The Effectiveness of Interrogations on Psychopaths - Winona State ...

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Effectiveness</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Interrogations</strong> on Psychopaths 1
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Effectiveness</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Interrogations</strong> on Psychopaths
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Effectiveness</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Interrogations</strong> on
Psychopaths
“Psychopaths are responsible for more than 50
percent <strong>of</strong> the serious crime committed” and “[o]n
average, about 20 percent <strong>of</strong> the male and female
prison inmates are psychopaths (Hare, 1993).” In
light <strong>of</strong> the previous statements, I find it hard to
believe that there is not more <strong>of</strong> an emphasis on
psychopathy during legal procedures. <strong>The</strong>re has
been research done on the aggression <strong>of</strong>
psychopaths in prison (Dolan, 2003), as well as
the recidivism rates <strong>of</strong> psychopaths (Langstrom &
Grann, 2002; Sjostedt & Langstrom, 2002; Grann,
Langstrom, Tengstrom & Kullgren, 1999). <strong>The</strong>re
has not been any research on the effectiveness <strong>of</strong>
interrogation procedures when dealing with
psychopaths. I believe that we need to assess the
effectiveness <strong>of</strong> current interrogation procedures
in eliciting confessions from psychopaths. I also
think that we need to look at the different ways in
which interrogators assess guilt during
interrogations, and the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> these
methods on psychopaths. In the following paper,
I will discuss some background information on
psychopathy. <strong>The</strong>n, I will explain the
interrogation procedure as it relates to
psychopathy. I will then examine the
effectiveness <strong>of</strong> certain interrogation procedures
in eliciting confessions. Following this, I will
show the problems in the techniques used to
assess the guilt <strong>of</strong> a psychopath, by the
interrogative, scientific and psychological
perspectives. In order to answer the two main
questions in the paper, I will propose two research
studies. One study will be dealing with the
Steven Helseth
Winona State University
effectiveness <strong>of</strong> current interrogation techniques
on eliciting confessions from psychopaths. <strong>The</strong>
other study will examine methods <strong>of</strong> assessing
guilt when dealing with psychopaths.
One <strong>of</strong> the most recognized authorities on
psychopathy is Dr. Robert Hare. Dr. Hare,
along with his colleagues, developed the
Psychopathy Checklist, followed by the
Psychopathy Checklist Revised, known as the
PCL­R. <strong>The</strong> PCL­R is recognized as one <strong>of</strong> the
best instruments for measuring psychopathy, as
well as one <strong>of</strong> the most effective (Fulero, 1995;
Stone, 1995 in Grann, 1999). <strong>The</strong> PCL­R is
broken down into two separate factors (Hare,
1991; Hare et al., 1990; Harper, Hare, &
Hakstain, 1989; Templeman & Wong, 1994 in
Grann, 1999). <strong>The</strong> first factor is composed <strong>of</strong>
emotional or interpersonal traits (Hare, 1993).
<strong>The</strong>se traits include being superficial,
egocentric, remorseless, deceitful, manipulative,
and emotionally shallow. <strong>The</strong> second factor is
composed <strong>of</strong> behavioral traits relating to social
deviance. <strong>The</strong>se traits include being impulsive,
exhibiting poor behavioral controls, needing
excitement, lacking responsibility, having early
behavioral problems, and exhibiting adult
antisocial behavior. Some <strong>of</strong> the
emotional/interpersonal traits that I find to be
especially important to the interrogative
procedure are being glib and superficial, being
egocentric and grandiose, being deceitful and
manipulative, and having shallow emotions.
Referring to psychopaths being glib and
superficial, they are skilled at making
themselves look good. <strong>The</strong>y may make
themselves out to be an expert on topics that
they really are not. This trait makes them good
WSU Psychology Student Journal, Issue A Steven Helseth

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Effectiveness</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Interrogations</strong> on Psychopaths 2
at flattering the people around them in order to
take advantage <strong>of</strong> them (Hare, 1993). In addition,
psychopaths are very egocentric. <strong>The</strong>y appear
very cocky in the presence <strong>of</strong> others. <strong>The</strong>y seem
to have extreme confidence in themselves as well
as in their abilities. Psychopaths are also very
deceitful and manipulative. <strong>The</strong> inner focus <strong>of</strong> a
psychopath makes their lying more effective.
