How factors present during the immediate interrogation situation produce short-sighted confession decisions.

Abstract

Suspects have a preexisting vulnerability to make short-sighted confession decisions, giving disproportionate weight to proximal, rather than distal, consequences. The findings of the current research provided evidence that this preexisting vulnerability is exacerbated by factors that are associated with the immediate interrogation situation. In Experiment 1 (N = 118), a lengthy interview exacerbated participants' tendency to temporally discount a distal consequence when deciding whether or not to admit to criminal and unethical behaviors. This effect was especially pronounced among less serious behaviors. In Experiment 2 (N = 177), participants' tendency to temporally discount a distal consequence when making admission decisions was exacerbated by the expectation of a lengthy interview; an effect that became stronger the longer the interview continued. These findings suggest that conditions of the immediate interrogation situation may capitalize on an already-present vulnerability among suspects to make short-sighted confession decisions, thereby increasing the chances that even innocent suspects might confess.

Drawing the fine line between interrogation and torture: towards a Universal Protocol on Investigative Interviewing

“…Exhaustion encourages the detainee to believe in promises of leniency and minimisation or maximisation tactics and the false idea that the justice system will in the end recognise innocence and not take into account the false confession. Madon, Yang, Smalarz, Guyll, & Scherr (2013) have shown in a series of experimental studies how the length of the interview (even the expectation of length) results in short-sighted decisions to confess, irrespective of whether the subject is innocent. Davis and Leo (2012) have developed a model that links basic routine elements of a law-enforcement interrogations to confessions called the IBRD (Interrogation-Related…”

Increasing the Elicitation of Truthful Information from Young Suspects: An Empirical Investigation of the Effects of Temporal Discounting

“…As discussed, colleagues (2012, 2013) developed an interrogation paradigm to investigate the possibility that temporal discounting serves as a mechanism underlying the elicitation of false information in interrogation. Their findings supported this supposition: When questioned about their engagement in a variety of criminal and unethical behaviors, young adults altered their responses so as to avoid the proximal consequence even though doing so put them at increased risk of incurring a more severe distal consequence (Madon et al, 2012(Madon et al, , 2013. Adolescents, because of developmental deficits in future orientation, may be even more likely to avoid incurring undesirable proximal consequences in favor of potentially more severe distal consequences.…”

“…Specifically, previous research has reported either no suspicion (Madon et al, 2012(Madon et al, , 2013, a suspicion rate of less than 1% (Madon et al, 2013;Yang et al, 2015), or a maximum suspicion rate of approximately 3.5% (Madon et al, 2012). However, differences in suspicion rate may be due to the criteria used to exclude participants for suspicion.…”

“…For example, research has revealed lengthy interrogations (Drizin & Leo, 2004;Madon, Yang, Smalarz, Guyll, & Scherr, 2013), the presentation of false evidence (Kassin & Kiechel, 1996), physical isolation of the suspect (Drizin & Leo, 2004), the offering of a deal (Russano, Meissner, Narchet, & Kassin, 2005), the use of minimization tactics (e.g., minimizing the severity of the crime, using face saving techniques; Russano et al, 2005), among others, to increase the likelihood of eliciting a false confession . While it is important to be aware of the specific tactics that enhance the risk of eliciting false confessions, a paucity of research has focused on the processes underlying the elicitation of confessions, and, thus, little is known about the general mechanisms underlying individuals' confession decisions.…”

“…When the consequences were reversed, this research continued to support the temporal discounting theory with participants' responses reflecting a tendency to avoid the proximal consequences, regardless of what the proximal consequence entailed (i.e., meeting with a police officer or answering additional questions; Madon et al, 2012). Since the publication of the initial studies, researchers employing this paradigm have used only the standard consequence contingency pairing (i.e., the proximal consequence is always answering the set of 32 repetitive questions and the distal consequence is always the potential meeting with the police officer; Madon et al, 2013;Scherr, Miller, & Kassin, 2014;Yang, Madon, & Guyll, 2015).…”