Advertisement

“You’re Guilty, So Just Confess!”

Cognitive and Behavioral Confirmation Biases in the Interrogation Room
Chapter
Part of the Perspectives in Law & Psychology book series (PILP, volume 20)

Abstract

In Principles of Police Interrogation, Van Meter (1973) described the qualities of a good interrogator, which included such constructs as integrity, self-respect, and professional attitude. In addition, Van Meter suggested that individual prejudices should be left outside of the interrogation room, as a good interrogator must be impartial. He further elaborated:

I have told you to keep the purpose of the interrogation in mind, and to strive for the confession from your suspect. But you must remember that the person that you are talking to might not be guilty.... Maintain an impartial attitude throughout the interrogation, and you will not be put in the position of having to make excuses. After all, the courts try the person; you are only an investigator for the court, not the person who has to make the decision of guilt or innocence. By remaining impartial, you can also keep yourself on the sidelines, so to speak, and be in a better position to analyze the suspect’s reactions, your words and actions, and the facts in the case. You cannot think straight if you prejudge the person or if you become so personally involved in the case that you develop likes and dislikes. I have seen interrogators personally involved with a suspect, and they usually become very sensitive to the suspect and all that he says. This personal sensitivity often leads to harsh words and useless conversations with the suspect. (pp. 32–33)