<strong>The</strong>y are not worried about being found out, so
when confronted, they will simply adjust their
story to adhere to the lie they are telling. This
makes it hard to tell when you have caught a
psychopath in a lie, because they will not be
affected. Psychopaths also have shallow
emotions. <strong>The</strong>y do not seem to experience
emotions in the same way that most people do.
<strong>The</strong> one behavioral trait that I believe would hold
some importance in relation to the interrogation
process is the impulsive nature <strong>of</strong> the psychopath.
Psychopaths are very impulsive in their decisions.
<strong>The</strong>y do not take the time to weigh the
consequences <strong>of</strong> their actions and are likely to act
in order to achieve immediate pleasure or to avoid
something that is inconveniencing them at the
time. With a lengthy interrogation, they may not
worry about the consequences <strong>of</strong> confessing, as
much as the inconvenience <strong>of</strong> being questioned.
All <strong>of</strong> these traits could affect the interrogation <strong>of</strong>
a psychopath.
<strong>The</strong> role <strong>of</strong> low fearfulness in the psychopath
plays into many <strong>of</strong> the other traits <strong>of</strong> a psychopath
(Lykken, 1995). Lykken believes that every
person has a different level <strong>of</strong> fearfulness. He
calls this the person’s fear quotient. At one end <strong>of</strong>
the spectrum are those people who are extremely
fearful <strong>of</strong> relatively non­dangerous situations.
<strong>The</strong>se people would be considered phobic. <strong>The</strong>re
are also people at the other end <strong>of</strong> the spectrum,
who experience very low fear when faced with
extremely dangerous situations. Psychopaths fall
on the low fear end <strong>of</strong> the spectrum. Lykken
believes that psychopaths may appear shallow
emotionally, but this could be due to their low
fear. Having low fear could cause them not to be
angry or jealous for the same reasons that a fearful
person might. Lykken conducted a research study
to test his low fear hypothesis. <strong>The</strong> study was
designed to compare the conditioned responses
<strong>of</strong> psychopaths, ordinary criminals, and normal
people. Psychopaths were defined by matching
Cleckley’s Criteria for a psychopath.
Cleckley’s criteria lay the ground work for the
PCL (Hare, 2003). <strong>The</strong> first stage <strong>of</strong> the
experiment was to determine the subjects’
tolerance threshold to a painful electric shock in
order to make sure that the shock delivered in
the second stage was painful enough to
condition the response. Electrodermal
responses to the shock stimulus were measured
in the second stage. <strong>The</strong> subjects were told that
they would hear a buzzer or feel a shock. First
the buzzer was presented without the shock.
<strong>The</strong>n, the buzzer would sound for five seconds
followed by a shock. <strong>The</strong>se buzzer­shock trials
were done in order to condition a response to
the buzzer. <strong>The</strong>n, the buzzer was presented
again, without the shock, to examine the
extinction <strong>of</strong> the conditioned response. It was
shown in the study, that psychopaths showed
less <strong>of</strong> a conditioned response to the buzzer.
One explanation for this is that they are not
afraid <strong>of</strong> the imminent shock because <strong>of</strong> their
low fear. This helps illustrate Lykken’s low
fear hypothesis. Lykken believes that
psychopaths are harder to socialize because <strong>of</strong>
their low fear. Lykken explains psychopaths as
being genetically different by having a hard to
socialize genotype. Psychopaths can be
properly socialized, but it requires extreme
parental competence as well as a healthy
environment around them. <strong>The</strong> unsuccessful
socialization <strong>of</strong> many psychopaths causes them
not to develop the same feeling <strong>of</strong> right and
wrong as socialized people. <strong>The</strong> psychopath’s
low fear, as well as improper socialization,
could lead to problems in the interrogation
process.
