Nathan J Gordon, William L Fleisher Read online

  and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

  Dissonance occurs when a person perceives a logical inconsistency among his or her cog-

  nitions. This happens when one idea implies the opposite of another. For example, a belief

  that lying is wrong, as a person tells a lie, is inconsistent. This contradiction creates disso-

  nance, which is experienced as anxiety, guilt, shame, anger, embarrassment, stress, and

  other negative emotional states. These negative states, in turn, cause physiological changes

  to occur.

  Polygraph expert Cleve Backster (Figure 3.6) introduced the theory of psychological set

  [4]. Psychological set postulates that an individual being asked a series of questions will mentally focus on those questions that have the greatest salience, because they pose the

  greatest interest or immediate threat to his general well-being at that point in time. The

  salience of the question is determined by the person himself. The Forensic Assessment

  Interview utilizes relevant questions dealing with the crime, to pose the greatest threat to

  the guilty suspect because he will be forced to either confess to or lie about the matter at

  hand. Comparison questions designed to deal with earlier transgressions or peccadilloes

  are utilized to threaten the innocent suspect. The fear of being caught in a lie offering the

  greatest threat, relevant or comparison questions, will cause accompanying physiological

  changes, which result in the leakage of deceptive behavior. Through the use of relevant

  and comparison questions, and given the ability to observe and detect changes associated

  with sympathetic arousal, the trained interviewer can monitor the suspect’s psychological

  set and solve the puzzle of truth or deception.†

  **B. F. Skinner, the famous behavioral psychologist, designed a plastic, see through cage with a metal floor to allow him to study animal behavior.

  †To allow you an area of comparison, and give you the ability to properly identify truthful suspects, you

  will learn how to develop and introduce “comparison questions” in the chapter on question formulation.

  These questions, as you will see, will become the greatest threat for the innocent suspect.

  3. PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE FORENSIC ASSESSMENT

  25

  FIGURE 3.6 Photo of Cleve Backster.

  Although there is no agreement on which theory or theories in combination actually

  account for the phenomenon, most professionals in the field rely on Backster’s postulates.

  Theoretical debate aside, we do know that physiological changes reliably take place in an

  individual’s body when he or she tells a lie. The degree of change will depend on many

  factors [8]:

  1. The suspect’s perception of the interviewer’s ability to detect the truth

  2. The suspect’s past success in similar situations where he lied

  3. The degree of guilt and shame the suspect feels about his actions

  4. The degree of guilt or shame the suspect experiences about lying to the interviewer

  5. The extent of the suspect’s reward or punishment if he succeeds or fails in his attempt at

  deception

  One possible problem the interviewer must be aware of is that to date, there has not

  been any reliable information that allows us to precisely differentiate among the various

  emotional stimuli that could cause the changes produced by the sympathetic division;

  that is, there is no known way to precisely positively identify a cause based on any given

  physiological response. The sympathetic change would be similar whether the emotional

  change causing it was due to fear, anger, hate, sexual arousal, or joy. Therefore, as forensic

  assessors we understand that we must precisely limit the stimuli as best we can, so that

  we can assign a distinct cause to any effect we observe. In order to do that, we must set

  up the assessment interview as a controlled scientific experiment in which the only variable

  introduced is our series of questions. This is the only way we can prevent ambiguity

  in assessing a response that might have arisen from any one of a complex range of

  emotions, rather than simply fear of detection of lying. Only under such controlled con-

  ditions can we accurately determine that the behavioral changes we observe are due

  solely to the interviewee’s perception and subsequent fear caused by his or her attempt

  to deceive us.

  26

  3. PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGICAL BASIS OF THE FORENSIC ASSESSMENT

  SUMMARY

  • A Forensic Assessment Interview must be set up as a scientific experiment where the

  only stimulus presented is the interviewer’s question, and all extraneous stimuli are

  controlled.

  • Under these circumstances, when a suspect lies, emotional changes should occur because

  of conditioning, conflict, or psychological set.

  • This emotional imbalance will cause subsequent physiological changes resulting in

  observable behaviors, the degree of which may be affected by various factors.

  • These factors will include the interviewee’s perception of the interviewer’s ability to

  detect deception, the interviewee’s past experiences at deception, and the interviewee’s

  perception of the seriousness of being caught.

  References

  [1] C. Darwin, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, D. Appleton, New York, 1872.

  [2] W.B. Cannon, The mechanisms of emotional disturbance of bodily functions, N. Engl. J. Med. (1928).

  [3] H. Selye, The general adaptation syndrome and the disease of adaptation, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology 6 (1946) 117 231.

