. https://doi.org/10.1097/fbp.0b013e3280115f99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Shepard, R. N. (1967). Recognition memory for words, sentences, and pictures. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6(1), 156–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(67)80067-7

  57. Sidman, M. (1988). Tactics of scientific research: Evaluating experimental data in psychology.  Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative.

  58. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  59. Stanislaw, H., & Todorov, N. (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(1), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207704

  60. Thomas Jefferson School of Law. (2017). The West Memphis three and their Alford Plea. Retrieved from https://www.tjsl.edu/the-jeffersonian/news/2011/09/west-memphis-three-and-their-alford-plea

  61. University of Virginia School of Law. (2019). DNA exonerations database. Retrieved from https://www.convictingtheinnocent.com/

  62. Vaidya, M., Hudgins, C. D., & Ortu, D. (2015). Conditional discriminations, symmetry, and semantic priming. Behavioral Processes, 118, 90–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2015.05.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Watkins, M. J. (1990). Mediationism and the obfuscation of memory. American Psychologist, 45(3), 328. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.3.328

Download references

Funding

Daniele Ortu is funded by the Beatrice H. Barrett Research Endowment, Department of Behavior Analysis, University of North Texas.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Haven Niland.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Niland, H., Ortu, D. Confessions Selected by Consequences: An Operant Analysis of False Confessions and Interrogation Techniques. Behav. Soc. Iss. 29, 162–194 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-019-00025-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • false confessions
  • mnemonic behavior
  • interrogation
  • coercion
  • intraverbal control
  • verbal behavior