Although there has not been any formal
research on the topic, the world <strong>of</strong> interrogation
is not completely naïve to psychopathy. A good
portion <strong>of</strong> the prison population is composed <strong>of</strong>
psychopaths, meaning that many interrogators
WSU Psychology Student Journal, Issue A Steven Helseth

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Effectiveness</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Interrogations</strong> on Psychopaths 3
have dealt with psychopaths before. Holmes
(2002) writes in his book about the many
encounters that he has had with psychopaths.
When they enter the room, they try to overpower
the interviewer. One <strong>of</strong> their main goals is
domination. <strong>The</strong>y will maintain constant eye
contact as well as try to run the conversation.
Holmes says that in order to avoid being fooled by
psychopaths, you should listen carefully to the
lack <strong>of</strong> real people, names and addresses in the
stories they tell. Holmes says that the best
indicator <strong>of</strong> a psychopath is their relentlessness.
<strong>The</strong>y will not take no for an answer and will sit
there and talk for as long as it takes them to
convince you <strong>of</strong> their story.
Some interrogators, like Holmes, may think
they are skilled at identifying when they are
dealing with a psychopath. However, there is
little mention about psychopaths in interrogation
literature, and even less information on how to
deal with them (Hess, 1997, White, 2001, &
Yeschke, 1987). <strong>The</strong>re have been many examples
<strong>of</strong> people who are skilled in working with
psychopaths, who have been fooled by them
(Hare, 2003). Hare talked about a forensic
psychologist who was fooled by someone
interviewing for a job. This person seemed to fit
the description <strong>of</strong> a psychopath and caught the
psychologist’s attention because <strong>of</strong> his brilliance,
and ideas. <strong>The</strong> psychologist later realized that this
person was an imposter who was trying to scam
him. Psychopaths are very good at manipulating
and deceiving experts. Interrogators may not be
as skilled as they think at identifying psychopaths.
When it comes to assessing psychopathy, the
PCL­R and PCL:SV have been used in different
areas where the law and psychopathy intersect.
<strong>The</strong> PCL:SV is a shorter screening version <strong>of</strong> the
PCL­R. <strong>The</strong>re is a high correlation between the
PCL:SV and the PCL­R (Hart et al., 1995 in
Dolan & Blackburn, 2005). <strong>The</strong> predictive
validity <strong>of</strong> the PCL­R on violent recidivism and
general recidivism has been shown significant in
many studies (Langstrom, 2002; Sjostedt, 2002;
Grann, 1999; Serin, 1996). One such study, by
Serin (1996), was a follow up study to add to the
research on the predictive validity <strong>of</strong> the PCL­R
for general and violent recidivism. <strong>The</strong> study
looked at recidivism rates for inmates in the two
years following their release from prison. <strong>The</strong>
research found that the PCL­R was a better
predictor <strong>of</strong> violent recidivism than actuarial
risk scales, or the subject’s prior history <strong>of</strong>
violent crimes. General and violent recidivism
rates were higher for psychopaths than non­
psychopaths. Psychopaths, on average, would
also fail, by committing a crime, sooner than
non­psychopaths. Researches have tried to use
psychopathy when predicting violence in
prisons. One study examined the behavioral
infractions <strong>of</strong> subjects who had been given the
PCL: SV assessment (Dolan, 2005). <strong>The</strong>
subjects were 100 male antisocial personality
disorder <strong>of</strong>fenders. <strong>The</strong>se subjects were given
the PCL: SV and the SCID – II. Independent
researchers then looked at the case files 12
months down the road to examine the
infractions. <strong>The</strong>y found that PCL: SV scores
correlated with physically aggressive and
verbally aggressive infractions. <strong>The</strong> higher the
inmates scored on the PCL: SV, the more
infractions they had. <strong>The</strong>y also found that those
who scored higher on the PCL: SV had a shorter
length <strong>of</strong> time before the first infraction. <strong>The</strong>
PCL: SV and the PCL­R have been used in
studies involving violence in prison, as well as
studies involving recidivism rates. This would
provide some evidence that the PCL­R could be
used in research studies dealing with
interrogations.
