A police interrogation involves a police officer interviewing someone who is believed to have committed a crime. The officer who conducts the interview is often called an interrogator, and the person being interviewed is commonly referred to as a suspect. The evidence pointing to the guilt of the suspect can range from mere suspicion to absolute certainty. Interrogators may differ on their goal when talking to the suspect. For instance, the interrogator may simply wish to obtain an admission of guilt from the suspect (i.e., confession), or the interrogator may wish to obtain a full story about the suspect’s involvement in the crime (or the suspect’s whereabouts when the crime was committed). Beyond those differences, there are also differences in how interrogations are conducted, as discussed in this article.
Third-Degree Approach
Until the 1930s, it was common for police officers to use third-degree tactics when interrogating suspects. Third-degree tactics included different types of physical force and abuse (e.g., hitting), isolation, and deprivation of basic necessities (e.g., food). Interrogators apparently used these harsh tactics because they perceived themselves to be at war with crime and that the third degree was the most effective weapon in winning the war (i.e., securing confessions). Third-degree tactics were used because officers believed they only interrogated guilty individuals. That is, they failed to believe that they sometimes interrogated innocent people. Therefore, such harsh tactics were seen as a necessary evil in making uncooperative suspects talk. Police organizations came to realize that harsh tactics produced unreliable information, elicited unreliable confessions, lowered public confidence in policing, and impeded the professionalization of policing.
Accusatorial Approach: The Reid Technique
The use of third-degree tactics was mostly obsolete by the mid-1960s. Interrogations are now based largely on the personal experiences of Chicago polygraphist John Reid. The Reid Technique (Reid) has been taught to hundreds of thousands of investigators worldwide. Reid consists primarily of a behavioral analysis interview and a nine-step interrogation.
The behavioral analysis interview aims to identify guilty individuals who need to be interrogated. It is assumed that guilty individuals will answer questions in a way that is distinct from innocent individuals. Specifically, guilty people are thought to provide evasive and ambiguous answers.
Empirical tests of the behavioral analysis interview have shown that it is not effective, and furthermore, training officers to use Reid-advocated cues impairs their ability to separate truth tellers from liars.
Those who are believed to be guilty are exposed to a nine-step interrogation. The nine-step technique aims to elicit a confession through a psychologically pressure-filled interaction.
Step 1 involves a direct, positive confrontation with a suspect. Interrogators are taught to state their unwavering belief in the suspect’s guilt and to follow the confrontation with a pause so that the suspect’s response can be scrutinized. Interrogators are taught to examine an evidence folder (which can contain blank pages) to communicate to the suspect that the interrogator has proof of guilt and to use a transition statement (also known as a theme) that provides the suspect with a reason for why the interrogation is taking place (i.e., the suspect’s guilt is assured).
Step 2 pertains to the development of a theme or a reason that the suspect committed the crime. Interrogators are taught that the chosen theme should reinforce the suspect’s rationalizations for committing the crime in order to make it easier for a guilty person to overcome any hesitations associated with admitting his or her criminal involvement. If the suspect continues to reject the themes, interrogators are taught to use different themes in an effort to find one that the suspect will find acceptable.
Step 3 requires the interrogator to prevent suspects from denying involvement in the crime. For example, interrogators may reconfirm their belief in the suspect’s guilt and reiterate the proposed theme, all while preventing denials from being voiced. Allowing initial denials of criminal involvement presumably reduces the likelihood of obtaining a confession at a later stage in the interrogation.
Step 4 involves the interrogator overcoming objections, or excuses given by suspects as to why they could not, or would not, have committed the crime. Because it is assumed that only guilty suspects verbalize objections, a movement from denials to objections is assumed to be a good indication of deception. Unlike denials, interrogators are taught that objections should be permitted because they can be used to further the development of a theme—namely, by providing the interrogator with an opportunity to turn the objection around to match the proposed theme.
Step 5 aims to obtain and retain the suspect’s attention. After being discouraged from expressing denials and having their objections turned around to support the interrogator’s proposed theme, suspects may psychologically withdraw. At this point, interrogators are taught to regain the suspect’s attention and increase pressure—for example, by inching their chair forward into the suspect’s physical space.
Step 6 requires interrogators to recognize and overcome passive moods. After the suspect’s attention is gained, the suspect is presumed to be more willing to listen but may appear physically defeated. At this stage, interrogators are taught to concentrate on a specific theme, display understanding and sympathy, and urge the suspect to tell the truth. Interrogators are taught to use such techniques until the suspect shows signs of considering whether to tell the truth.
Step 7 is the presentation of the alternative question. An alternative question presents the suspect with a choice between two explanations for the commission of the crime (e.g., Did you plan to kill him or was it an accident?). One of the explanations is face-saving and one more reprehensible, but both involve an admission of guilt. Alternative questions allow a suspect to save face while providing the interrogator with an incriminating admission.
Step 8 attempts to get the suspect to verbalize the details of the offense. After a suspect makes an admission of guilt, the interrogator is encouraged to show signs of sharing the suspect’s relief and to draw the suspect into a conversation to fully develop the confession. When general acknowledgment of guilt is achieved, the interrogator is encouraged to return to the beginning of the narrative and obtain information that can be corroborated.
