1 / 20

Dave Walsh, University of Derby, UK

What ’ s going on? Either a classic album by Marvin Gaye or an analysis of US law enforcement interview techniques. Dave Walsh, University of Derby, UK With thanks to Pete Blair, University of San Marcos, Texas, USA. Reid model. Primary goals of police interrogation

nona
Download Presentation

Dave Walsh, University of Derby, UK

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. What’s going on? Either a classic album by Marvin Gaye or an analysis of US law enforcement interview techniques Dave Walsh, University of Derby, UK With thanks to Pete Blair, University of San Marcos, Texas, USA

  2. Reid model • Primary goals of police interrogation • obtain information to assist criminal investigation • elicit confession • seek truth • (Hartwig, Granhag, & Vrij, 2005) • Follows BAI (non-accusatory, investigative and behavioural information gathering apparently to assess guilt) • Nine step model of interrogation for those assessed as guilty

  3. Direct confrontation Develop theme or explanation for crime Handle denials Overcome objections Obtaining, retaining, regaining attention Overcome passive mood Alternative question Oral confession Written confession Displaying confidence, knowledge and expertise 9 steps (from Inbau, Reid, Buckley, & Jayne, 2013)

  4. The Reid Method • Three psychological processes • Isolation - heightens stress and anxiety • Confrontation – presented with strong assertions of guilt (and false evidence) increase susects’ sense of hopelessness • Minimisation--provides ‘moral’ justification which some suspects might see as opportunity to seize to escape from isolation and hopelessness. • Moral justifications to neutralise guilt, adopting the proffered excuses to end questioning.

  5. Lying about evidence unlawful Psychological manipulation may result in false confessions Trickery and deceit may be seen as unethical and unfair Boomerang effect’ (Gudjonsson, 1994). Unreliable cues to deception Also Kassin & McNall (1991) –concerns with maximisation and minimisation However, Leo (1996) – guilty do confess! Criticisms of the model Vrij (cited in Memon, Vrij, & Bull, 2003)

  6. Empirical field studies (Feld, 2006; King & Snook, 2009; Leo, 1996) • Full usage of the Reid model rare • Minimisation techniques • Maximisation techniques

  7. Current study (in progress)36 video recorded interviews (USA) • % occurrence Comparison • Confession rate 36 50 (King & Snook) • Appealing to self-interest 75 88 (Leo) • Confronting suspects with evidence 75 85 (Leo) / 82 (King & Snook) • Importance of co-operation 36 37 (Leo) • Using praise/flattery 22 30 (Leo) / 57 (King & Snook) • Leading questions 66 49 (Feld) • Echoing 20 47 (Feld) • Multiple questions 22 25 (Feld) • Handling denials 8 11 (Feld) • Pointing out inconsistencies 28 45 (Feld) • Playing on fears 28 36 (Feld) • Urging to tell the truth 64 45 (Feld) • Emphasising seriousness 44 34 (Feld) • Maximisation 78 89 (Feld) • Minimisation 33 34 (Leo)/36 (King & Snook) • Pointing out futility 14 30 (King & Snook) • Coercive strategies 33 25 (King & Snook)

  8. Interim results • A greater proportion of Reid tactics/themes observed for interrogations ending with confession – • M = 1.13, SD = 1.08 • than for those ending with denial – • M = .76, SD = .88 • Difference statistically significant – • t(34) = 2.90, p = <.05, d = 0.74.

  9. Confront suspect with existing evidence of guilt Offer moral justifications/psychological excuses Use praise and/or flattery Identify contradiction in suspect’s account Appeal to suspect’s conscience Minimize the moral seriousness of the offence Appeal to interrogator’s expertise/authority Appeal to the suspect’s self-interest Minimise the facts/nature of the offence Undermine suspect’s confidence in denial of guilt Invoke metaphors of guilt Touch suspect in friendly manner Appeal to the importance of cooperation Accuse suspect of other crimes Refer to physical symptoms of guilt Minimise the nature/purpose of questioning Good cop–bad cop routine Shout at suspect Attempt to confuse the suspect Exaggerate the facts/nature of the offence Exaggerate the moral seriousness of the offence Exaggerate the nature/purpose of questioning Influence tactics (after Leo, 1996; King & Snook, 2009)

  10. Influence tactics • Occurred in all interviews (also King & Snook, 2009) • Greater number found in full confession cases • M = 5.45, SD = 4.61 • than in denial • M = 3.80,SD = 3.52. • Difference statistically significant, • t(34) = 1.72, p =< .05, d = 0.53.

  11. Suspect was not given Miranda warning Interrogator threatened suspect with psychological pain Interrogator touched suspect in an unfriendly manner Interrogator’s questioning manner was unrelenting, badgering, or hostile Interrogator promised the suspect leniency in exchange for an admission of guilt Suspect is not permitted to invoke his or her Miranda rights Suspect was in obvious physical pain Interrogator deprived the suspect of an essential necessity Suspect was in obvious psychological pain Interrogation lasted longer than 6 hours Coercive strategies (after Leo, 1996; King & Snook, 2009)

  12. Coercive strategies • Interrogations with confession outcome contained more coercive strategies • M = 0.40, SD = 0.27 • than denial outcome • M = 0.15, SD = 0.14. • Difference statistically significant • t(10) = 2.05, p = <.05,d = 0.57.

  13. Typical overall interview strategy • Rapport building • Information gathering • Open and probing questions • Accusatory • Appeal to conscience • Maximisation/minimisation • Interview ends

  14. Rapport (Walsh & Bull, 2012) • Found skilled rapport building not enough to affect interview outcomes • Rapport to be maintained • Rapport skills measured (1= poor, 5 = highly skilled) • Phase 1 and Phase 2 • Interview outcome (Confession/no confession)

  15. Tickle-Degnan and Rosenthal (1990) • Mutual attentiveness - mutual interest and focus. • Positivity, - mutual friendliness and caring. • ‘Coordination’, relates to the balance and harmony between the participants.

  16. Rapport skills • Rapport skills in phase one - M = 3.11 (SD = 1.12) • Rapport skills in phase two - M = 1.15 (SD = 0.88) • t (18)= 4.17, d = 0.77, p = <0.05

  17. Rapport skills • Rapport skills in confession cases (N= 13) - M = 2.42 (SD = 0.96) • Rapport skills in no confession cases (N = 23) - M = 1.88 (SD =1.33) • No significant difference

  18. Discussion • Still insufficient field research!! • Reid tactics/themes used • Interrogations with more influencing tactics/ coercive strategies more associated with confession interviews (also King & Snook, 2009) • Rapport skills need to be maintained throughout interview!

  19. Any questions • D.walsh@derby.ac.uk

More Related