What I have talked about relating to
psychopathy is just a sliver <strong>of</strong> the information
and research involving it. I chose to highlight
some specific parts <strong>of</strong> psychopathy, in order to
help illustrate the importance <strong>of</strong> understanding
psychopathy during interrogations.
Interrogative, scientific and psychological
techniques that are used in determining deceit,
as well as eliciting confessions, may not be as
effective for psychopaths as they are for non­
psychopaths.
WSU Psychology Student Journal, Issue A Steven Helseth

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Effectiveness</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Interrogations</strong> on Psychopaths 4
In order to explore how interrogative
techniques may be flawed when dealing with
psychopaths, I will explain the interrogation
process. <strong>The</strong> first two phases <strong>of</strong> the interrogation
process are case analysis and non­accusatory
questioning (Holmes, 2002). <strong>The</strong> case analysis is
where the interrogator will gather all <strong>of</strong> the
information about the suspect that they can. <strong>The</strong>
interrogator will gather general background
information, information about the specific crime,
and information about the criminal background <strong>of</strong>
the suspect. This stage is very important to make
sure that there are no holes in the information.
<strong>The</strong> interrogator does not want to be surprised by
information from the person’s past showing up
later in the interrogation. Putting all <strong>of</strong> this
information together will help the interrogator
develop a theory <strong>of</strong> how the crime was committed
in order to guide the interrogation process.
Extreme preparation is suggested so that the
interrogator can successfully move on to the next
stages <strong>of</strong> the interrogation process. <strong>The</strong> next stage
<strong>of</strong> the interrogation process is called non­
accusatory questioning. This is the stage where
the interrogator does not accuse the suspect <strong>of</strong> the
crime, but merely gathers information, directly
from the suspect, and takes some physiological
measurements. <strong>The</strong>se measures and questions can
be used as leverage later on in the interrogation, if
it proceeds. Although they are not accusing the
suspect, they will be trying to determine the guilt
or the innocence <strong>of</strong> the suspect during this stage.
<strong>The</strong> interrogator will be looking to see if the
suspect appears defensive, hostile, non­
responsive, evasive, nonsensical, hesitant, or
lacking confidence. I do not believe that
psychopaths are as likely to appear hostile or
defensive, because <strong>of</strong> their superficial nature.
<strong>The</strong>y are likely to appear as if they are charming,
almost to the fake extent, as opposed to hostile or
defensive. In order to make certain traits like
hesitation and a lack <strong>of</strong> confidence stand out,
interrogators will ask unexpected questions to the
suspect. Many suspects will show a change in
demeanor to unexpected questions. One point <strong>of</strong>
view on this is that the suspect feels discomfort to
come up with information <strong>of</strong>f the top <strong>of</strong> their
head (Hess, 1997). Another point <strong>of</strong> view deals
with the complex inter­related information that
the suspect has to process. Not only do they
have to make up a coherent detail, but they also
have to do it with the pressure <strong>of</strong> the
interrogator bearing down on them (Holmes,
2002). I believe that psychopaths may exhibit
different behaviors when presented with
unexpected questions. Psychopaths are not
likely to show a lack <strong>of</strong> confidence in their story
because they are very egocentric. <strong>The</strong>y take
pride in everything they do and have very
inflated views <strong>of</strong> themselves and do not worry
about being found out. In fact, they take pride
in being able to lie successfully (Hare, 2003).
