Dangers of Interrogation and Cognitive Interviewing

The Danger of False Confession

The advent of DNA procedures has led to conclusive evidence that some innocent people are convicted of crimes. A contributing factor to false convictions is false confessions. Research into false convictions show that false confessions account for 14% to 24% of these cases (DeClue, 2004). Researchers have been studying this phenomenon to discover the source of such false confessions (e.g., Bering & Shackelford, 2005; Horselberg, Merckelbach, Smeets, Franssens, Peters, & Zeles, 2006).

Research has led to three types of classifications explaining why false confession occurs (Horselberg, et al., 2006). First, some confess falsely to protect a significant other or for notoriety. These are considered voluntary confessions. A second type of false confession is caused by pressure from either the police during interrogation or an outside party. A third type is a confession made by suspects who actually come to believe they are guilty (p. 62).

Bering and Shackelford (2005) pointed to evolutionary psychology for the answer as to why false confessions occur. They comment that evolutionary psychology predicts that people seek confidantes like family members when under stress. They seek allies to come to their aide, but this is impossible in the confines of an interrogation room. Investigators may parasitize this evolved heuristic by adopting a familiar or familial role (caring for the suspect). This in turn leads to false confession.

The Danger of False Memory

The danger of eliciting a false memory extends beyond the law enforcement community into the realms of psychology. Confirmatory feedback is commonly used in forensic interviews to elicit cooperation and set the witness at ease (Zaragoza, Payment, & Ackil, (2001). This can occur when police reinforce witnesses that provide information consistent with the interviewer’s beliefs, but can also occur when forensic psychologists use improper CI techniques and introduce bias feedback into the interview.

Zaragoza, et al., (2001) conducted an experiment on 98 undergraduate participants. They were divided into two groups. One group was forced to answer questions about a video clip, even if they didn’t know the answer. Subsequent interviews 4 to 6 weeks later showed that some participants remembered providing the confabulated items as responses, but didn’t remember they had fabricated them.

Interviewing Special Needs Persons

Cognitive interviewing is especially beneficial when working with special needs persons. For example, when used with children, CI demonstrated its usefulness by producing 20% to 35% more effectiveness than the standard interview (Aldridge, 1999). As Aldridge pointed out, one danger is that “the cognitive interview may have negative effects by directing the child to recall highly emotional and traumatic experiences”. However, she concluded, “a goal in therapy and the recovery process for victims of maltreatment is to process and transform the traumatic memory into a healthier ordinary memory” (p. 122).

Another special needs subpopulation is the learning disabled. The criminal justice system has traditionally regarded people with learning disabilities (LD’s) as unreliable witnesses. Milne and Bull (2001) concluded that CI techniques, if used appropriately, can produce accurate reports from people with LD’s. The mentally retarded also need special attention when considering interviewing strategies. They are more susceptible than other populations to making false confessions when leading questions and interrogative pressure is applied (Brodsky & Bennett, 2005).

The mentally ill are a subpopulation that spans both the mental health field and the criminal justice community. There is bipartisan agreement between both fields that improved responses are needed (Thompson, Reuland, & Souweine, 2003). By assuring availability of services, the mental health system could likely prevent many people with mental illness from coming in contact with the criminal justice system. Officers need special training in how to respond to incidents involving the mentally ill. Thompson, et al. (2003) state that law enforcement are frustrated that their current responses to people with mental illness are failing, especially when you consider the thousands of hours each year spent responding to people with mental illness. These issues further illustrate the conjoined nature of psychology and law enforcement, as well as the need for a bipartisan effort. Cooperation benefits both communities and leads to better treatment and services for the mentally ill.