Keywords

Police Officer Confirmation Bias Mock Juror Police Interrogation Wrongful Conviction 
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., & Vrij, A. (1999). Creating suspects in police interviews. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 192–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, D. E., DePaulo, B. M., Ansfield, M. E., Tickle, J. J., & Green, E. (1999). Beliefs about cues to deception: Mindless stereotypes or untapped wisdom? Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 23, 67–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldwin, J. (1993). Police interviewing techniques: Establishing truth or proof? The British Journal of Criminology, 33, 325–352.Google Scholar
  4. Bedau, H. A., & Radelet, M. L. (1987). Miscarriages of justice in potentially capital cases. Stanford Law Review, 40, 21–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blagrove, M. (1996). Effects of length of sleep deprivation on interrogative suggestibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2, 48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bond, C. F., Jr., & Fahey, W. E. (1987). False suspicion and the misperception of deceit. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 41–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bull, R. (1989). Can training enhance the detection of deception? In J.C. Yuille (Ed.), Credibility assessment (pp. 83–99 ). London: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buller, D. B., Strzyzewski, K. D., & Hunsaker, F. G. (1991). hlterpersonal deception: II. The inferiority of conversational participants as deception detectors. Communication Monographs, 58, 25–40.Google Scholar
  9. Cassell, P. G. (1996). Miranda’s social costs: An empirical reassessment. Northwestern University Law Review, 90, 387–499.Google Scholar
  10. Clymer, S. D. (2002). Are police free to disregard Miranda? Yale Law Journal, 112, 447–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conte, R. (2000). The psychology of false confessions. Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology, 2 (1), 14–36.Google Scholar
  12. Darley, J. M. & Fazio, R. H. (1980). Expectancy confirmation processes arising in the social interaction sequence. American Psychologist, 35, 867–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davey, M. (2003). Illinois Will Require Taping Of Homicide Interrogations. New York Times, July 17, 2003, Section A, page 16.Google Scholar
  14. Davis, D., & O’Donohue, W. (in press). The road to perdition: “Extreme influence” tactics in the interrogation room. In W. O’Donohtte, P. Laws, & C. Hollin (Eds.), Handbook of forensic psychology. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  15. DePaulo, B. M. (1994). Spotting lies: Can humans learn to do better? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 83–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DePaulo, B. M., Lassiter, G. D., & Stone, J. I. (1982). Attentional determinants of success at detecting deception and truth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 273–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74–112.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DePaulo, B. M., & Pfeifer, R, L. (1986). On-the-job experience and skill at detecting deception. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. DePaulo, B. M., Stone, J. I., & Lassiter, G. D. (1985). Deceiving and detecting deceit. In B.R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 323–370). New York: McGraw-Hill. Dickerson v. United States, 120 S. Ct. 2326 ( 2000 ).Google Scholar
  20. Drizin, S. A., & Colgan, B. A. (2001). Let the cameras roll: Mandatory videotaping of interrogations is the solution to Illinois’ problem of false confessions. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 32, 337–424.Google Scholar
  21. Ekman, P., and O’Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46, 913–920.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ekman, P., O’Sullivan, M., and Frank, M. G. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science, 10, 263–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Everington, C., and Fulero, S. M. (1999). Competence to confess: Measuring understanding and suggestibility of defendants with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 37, 212–220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fulcro, S. M., and Everington, C. (1995). Assessing competency to waive Miranda rights in defendants with mental retardation. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 533–543.Google Scholar
  25. Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969).Google Scholar
  26. Garrido, E., Masip,. J., and Herrero, C. (2004). Police officers’ credibility judgments: Accuracy and estimated ability. International Journal of Psychology.Google Scholar
  27. Geller, W. A. (1993). Videotaping interrogations and confessions. National Institute of Justice: Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  28. Green, D. M., and Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. Grisso, T. (1981). Juveniles’ waiver of rights: Legal and psychological competence. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grisso, T. (1998). Forensic evaluation of juveniles. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.Google Scholar
  31. Gudjonsson, G. H. (1992). The psychology of interrogations, confessions, and testimony. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook. West Sussex, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971).Google Scholar
  34. Harrison, Y., and Home, J. A. (2000). The impact of sleep deprivation on decision making: A review. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 236–249.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., and Vrij, A. (in press). Police officers’ lie detection accuracy: Interrogating freely vs. observing video. Police Quarterly.Google Scholar
  36. Haverkamp, B. E. (1993). Confirmatory bias in hypothesis testing for client-identified and counselor self-generated hypotheses. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 303–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hilgendorf, E. L., and Irving, M. (1981). A decision-making model of confessions. In M. Lloyd Bostock (Ed.), Psychology in legal contexts: Applications and limitations (pp. 67–84). London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  38. Hill, M. D. (2003). Identifying the source of critical details in confessions. Forensic Linguistics, 10, 23–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hilton, J. L., and Darley, J. M. (1991). Constructing other persons: A limit on the effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 21, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., and Jayne, B. C. (2001). Criminal interrogation and confessions ( 4th ed. ). Gaithersberg, MD: Aspen.Google Scholar
  41. Horselenberg, R., Merckelbach, H. and Josephs, S. (2003). Individual differences and false confessions: A conceptual replication of Kassin and Kiechel (1996). Psychology, Crime, and Law, 9, 1–18.Google Scholar
  42. Irving, B. (1980). Police interrogation. A case study of current practice. Research Studies No. 2. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  43. Irving, B., and Hilgendorf, L. (1980). Police interrogation: The psychological approach. Research Studies No. 1. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  44. Irving, B., and McKenzie, I. K. (1989). Police interrogation: the effects of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. London: Police Foundation of Great Britain.Google Scholar
  45. Kassin, S. M. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence. American Psychologist, 52, 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kassin, S. (2002). False confessions and the jogger case, New York Times, November 1, 2002, p. A31.Google Scholar
  47. Kassin, S. M., and Fong, C. T. (1999). “I’in innocent!” Effects of training on judgments of truth and deception in the interrogation room. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 499–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kassin, S. M., Goldstein, C. J., and Savitsky, K. (2003). Behavioral confirmation in the interrogation room: On the dangers of presuming guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 187–203.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kassin, S. M., Sr Kiechel, K. L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: Compliance, internalization, and confabulation. Psychological Science, 7, 125–128.Google Scholar
  50. Kassin, S., Leo, R., Crocker, C., and Holland, L. (2003, July). Videotaping Interrogations: Does it enhance the jury’s ability to distinguish true and false confessions? Paper presented at the Psychology and Law International, Interdisciplinary Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
  51. Kassin, S. M., and McNall, K. (1991). Police interrogations and confessions: Communicating promises and threats by pragmatic implication. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 233–251.Google Scholar