When one man, scoring high on the
Psychopathy Checklist, was asked if he ever
lied, he responded by saying, “I lie like I
breathe, one as much as the other.”(Hare, 2003)
Psychopaths are less likely to hesitate because
they are making up lies on a sentence­to­
sentence basis. <strong>The</strong>y do not worry about the
coherence <strong>of</strong> the total story, or the consequences
<strong>of</strong> being found out. This freedom allows them
to respond with little to no hesitation but this
freedom could end up hurting a psychopath in
the interrogation process. Psychopaths have no
worries <strong>of</strong> consistency and coherency, which
causes the inconsistencies and nonsensical
nature <strong>of</strong> the stories they tell to appear obvious.
Holmes has also realized the same
inconsistencies through his personal experiences
dealing with psychopaths. He suggests that, as
much as psychopath’s stories appear to make
sense on the surface, if you listen carefully to
the lack <strong>of</strong> real names and real places, in their
stories, you can see that they do not make as
much sense as they appear to. When dealing
with psychopaths, an interrogators focus should
shift from looking for hesitation and a lack <strong>of</strong>
confidence, to the internal inconsistencies and
nonsensical nature <strong>of</strong> the information being
presented.
If the decision is made to move on to the
accusatory stage <strong>of</strong> the interrogation, Holmes
WSU Psychology Student Journal, Issue A Steven Helseth

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Effectiveness</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Interrogations</strong> on Psychopaths 5
suggests a three­step formula for confession. <strong>The</strong>
basis <strong>of</strong> formula is to present evidence and then
become assertive. Holmes found that when
becoming more assertive, suspects were more
likely to confess. He would become more
assertive by changing his body posture in order to
show the suspect that he was sure <strong>of</strong> the suspect’s
guilt, and he was not going anywhere. This would
cause the suspect to realize that they were not
going to be able to outlast the interrogator. <strong>The</strong>
suspect did not want to question the interrogator’s
intelligence by continuing to lie to them. <strong>The</strong>
assertiveness is the finale <strong>of</strong> the three­part
formula. <strong>The</strong> first part is to present all <strong>of</strong> the
evidence for the suspect’s guilt to the suspect and
the second part is to provide a convincing
argument to why the suspect is guilty. <strong>The</strong> last
part <strong>of</strong> the formula is to present the
aforementioned assertiveness in order to ensure
the suspect that this is the end <strong>of</strong> the road. It is
making the statement, “we both know you did it,
so I am just going to stand here until you confirm
it. Don’t worry, I have all night.” I do not believe
that the change in assertiveness is as likely to be
as effective with psychopaths, because <strong>of</strong> the lack
<strong>of</strong> fear. With the pride the psychopath takes in
their lies, they may take the assertiveness as a
challenge. <strong>The</strong>y may try even harder to deceive
the interrogator that they are innocent.
In the previous sections, I showed how some
<strong>of</strong> the methods used by interrogators might not be
as effective for psychopaths. Holmes bases his
book on years <strong>of</strong> interrogation experience, and
what he has learned in those years. Research has
been done to show that relying on experience and
expertise may not make someone more effective
at detecting deception. Kassin, Meissner, and
Norwick (2005) showed through a research study
that introductory level, untrained psychology
students, were more accurate at judging guilt and
innocence than investigators. <strong>The</strong> investigators in
the study had an average <strong>of</strong> over 10 years or law
enforcement, and a majority <strong>of</strong> them had been
trained in detecting deception. Twenty inmates
were paid to provide a videotaped confession <strong>of</strong>
the crime, which they are in prison for, as well as
fabricate another videotaped confession <strong>of</strong> a
crime, which they were told about. <strong>The</strong> students
and investigators were presented videos <strong>of</strong> 10
inmates who were providing a true or fabricated
confession. <strong>The</strong> research showed that students
were better at judging guilt than the
investigators. Investigators showed more false
alarms than did students. As far as training and
experience were involved; training and
experience correlated to the tendency to commit
false alarms, as well as lower discrimination
accuracy. This research study suggests that it
may be troublesome for interrogators, like
Holmes, to rely on experience and training in
assessing the guilt <strong>of</strong> a suspect. This research
also suggests that interrogators are more likely
to assume that the subject is guilty because <strong>of</strong>
their job, as well as their past experience.
