Advertisement

Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 499–516 | Cite as

“I'm Innocent!”: Effects of Training on Judgments of Truth and Deception in the Interrogation Room

  • Saul M. Kassin
  • Christina T. Fong
Article

Abstract

The present research examined the extent to which people can distinguish true and false denials made in a criminal interrogation, and tested the hypothesis that training in the use of verbal and nonverbal cues increases the accuracy of these judgments. In Phase One, 16 participants committed one of four mock crimes (breaking and entering, vandalism, shoplifting, a computer break-in) or a related but innocent act. Given incentives to deny involvement rather than confess, these suspects were then interrogated. In Phase Two, 40 observers were either trained in the analysis of verbal and nonverbal deception cues or not trained before viewing the videotaped interrogations and making their judgments. As in past studies conducted in nonforensic settings, observers were generally unable to distinguish between truthful and deceptive suspects. In addition, those who underwent training were less accurate than naive controls—though they were more confident and cited more reasons for their judgments. The implications of these findings are discussed in light of what is known about police interrogations, false confessions, and the wrongful conviction of innocent suspects.

Keywords

Social Psychology Past Study Police Interrogation Wrongful Conviction False Confession 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Akehurst, L., Kohnken G., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (1996). Laypersons' and police officers' beliefs regarding deceptive behavior. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 461–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aubry, A. S., & Caputo, R. R. (1980). Criminal interrogation (3rd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  3. Bedau, H., & Radelet, M. (1987). Miscarriages of justice in potentially capital cases. Stanford Law Review, 40, 21–179.Google Scholar
  4. Bond, C. F., & Fahey, W. E. (1987). False suspicion and the misperception of deceit. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 41–46.Google Scholar
  5. Borchard, E. M. (1932). Convicting the innocent: Errors of criminal justice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Buller, D. B., Strzyzewski, K. D., & Hunsaker, F. G. (1991). Interpersonal deception: II. The inferiority of conversational participants as deception detectors. Communication Monographs, 58, 25–40.Google Scholar
  7. Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., Ebesu, A. S., & Rockwell, P. (1994). Interpersonal deception: V. Accuracy in deception detection. Communication Monographs, 61, 303–325.Google Scholar
  8. Cassell, P. G. (1996). Miranda's social costs: An empirical reassessment. Northwestern University Law Review, 90, 387–499.Google Scholar
  9. Cassell, P. G. (1998). Protecting the innocent from false confessions and lost confessions—and from Miranda. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 497–556.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. DePaulo, B. M. (1994). Spotting lies: Can humans learn to do better? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 83–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DePaulo, B. M., Charlton, K., Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J., & Muhlenbruck, L. (1997). The accuracy-confidence correlation in the detection of deception. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 346–357.Google Scholar
  13. DePaulo, B. M., & Friedman, H. (1998). Nonverbal communication. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 3–40). Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  14. DePaulo, B. M., Lanier, K., & Davis, T. (1983). Detecting the deceit of the motivated liar. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1096–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DePaulo, B. M., & Pfeifer, R. L. (1986). On-the-job experience at detecting deception. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 252–267.Google Scholar
  16. deTurck, M. A., & Miller, G. R. (1990). Training observers to detect deception: Effects of self-monitoring and rehearsal. Human Communication Research, 16, 603–620.Google Scholar
  17. Ekman, P. (1985). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  18. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1974). Detecting deception from the body or face. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 288–298.Google Scholar
  19. Ekman, P., & O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46, 913–920.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Frank, M. G., & Ekman, P. (1997). The ability to detect deceit generalizes across different types of high-stake lies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1429–1439.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Geller, W. A. (1993). Videotaping interrogations and confessions. National Institute of Justice: Research in brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  22. Gilovich, T., Savitsky, K., & Medvec, V. H. (1998). The illusion of transparency: Biased assessments of others' ability to read one's emotional states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 332–346.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Gudjonsson, G. H. (1992). The psychology of interrogations, confessions, and testimony. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Hilton, J. L., & Darley, J. M. (1991). The effects of interaction goals on person perception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 235–267.Google Scholar
  25. Hoffman, J. (1998). Police refine methods so potent, even the innocent have confessed. New York Times, March 30, 1998, pp. A1, B4.Google Scholar
  26. Horvath, F., Jayne, B., & Buckley, J. (1994). Differentiation of truthful and deceptive criminal suspects in behavior analysis interviews. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 39, 793–807.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Huff, C. R., Rattner, A., & Sagarin, E. (1986). Guilty until proven innocent: Wrongful conviction and public policy. Crime and Delinquency, 32, 518–544.Google Scholar