  [4] J.A. Matte, Forensic Psychophysiology; Using the Polygraph, JAM Publications, Williamsville, NY, 1996.

  [5] S. Abrams, The psychological basis of polygraph technique, Journal of the American Polygraph Association 3 (4) (1974) 141 150, December.

  [6] H. Rachlin, Behavior and Learning, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1976.

  [7] www.wikipedia.org.

  [8] P. Eckman, Telling Lies, W. W. Norton, New York, 1985.

  C H A P T E R

  4

  Preparation for the

  Interview/Interrogation

  The interview and interrogation are two related but fundamentally different processes.

  The interview is an information-gathering process. An interview is best described as a

  conversation between two or more people, preferably face-to-face, with the purpose of

  gathering whatever relevant information is available. The information could be as com-

  monplace as what happened during an automobile accident, or as critical as trying to sort

  out the innocent from the guilty in a serious crime by use of the Forensic Assessment

  Interview Technique (FAINT). It is the latter type of interview that we will concentrate

  on in this text.

  Interview

  Interrogation

  Purpose is to gather information.

  Purpose is to get a confession.

  The interrogation, on the other hand, seeks to encourage the guilty to admit to their

  involvement in a crime or other incident. These differing goals, of necessity, affect the

  nature of the setting, the behavior of the questioner, and the scope of the questions.

  The interview itself is a nonsuggestive process, because the interviewer is there to collect

  and make an objective determination of the facts and determine whether the interviewee is

  truthful and/or credible. An “interviewer” must not contaminate the
information being col-

  lected with excessive and/or direct input. He must display an unbiased professional atti-

  tude. The tone of the interview must be objective and nonjudgmental. With some degree

  of frequency, investigators or clients will provide subjective or biased information. Often

  their information is correct. However, there will be times when the information given is

  not correct, even though those providing it may consider themselves to be offering accurate

  data. This incorrect information may be jaded by conscious or unconscious bias or preju-

  dice, or even self-interest. Thus, the burden of truth finding falls on the interviewer, who

  must remain focused on determining the objective reality.

  The “interrogator,” on the other hand, must project to the suspect that there is absolutely

  no doubt in his mind as to the suspect’s guilt. He must display an attitude of confidence

  Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques

  27

  # 2011, Elsevier Ltd.

  28

  4. PREPARATION FOR THE INTERVIEW/INTERROGATION

  that he will get the truth. This confident attitude will be crucial in breaking the resistance of

  the deceptive suspect. Of course, if the interrogator has incorrectly assessed the guilt of the

  suspect, this air of confidence may cause hostility and aggression in the truthful person,

  which should alert the interrogator to reassess his diagnosis.

  Interview

  Interrogation

  Purpose is to gather information.

  Purpose is to get a confession.

  Nonaccusatory.

  Accusatory.

  Because the interviewer is there to gather information, the FAINT interview is highly

  structured, but remains free flowing, nondirective, and, where appropriate, open ended.

  An interrogation, on the other hand, is highly structured and focused and follows a

  carefully researched ten-step procedure: “The Integrated Interrogation Technique.” This

  procedure is proven to be highly effective in obtaining admissions and/or confessions

  from the guilty.

  Interview

  Interrogation

  Purpose is to gather information.

  Purpose is to get a confession.

  Nonaccusatory.

  Accusatory.

  Free flowing.

  Structured.

  The flow of communication between the interviewer and suspect, versus the interrogator

  and suspect, will differ dramatically. During the interview the flow of communication is

  “5:95.” The interviewer speaks 5% of the time, asking questions and directing the

  conversation. The suspect speaks 95% of the time, as he answers the questions. This is

  in keeping with the goals of the interview process, which is to gather information. The less

  the interviewer talks, the more information he gathers. The less the interviewer talks, the

  purer the information which he collects will be. Avinoam Sapir, the innovator of SCAN

  (see Chapter 5), teaches that the suspect is not stupid! He will learn how to answer the

  interviewer’s questions based on the information the interviewer reveals.

  The interrogation is by nature a face-to-face encounter, where the interrogator has only

  one purpose: to obtain a confession from a guilty individual. The time for collecting

  information has passed; therefore there is no need for information-seeking questions. The

  interrogator is only seeking confirmation of information he already knows or highly

  suspects. All the interrogator wants the suspect to do is nod or say “Yes” when he asks a

  leading question, such as, “Is that why you did it (the crime)?” In fact, asking questions that

  seek information suggests that the interrogator does not have the necessary information to

  be certain that the suspect committed the crime. This weakens the interrogator’s chance of

  success. Therefore, the interrogator makes sure that a “95:5” conversation mode is main-

  tained, in which the interrogator is speaking 95% of the time, and the suspect only 5% of

  the time.