Psychopaths are very experienced at lying and
are very deceitful. If interrogators are not very
good at distinguishing guilt from innocence in
normal criminals, I believe that they would have
even more trouble with deceitful psychopaths.
I also wanted to examine how psychopaths
would stack up when dealing with empirically
proven research on deception. Depaulo,
Malone, Lindsay, Charlton, and Cooper (2003)
conducted an analysis <strong>of</strong> 116 reports comparing
the behavior <strong>of</strong> people while lying to the
behavior <strong>of</strong> people while telling the truth, in
order to determine the similarities found in
detecting deception. His study found that there
were some significant differences between those
telling truths and lies. <strong>The</strong> study showed that
liars present significantly less detail in their
accounts than truth tellers do. Liars were also
shown to be less immediate and more uncertain
in their responses. Liars had more complaints,
had more negative facial expressions, and were
less cooperative than truth tellers. Liars were
seen as more nervous and tense than truth
tellers. However, liars were less likely to make
corrections to their statements or acknowledge
that they did not remember something. As I
have mentioned before, psychopaths are
extremely confident in their lying ability,
WSU Psychology Student Journal, Issue A Steven Helseth

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Effectiveness</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Interrogations</strong> on Psychopaths 6
therefore, they would not be as hesitant or
uncertain. Psychopaths are also not likely to be
nervous or tense because <strong>of</strong> their low level <strong>of</strong>
fearfulness. I think the two cues to deception that
are most likely to be apparent in psychopaths are
the amount <strong>of</strong> details presented, and the amount <strong>of</strong>
corrections made to their statements. As Holmes
suggested, stories from psychopaths will lack
actual names and places, which would lead to less
detailed accounts. I believe they are less likely to
correct their lies, because <strong>of</strong> the pride that they
have in their lying abilities. <strong>The</strong> scientific
approach to detecting deception in normal people
may not be as effective when dealing with
psychopaths. Some <strong>of</strong> the cues to deception may
not be as easy to detect in psychopaths, while
other cues may be easier to detect.
I also believe that some approaches from the
psychological point <strong>of</strong> view should be in question
when dealing with psychopaths. One
psychological model is called the Reid model <strong>of</strong>
confession (Gudjonsson, 1992). This model
examines the anxiety caused by lying. When
people are successfully socialized they learn that
it is wrong to lie. This creates an internal conflict
when they are lying, which increases their level <strong>of</strong>
anxiety. According to the model, a person will
confess when the consequences <strong>of</strong> confessing are
less than the anxiety that they feel from lying. I
do not believe that a psychopath would reach this
turning point where the internal conflict
outweighs the consequences <strong>of</strong> confessing.
Psychopaths do not experience the proper
socialization, due to their hard to socialize
genotype (Lykken, 1995). This lack <strong>of</strong>
socialization would cause them not to feel the
same moral anxiety brought about when lying.
Psychopaths do not experience anxiety in the
same way that normal people do, according to the
Low Fear Hypothesis. <strong>The</strong> model suggests that it
is the most difficult to elicit a confession from a
person with high tolerance for anxiety and guilt.
Eliciting a confession from a psychopath would
be very difficult because <strong>of</strong> these traits.
