Interviewing Suspects in Denial: On How Different Evidence Disclosure Modes Affect the Elicitation of New Critical Information.

This study examines how different evidence disclosure modes affect the elicitation of new critical information. Two modes derived from the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) framework were compared against an early disclosure mode (i.e., the evidence was disclosed at the outset of the interview). Participants (N = 88) performed a mock crime consisting of several actions before they were interviewed as suspects. In both SUE conditions the interviewer elicited and disclosed statement-evidence inconsistencies in two phases after an introductory phase. For the SUE-Confrontation (SUE-C) condition, the interview was introduced in a business-like manner, and the interviewer confronted the suspects with the in/consistencies without giving them a chance to comment on these. For the SUE-Introduce-Present-Respond (SUE-IPR) condition, the interviewer introduced the interview in a non-guilt-presumptive way, presented the in/consistencies and allowed the suspects to comment on these, and then responded to their comments; at all times in a non-judgmental manner. Both SUE conditions generated comparatively more statement-evidence inconsistencies. The SUE-IPR condition resulted in more new critical information about the phase of the crime for which the interviewer lacked information, compared to the Early disclosure condition. A likely explanation for this was that (for the SUE-IPR condition) the interviewer used the inconsistencies to create a fostering interview atmosphere and made the suspects overestimate the interviewer's knowledge about the critical phase of the crime. In essence, this study shows that in order to win the game (i.e., obtaining new critical information), the interviewer needs to keep the suspect in the game (i.e., by not being too confrontational and judgmental).

Interviewing strategically to elicit admissions from guilty suspects.

In this article we introduce a novel interviewing tactic to elicit admissions from guilty suspects. By influencing the suspects' perception of the amount of evidence the interviewer holds against them, we aimed to shift the suspects' counterinterrogation strategies from less to more forthcoming. The proposed tactic (SUE-Confrontation) is a development of the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) framework and aims to affect the suspects' perception by confronting them with statement-evidence inconsistencies. Participants (N = 90) were asked to perform several mock criminal tasks before being interviewed using 1 of 3 interview techniques: (a) SUE-Confrontation, (b) Early Disclosure of Evidence, or (c) No Disclosure of Evidence. As predicted, the SUE-Confrontation interview generated more statement-evidence inconsistencies from suspects than the Early Disclosure interview. Importantly, suspects in the SUE-Confrontation condition (vs. Early and No disclosure conditions) admitted more self-incriminating information and also perceived the interviewer to have had more information about the critical phase of the crime (the phase where the interviewer lacked evidence). The findings show the adaptability of the SUE-technique and how it may be used as a tool for eliciting admissions.

Susceptibility to misleading information under social pressure in schizophrenia.

Research looking at specific memory aberrations in the schizophrenia has primarily focused on their phenomenology using standardized semantic laboratory tasks. However, no study has investigated to what extent such aberrations have consequences for everyday episodic memories using more realistic false memory paradigms. Using a false memory paradigm where participants are presented with misleading suggestive information (Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale), we investigated the susceptibility of patients with schizophrenia (n = 21) and healthy controls (n = 18) to post hoc misleading information acceptance and compliance. Patients with schizophrenia exhibited an increased susceptibility to go along with misleading suggestive items. Furthermore, they showed an increased tendency to change answers under conditions of social pressure. Underscoring previous findings on memory aberrations in schizophrenia, patients with schizophrenia had reduced levels of correct recognition (ie, true memory) relative to healthy controls. The effects remained stable when controlling for specific mediating variables such as symptom severity and intelligence in patients with schizophrenia. These findings are a first indication that social pressure and misleading information may impair source memory for everyday episodic memories in schizophrenia, and such impairment has clear consequences for treatment issues and forensic practice.