Step 9 is the final step whereby the oral confession is converted into a written confession. This final step is thought to be important because it is assumed that a written confession reduces the possibility that an individual will retract the confession and, if he or she does, it helps to ensure the confession will lead to a conviction.
Research has shown that some of the persuasive tools in Reid’s toolbox increase the chances of obtaining false confessions. In a classic experiment, commonly referred to as the ALT KEY paradigm, Saul Kassin and his colleagues found that false confessions could be elicited from students through psychological manipulation. Other researchers have replicated these findings using the same design and also using more realistic and pressure-filled scenarios.
Humane Approach: The PEACE Model of Investigative Interviewing
PEACE is an acronym that stands for the stages of interviewing, which include (a) Planning and Preparation, (b) Engage and Explain, (c) Account, (d) Closure, and (e) Evaluation. Under the PEACE model, the term interrogation is replaced with the term investigative interview, as the approach is based on a humane and ethical philosophy. In direct contrast to accusatorial approaches, interviewers are taught to collect information before making decisions, which is more akin to hypothesis testing in science. The role of interviewers who utilize PEACE is that of objective fact finders, as they are taught to be open-minded, not to attempt to detect deception through behavioral cues, and not to lie or use psychologically coercive tactics to manipulate interviewees.
Planning and Preparation involves getting interviewers to create a written plan that documents the following: How information obtained will contribute to the investigation; interviewee information (e.g., vulnerabilities); legal safeguards to be administered; and objectives (e.g., points to be disproven). Interviewers are also taught to consider practical arrangements (e.g., where to conduct the interview), develop a timeline of events, prepare the opening question and subsequent questions that emerge from an analysis of existing evidence, create an interview outline, and plan for eventualities (e.g., no comment interview).
Engage and Explain involves engaging the interviewee in conversation and explaining what will happen during the interview. Interviewers engage the interviewee by personalizing the interview, building rapport, engaging in selfdisclosure, and acting in a respectful and considerate manner. Interviewers are taught to be accommodating by making sure the interviewee understands the purpose of the interview and to be ethical by providing the required legal safeguards in a clear manner. This phase of the interview also involves telling the interviewee about the outline of the interview, the routines that will be followed (e.g., note-t aking), and expectations of both parties (e.g., limited interruptions).
Account involves asking an open-ended invitation that elicits a step-by-step account of the interviewee’s whereabouts during the material time frame (i.e., a period of time that encompasses the time when the crime was committed) or asks the interviewee to provide a detailed answer that takes into account the evidence that both the interviewee and police know about (known as a trailer question). The goal of the first part of this phase is to obtain an uninterrupted account of their version of the events. If a free narrative is not forthcoming, interviewers are taught to ask planned questions that attempt to understand the detailed movements and actions of the interviewee during the material time frame.
Interviewers are encouraged to take notes on the various topics (e.g., people, locations, actions, times) regarding the incident. The interviewer should then explore each of the identified topics in a structured manner by (a) opening up a topic through the use of an open-ended invitation (e.g., starting with tell, explain, describe), (b) probing the account (who, what, where, when, why, and how), and (c) summarizing all of the information obtained about a particular topic. This systematic process is repeated until all of the topics identified from the interviewee’s free narrative have been explored. Once the interviewer believes that all topics have been covered in detail, a summary of the entire interview is provided to the interviewee and checked for the interviewee’s agreement of the account.
Interviewers are then taught to consider whether or not the interviewee’s account is consistent with the available evidence. If a discrepancy is identified, the interviewer may challenge the interviewee at the end of the interview. A challenge is a clarification-seeking task where the interviewee is given an opportunity to explain any discrepancies. The number of challenges depends on the amount of discrepancies identified. Interviewers are also taught to recognize resistance (e.g., receiving evasive answers) and are taught to handle it in an ethical and appropriate fashion (e.g., not engaging in arguments).
Closure occurs when the interviewer has asked all of his or her questions, and all of the objectives have been achieved. Interviewers summarize the main points of the interview, provide the interviewee with the opportunity to correct or add any information, and explain what will happen in the future.
Evaluation is the final phase in which interviewers consider the effect of new information on the investigation and how the information is consistent with the available evidence. Interviewers are encouraged to conduct self-evaluations of their performance, and supervisors provide constructive feedback as well.
References:
- Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. C. (2011). Criminal interrogation and confessions. Burlington, NJ: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
- Kassin, S. M. (2008). The psychology of confessions. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 4, 193–217. doi:10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.4.110707.172410
- Leo, R. A. (2008). Police interrogation and American justice. Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA.
- Russano, M. B., Meissner, C. A., Narchet, F. M., & Kassin, S. M. (2005). Investigating true and false confessions within a novel experimental paradigm. Psychological Science, 16, 481–486. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01560.x
- Snook, B., Luther, K., & Barron, T. (2015). Interviewing suspects in Canada. In D. Walsh, G. Oxburgh, A. Redlich, & Myklebust (Eds.), Contemporary developments and practices in investigative interviewing and interrogation: An international perspective (pp. 229–239). Oxford, UK: Routledge Press.
Websites
- Innocence Project. https://innocenceproject.org/
- John E. Reid & Associates. https://reid.com/