According to <strong>The</strong> Psychology <strong>of</strong> Confessions,
there are four main tactics used when trying to
elicit a confession. <strong>The</strong>se tactics are appealing
to the suspect’s conscience, <strong>of</strong>fering moral
justification or a psychological excuse for a
crime, identifying and pointing out
contradictions in the suspect’s denial and story,
and using praise and flattery. Some <strong>of</strong> these
tactics could prove more useful when dealing
with a psychopath. Appealing to the suspect’s
conscience and <strong>of</strong>fering moral justification
would not be very effective when dealing with a
psychopath. For the same reasons as stated
above, the psychopath does not experience
morality, or right from wrong, in the same way
that we do. <strong>The</strong>se tactics would be much more
useful with a normal person. Identifying and
pointing out contradictions in the suspect’s
denial and story would also be ineffective in
eliciting a confession from a psychopath,
because when confronted, psychopaths are
likely to change the subject or move on, acting
as if it never happened. Using praise and
flattery may be the best <strong>of</strong> the four tactics,
because it appeals to the egocentric nature <strong>of</strong> the
psychopath. <strong>The</strong> Reid model <strong>of</strong> confession and
the four significant tactics may not be as
effective in eliciting a confession when dealing
with a psychopath. Some aspects may be more
important to focus on when dealing with
psychopaths, rather than non­psychopaths.
In the previous sections, I have shown many
reasons why interrogative, scientific, and
psychological techniques for eliciting
confessions and assessing guilt may be less
effective when dealing with psychopaths. <strong>The</strong>re
is currently no research examining the
effectiveness <strong>of</strong> interrogations on psychopaths.
I think that a good place to start would be a
retrospective study, looking at how <strong>of</strong>ten
psychopaths do confess. This sample would
come from many prisons, and be representative
<strong>of</strong> the prison population. I would administer the
PCL­R to this sample <strong>of</strong> the prison population.
I chose to use the PCL­R because it has been
used in places where psychopathy and the law
intersect. I would label those scoring 30 or
greater as psychopaths, and those scoring 29 and
WSU Psychology Student Journal, Issue A Steven Helseth

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Effectiveness</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Interrogations</strong> on Psychopaths 7
under non­psychopaths. I would look at the
subjects’ records and compare the confession rate
<strong>of</strong> psychopaths to non­psychopaths. My
hypothesis is that there would be a lower
confession rate for psychopaths, than for non­
psychopaths. I am hypothesizing this because <strong>of</strong>
the many areas in which I have shown that the
current interrogative techniques would not be as
effective, in eliciting confessions, for
psychopaths. This could be a good start, in order
to determine the current effectiveness <strong>of</strong>
interrogation procedure on psychopaths. This
would also be a good comparison for later studies
determining the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> new interrogation
techniques on psychopaths.
In order to assess whether or not the current
methods <strong>of</strong> determining guilt would be as
effective when dealing with psychopaths, I am
proposing a second study. I believe that one <strong>of</strong>
the biggest flaws in the interrogation process,
relating to psychopaths, is looking for hesitation
and a lack <strong>of</strong> confidence, in order to detect
deception. I also believe that the internal
inconsistencies <strong>of</strong> a psychopath’s story may be the
best way to detect deception in a psychopath. In
order to test this hypothesis, I would like to
compare the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> different
interrogation techniques on psychopaths. <strong>The</strong>
difference <strong>of</strong> the techniques would be what the
interrogator is looking for to determine guilt. I
would like one group <strong>of</strong> interrogators to focus on
the details and coherence <strong>of</strong> the story. This
condition would be referred to as the “Details”
condition. I would like another group <strong>of</strong>
interrogators to focus on the hesitation and lack <strong>of</strong>
confidence, as well as the details and coherence <strong>of</strong>
the story. This condition would be referred to as
the “Both” condition. I would like a third group
to focus on the hesitation and lack <strong>of</strong> confidence.
This condition would be referred to as the
“Confidence” condition. I would have two groups
<strong>of</strong> subjects, the first being normal criminals and
the second being psychopaths. Like the previous
study, the psychopaths would be defined by those
having a score <strong>of</strong> 30 or greater on the PCL­R. I
will give half <strong>of</strong> the criminals, and half <strong>of</strong> the
psychopaths, a description <strong>of</strong> a crime that they
did not commit, but I will tell them to pretend
that they did. This group will be called the
“Guilty” group. <strong>The</strong> other half <strong>of</strong> each group
will not be given the details <strong>of</strong> the crime. <strong>The</strong>y
will be told to answer the questions truthfully.