  28. Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., & Buckley, J. P. (1986). Criminal interrogation and confessions (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  29. Jayne, B. C. (1986). The psychological principles of criminal interrogation. Appendix. In F. Inbau, J. Reid, & J. Buckley, Criminal interrogation and confessions (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
  30. John E. Reid and Associates (1991). The Reid Technique: Interviewing and interrogation [Videotape].Google Scholar
  31. Kamisar, Y. (1965). Equal justice in the gatehouses and mansions of American criminal procedure. In A. Howard (Ed.), Criminal Justice in our Time (pp. 11–38). Charlotesville, VA. University Press of Virginia.Google Scholar
  32. Kassin, S. M. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence. American Psychologist, 52, 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kassin, S. M., & Kiechel, K. L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: Compliance, internalization, and confabulation. Psychological Science, 7, 125–128.Google Scholar
  34. Kassin, S. M., & McNall, K. (1991). Police interrogations and confessions: Communicating promises and threats by pragmatic implication. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 233–251.Google Scholar
  35. Kassin, S. M., & Neumann, K. (1997). On the power of confession evidence: An experimental test of the “fundamental difference” hypothesis. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 469–484.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Kassin, S. M., & Sukel, H. (1997). Coerced confessions and the jury: An experimental test of the “harmless error” rule. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1985). Confession evidence. In S. Kassin & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), The psychology of evidence and trial procedure (pp. 67–94). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Kraut, R. E., & Poe, D. (1980). On the line: The deception judgments of customs inspectors and laymen. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 784–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Landry, K. L., & Brigham, J. C. (1992). The effects of training in criteria-based content analysis on the ability of detecting deception in adults. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 663–676.Google Scholar
  40. Leo, R. A. (1996). Inside the interrogation room. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 266–303.Google Scholar
  41. Leo, R. A., & Ofshe, R. (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, 429–496.Google Scholar
  42. Leo, R. A., & Thomas, G. C. (1998). The Miranda debate: Law, justice, and policing. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Macdonald, J. M., & Michaud, D. L. (1987). The confession: Interrogation and criminal profiles for police officers. Denver: Apache.Google Scholar
  44. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 336 (1966).Google Scholar
  45. Munsterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  46. Ofshe, R. J., & Leo, R. A. (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
  47. O'Hara, C. E., & O'Hara, G. L. (1981). Fundamentals of criminal investigation. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
  48. Penrod, S. D., & Cutler, B. (1995). Witness confidence and witness accuracy: Assessing their forensic relation. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 817–845.Google Scholar
  49. Porter, S., & Yuille, J. C. (1996). The language of deceit: An investigation of the verbal cues to deception in the interrogation context. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 443–458.Google Scholar
  50. Radelet, M. L., Bedau, H. A., & Putnam, C. E. (1992). In spite of innocence: Erroneous convictions in capital cases. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Schulhofer, S. J. (1996). Miranda's practical effect: Substantial benefits and vanishingly small social costs. Northwestern University Law Review, 90, 500–564.Google Scholar
  52. Shuy, R. W. (1998). The language of confession, interrogation, and deception. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  53. Simon, D. (1991). Homicide: A year on the killing streets. New York: Ivy Books.Google Scholar
  54. Snyder, M. (1984). When belief creates reality. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 18, 207–303.Google Scholar
  55. Snyder, M., & Swann, W. B. (1978). Hypothesis-testing processes in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1202–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sporer, S. L. (1997). The less travelled road to truth: Verbal cues in deception detection in accounts of fabricated and self-experienced events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 373–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sporer, S. L., Penrod, S. D., Read, J. D., & Cutler, B. L. (1995). Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: A meta-analysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 315–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vrij, A. (1994). The impact of information and setting on detection of deception by police detectives. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 117–136.Google Scholar
  59. Walkley, J. (1987). Police Interrogation: Handbook for investigators. London: Police Review.Google Scholar
  60. Wells, G. L., & Murray, D. M. (1984). Eyewitness confidence. In G. Wells & E. Loftus (Eds.), Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Wrightsman, L. S., & Kassin, S. M. (1993). Confessions in the courtroom. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  62. Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 1–59.Google Scholar
  63. Zuckerman, M., Knee, C. R., Hodgins, H. S., & Miyake, K. (1995). Hypothesis confirmation: The joint effect of positive test strategy and acquiescence response set. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 52–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zuckerman, M., Koestner, R., & Alton, A. O. (1984). Learning to detect deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 519–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zulawski, D. E., & Wicklander, D. E. (1993). Practical aspects of interview and interrogation. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWilliams CollegeWilliamstown

Personalised recommendations