  52. Kassin, S. M., Meissner, C., and Norwick, R. (2003, July). The post-interrogation safety net: “I’d know a false confession if I saw one.” Paper presented at the Psychology and Law International, Interdisciplinary Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
  53. Kassin, S. M., and Neumann, K. (1997). On the power of confession evidence: An experimental test of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 469–484.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kassin, S. M., and Norwick, R. J. (in press). Why suspects waive their Miranda rights: The power of innocence. Law and Human Behavior.Google Scholar
  55. Kassin, S. M., and 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
  56. Kassin, S. M., and Wrightsman, L. S. (1980). Prior confessions and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 133–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kassin, S. M., and Wrightsman, L. S. (1985). Confession evidence. In S. M. Kassin and L. S. Wrights man (Eds.), The psychology of evidence and trial procedure (pp. 67–94 ). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  58. Koehnken, G. (1987). Training police officers to detect deceptive eyewitness statements: Does it work? Social Behavior, 2, 1–17.Google Scholar
  59. Lassiter, G. D., Geers, A. L., Handley, I. M., Weiland, P. E., and Munhall, P. J., (2002). Videotaped confessions and interrogations: A simple change in camera perspective alters verdicts in simulated trials. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 867–874.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Leo, R. A. (1996a). Inside the interrogation room. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 266–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Leo, R. A. (1996b). Miranda’s revenge: Police interrogation as a confidence game. Law and Society Review, 30, 259–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Leo, R. A. (2001). Questioning the relevance of Miranda in the twenty-first century. Michigan Law Review, 99, 1000–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Leo, R. A., and 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, 429–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Leo, R. A., and White, W. S. (1999). Adapting to Miranda: Modern interrogators’ strategies for dealing with the obstacles posed. Minnesota Law Review, 84, 397–472.Google Scholar
  65. MacMillan, N. A., and Creelman, C. D. (1991). Detection theory: A user’s guide. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. McCann, J. T. (1998). A conceptual framework for identifying various types of confessions. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 16, 441–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. McNatt, D. B. (2000). Ancient Pygmalion joins contemporary management: A meta-analysis of the result. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 314–322.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Meili, T. (2003). I am the Central Park jogger: A story of hope and possibility. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  69. Meissner, C. A., and Kassin, S. M. (2002). “He’s guilty!”: Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 469–480.Google Scholar
  70. Memon, A., Vrij, A., and Bull, R. (2003). Psychology and law: Truthfulness, accuracy and credibility. London: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  71. Milne, R., and Bull, R. (1999). Investigative interviewing: Psychology and practice. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  72. Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344 (1990).Google Scholar
  73. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 336 (1966).Google Scholar
  74. Mortimer, A., and Shepherd, E. (1999). Frames of mind: schemata guiding cognition and conduct in the interviewing of suspected offenders. In A. Memon and R. Bull (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of interviewing (p. 293–315 ). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  75. Moston, S., Stephenson, G. M., and Williamson, T. M. (1992). The effects of case characterisation suspect behaviour during questioning. British Journal of Criminology, 32, 23–40.Google Scholar
  76. Moston, S., Stephenson, G. M., and Williamson, T. M. (1993). The incidence, antecedents and consequences of the use of the right to silence during police questioning. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 3, 30–47.Google Scholar
  77. New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984).Google Scholar
  78. New York v. Wise et al., Affirmation in Response to Motion to Vacate Judgment of Conviction, Indictment No. 4762/89 (December 5, 2002 ).Google Scholar
  79. Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Nisbett, R. E. and Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  81. Ofshe, R. J., and 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
  82. Philipsborn, J. T. (2001). Interrogation tactics in the post-Dickerson era. The Champion, January/February 2001, pp. 18–22.Google Scholar
  83. Porter, S., Woodworth, M., and Birt, A. R. (2000). Truth, lies, and videotape: An investigation of the ability of federal parole officers to detect deception. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 643–658.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Redlich, A. D., and Goodman, G. S. (2003). Taking responsibility for an act not committed: The influence of age and suggestibility. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 141–156.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Rosenthal, R., and Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  86. Royal Commission on Criminal Justice Report (1993). Cmnd. 2263. London: HMSOGoogle Scholar
  87. Saulny, S. (2002). Why confess to what you didn’t do? The New York Times, December 8, 2002, Section 4.Google Scholar
  88. Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., and Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Shepherd, E. (1986). The conversational core of policing. Policing, 2, 294–303.Google Scholar
  89. Snyder, M. (1992). Motivational foundations of behavioral confirmation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 67–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Snyder, M., and Stukas, A. (1999). Interpersonal processes: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and behavioral activities in social interaction. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 273–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Snyder, M. and Swann, W. B., Jr. (1978). Hypothesis-testing processes in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1202–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Softley, P. (1980). Police interrogation. An observational study in four police stations. Home Office Research Study No. 61. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  93. Sullivan, T. (1992). Unequal verdicts: The Central Park jogger trials. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  94. Tetlock, P. E. and Boettger, R. (1989). Accountability: A social magnifier of the dilution effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 388–398.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Trope, Y. and Liberman, A. (1996). Social hypothesis testing: Cognitive and motivational mechanisms. In E. Higgins and A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 239–270 ). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  96. Van Meter, C. H. (1973). Principles of police interrogation. Springfield, IL: Thomas.Google Scholar
  97. Vrij, A. (1994). The impact of information and setting on detection of deception by police detectives. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and the implications for professional practice. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  99. Vrij, A., and Mann, S. (2001). Who killed my relative? Police officers’ ability to detect real-life high-stake lies. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 7, 119–132.Google Scholar
  100. Weisselberg, C. D. (2001). In the stationhouse after Dickerson. Michigan Law Review, 99, 1121–1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. White, W.S. (2001). Miranda’s failure to restrain pernicious interrogation practices. Michigan Law Review, 99, 1211–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Wrightsman, L.S., and Kassin, S.M. (1993). Confessions in the courtroom. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  103. Zamble, E., and Quinsey, V. L. (1997). The criminal recidivism process. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Zimbardo, P.G. (1967, June). The psychology of police confessions. Psychology Today, 1, 17–20, 25–27.Google Scholar
  105. Zuckerman, M., Koestner, R., and Alton, A. 0. (1984). Learning to detect deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 519–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyWilliams CollegeWilliamstownUSA

Personalised recommendations