Police training in interviewing and interrogation methods: A comparison of techniques used with adult and juvenile suspects.

Abstract

Despite empirical progress in documenting and classifying various interrogation techniques, very little is known about how police are trained in interrogation methods, how frequently they use various techniques, and whether they employ techniques differentially with adult versus juvenile suspects. This study reports the nature and extent of formal (e.g., Reid Technique, PEACE, HUMINT) and informal interrogation training as well as self-reported technique usage in a diverse national sample (N = 340) of experienced American police officers. Officers were trained in a variety of different techniques ranging from comparatively benign pre-interrogation strategies (e.g., building rapport, observing body language or speech patterns) to more psychologically coercive techniques (e.g., blaming the victim, discouraging denials). Over half the sample reported being trained to use psychologically coercive techniques with both adults and juveniles. The majority (91%) receive informal, "on the job" interrogation training. Technique usage patterns indicate a spectrum of psychological intensity where information-gathering approaches were used most frequently and high-pressure tactics less frequently. Reid-trained officers (56%) were significantly more likely than officers without Reid training to use pre-interrogation and manipulation techniques. Across all analyses and techniques, usage patterns were identical for adult and juvenile suspects, suggesting that police interrogate youth in the same manner as adults. Overall, results suggest that training in specific interrogation methods is strongly associated with usage. Findings underscore the need for more law enforcement interrogation training in general, especially with juvenile suspects, and highlight the value of training as an avenue for reducing interrogation-induced miscarriages of justice. (PsycINFO Database Record

Jail inmates’ perspectives on police interrogation

“…While great strides have been made in the identification and classification of police interrogation techniques (Kelly, Miller, Redlich, & Kleinman, 2013), much of the existing work is derived from officers' self-reported use of techniques (e.g., Cleary & Warner, 2016;Kassin et al, 2007;Wachi et al, 2014) or occurs outside the United States (e.g., Bull & Soukara, 2010;Kebbell, Alison, Hurren, & Mazerolle, 2010;Wachi, Watanabe, Yokota, Otsuka, & Lamb, 2016a), where legal systems and/or police interrogation practices likely differ. Very few studies have examined suspects' perspectives on police interrogation (Bull, 2013;Goodman-Delahunty, Martschuk, & Dhami, 2014), yet obtaining suspects' views could yield important insights about what the 'targets' of interrogation think about the experience and thus provide a critical window into suspects' interrogation decision making.…”

“…Some studies have focused on broad dichotomies such as humanity versus dominance or information gathering versus accusatory questioning, while others assess usage of specific techniques (e.g., asking questions repeatedly, interrupting the suspect, presenting false evidence to the suspect; Kelly et al, 2013). Cleary and Warner (2016) reported that American police were trained in a wide variety of interrogation techniques; for example, more than half of their sample received training in how to discourage denials, and over 90% were trained in observing body language and building rapport. Respondents were also trained in what scholars consider more coercive or problematic techniques such as suspect isolation (77%) and presenting false evidence (73%).…”

Stigma against false confessors impacts post‐exoneration financial compensation

“…Although overt threats and intimidation are sometimes present in real‐world interrogations (e.g., Cleary & Warner, ; Kassin et al, ; Leo, ), interrogators are typically trained to elicit confessions via subtler psychological manipulation (i.e., the Reid Technique; Inbau, Reid, Buckley, & Jayne, ), which jurors may not see as coercive. Several studies have found that jurors discounted confessions obtained via psychological manipulation (e.g., Horgan, Russano, Meissner, & Evans, ; Woestehoff & Meissner, ), while others suggest that jurors do not see these techniques as problematic (Leo & Liu, ) and are no less likely to convict when they are used (Kassin & McNall, ).…”

“…Although overt threats and intimidation are sometimes present in real-world interrogations (e.g., Cleary & Warner, 2016;Kassin et al, 2007;Leo, 1996), interrogators are typically trained to elicit confessions via subtler psychological manipulation (i.e., the Reid Technique; Inbau, Reid, Buckley, & Jayne, 2011), which jurors may not see as coercive.…”

Sitting in judgment: How body posture influences deception detection and gazing behavior

“…The majority of past research attempting to improve deception detection accuracy has focused either on differences between decoders (e.g., experience or training; Cleary & Warner, 2016;Hartwig, 2011;Meissner & Kassin, 2002;Vrij, 2008) or between senders (e.g., demeanor or physical characteristics; (Funk & Todorov, 2013;Levine et al, 2011).…”