  4. PREPARATION FOR THE INTERVIEW/INTERROGATION

  29

  Another reason for the interrogator to maintain verbal dominance is that if the suspect is

  not saying he committed the crime, the only thing he will be saying is he did not commit

  the act! The more the suspect fortifies his position of innocence, the more difficult the inter-

  rogator’s objective of obtaining a confession becomes. It is much harder for an individual to

  admit something he has been adamantly denying for the past hour or two than if he had

  just been sitting there listening to the interrogator.

  Interview

  Interrogation

  Purpose is to gather information.

  Purpose is to get a confession.

  Nonaccusatory.

  Accusatory.

  Free flowing.

  Structured.

  Suspect speaks 95% of the time.

  Suspect speaks 5% of the time.

  The location of the interview may be varied. It may be in an office, or in the suspect’s

  home or place of work. The interrogation definitely needs to be in the interrogator’s office.

  Humans, like all animals, are territorial. They will fight harder and feel more secure on their

  own “turf.” The suspect needs to be denied the “home field” advantage. In addition, it is

  much more difficult for a person to confess, knowing that as soon as they leave the room

  they will have to face their loved ones or coworkers.

  Interview

  Interrogation

  Purpose is to gather information.

  Purpose is to get a confession.

  Nonaccusatory.

  Accusatory.

  Free flowing.

  Structured.

  Suspect speaks 95% of the time.

  Suspect speaks 5% of the time.

  Varied locations.

  Interrogator has “home field” advantage.

  The interview/interrogation room should not be a small, threatening enclosed space.

  A nine by nine (90 90) room is adequate. The room should contain a desk and two or three

  chairs. The furniture should not be too elaborate; similarly, it should not give one the feel-

  ing of impoverishment or despair. It is acceptable to have some nondistracting pictures on

  the wall, but they should not be on the wall the suspect will face during the process of being

  interviewed or interrogated.

  The easier it is for the innocent suspect to relax, the easier it is for the interviewer to

  make an accurate assessment. The easier it is for the guilty suspect to focus on his desire

  of getting “it” off his chest, rather than concentrating on his fear of punishment, the easier

  it is for him to confess. Therefore, an environment that reminds the suspect in an inter-

  view or interrogation that he is in an interrogation room – a custodial environment of

  four bare walls, shabby furniture, locked doors, and barred windows – is counter-

  productive. The environment should not be so comfortable as to distract, but should

  be supportive and nonthreatening. Most importantly, the environment, as well as the

  30

  4. PREPARATION FOR THE INTERVIEW/INTERROGATION

  interviewer/interrogator’s clothing, should be free of custodial reminders – no handcuff tie

  tacks or empty holsters.

  The interviewer/interrogator’s chair should be on casters to allow him to move into

  or
out of the suspect’s space when he wants to. The chair should be higher than the sus-

  pect’s chair, because height gives a psychological perception of superiority. The room

  should be free of outside or inside noise and other distractions. If there are recurring out-

  side noises, the authors suggest using a white-noise machine. There should be no telephone

  in the room, and all mobile phones should be turned off or put into the silent mode. The

  room should have a means for monitoring, either by two-way mirror or with a video

  camera.

  There is only one difference between the interview room and the interrogation room: the

  spatial distance between the chairs of the interviewer and suspect, and that between the

  interrogator and suspect. The distance between interrogator and suspect should be much

  closer than with the interviewer and suspect.

  The science of and judicious use of personal space is called “proxemics.” Dr. Edward T.

  Hall, Professor of Anthropology at Northwestern University, who conducted extensive

  research into this phenomenon, found that distance relationships among people of varying

  degrees of intimacy have a direct effect on a person’s manner of relating [1]. Humans are territorial, and they have territorial zones that imply different degrees of acceptance and

  different degrees of comfort with particular people they interact with within those zones.

  When these zones are violated, that is, when a less welcome individual intrudes beyond

  a psychological zone barrier, there are certain predictable responses. Although distances

  and those who may enter a given zone vary from culture to culture, the presence of the

  zones themselves does not. For example, although we all have intimate zones, in the Arab

  culture a close intimate distance is acceptable between men, and Arab men are often seen

  holding hands. In Western culture, we would find this very uncomfortable, even

  embarrassing.

  Dr. Hall identified four spatial zones in which most people in Western culture relate to

  one another:

  Proxemics for North America Intimate: Contact to 1800 Personal: 1800 to 40 Social: 40 to 120

  Public: 120þ

  1. Intimate Distance ranges from actual physical contact to as far away as 18 inches, still

  within touching distance. We allow only our most intimate associates to enter this