This group will be called the “Innocent” group.
In order to motivate the subjects to convince the
interrogators <strong>of</strong> their innocence, I will tell them
they will receive a reward for convincing the
interrogator <strong>of</strong> their innocence. <strong>The</strong>
interrogators will be given the facts <strong>of</strong> the crime
and will be instructed to use the assigned
technique to try to assess the guilt <strong>of</strong> the
suspect. I will then look at the accuracy <strong>of</strong> the
different interrogation techniques. I am
proposing that the accuracy <strong>of</strong> the interrogators
in the “Details” conditions will be greater when
dealing with psychopaths, than the “Both” or
“Confidence” conditions. I am also proposing
that the “Confidence” condition will have the
greatest accuracy when dealing with normal
criminals. This study could be helpful in
determining whether the interrogator’s focus
would make them better judges <strong>of</strong> guilt when
dealing with psychopaths.
I have shown that there are many reasons to
question the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> current
interrogation procedures on determining guilt as
well as eliciting confessions, when dealing with
psychopaths. Certain cues to deception may be
less prevalent in psychopaths, and at the same
time, certain cues to deception may be more
prevalent in psychopaths. I have also
hypothesized that the focus <strong>of</strong> the technique
used by the interrogator, in order to determine
guilt, could determine the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> the
interrogation procedure on psychopaths. <strong>The</strong>
research that I have proposed is a good start to
determine the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> current
techniques, as well as the effectiveness <strong>of</strong>
certain guilt assessment techniques.
Psychopathy is being taken into consideration
when dealing with recidivism rates as well as
violence in prison. I believe that acknowledging
psychopaths in the interrogation procedure
WSU Psychology Student Journal, Issue A Steven Helseth

<strong>The</strong> <strong>Effectiveness</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Interrogations</strong> on Psychopaths 8
could prove useful in determining the guilt <strong>of</strong>
these psychopaths.
References
DePaulo, B., Malone, B., Lindsay, J.,
Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H.
(2003). Cues to Deception. Psychological
Bulletin, 129(1), 74 – 118.
Dolan, M., & Blakcburn, R. (2003). Interpersonal
factors as predictors <strong>of</strong> disciplinary infractions
in incarcerated personality disordered
<strong>of</strong>fenders. Personality and individual
differences, 40(5), 897 – 907.
Grann, M., Langstrom, N., Tengstrom, A., &
Kullgren, G. (1999). Psychopathy (PCL –R)
predicts violent recidivism among criminal
<strong>of</strong>fenders with personality disorders in
Sweden. Law and Human Behavior, 23(2),
205 – 217.
Gudjonsson, G. (1992). <strong>The</strong> psychology <strong>of</strong>
interrogations, confessions, and testimony.
England: John Wiley and Sons.
Hare, R. (1993). Without conscience: <strong>The</strong>
disturbing world <strong>of</strong> psychopaths among us.
New York: <strong>The</strong> Guilford Press.
Hess, J. (1997). Interviewing and interrogation
for law enforcement. Ohio: Anderson
Publishing Co.
Holmes, W. (2002). Criminal interrogation: A
modern formal for interrogating criminal
suspects based on the intellectual approach.
Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.
Kassin, S., Meissner, C., & Norwick, R. (2005).
“I’d know a false confession if I saw one”:
A comparative study <strong>of</strong> college students and
police investigators. Law and Human
Behavior, 29(2), 211 – 227.
Langstom, N. & Grann, M. (2002). Psychopathy
and violent recidivism among young
criminal <strong>of</strong>fenders. Acta Psychiatr Scand,
106 (suppl. 412), 86 – 92.
Lykken, D. (1995). <strong>The</strong> Antisocial
Personalities. New Jersey: Lawrence
Earlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Serin, R. (1996). Violent recidivism in criminal
psychopaths. Law and Human Behavior,
20(2), 207 – 217.
Sjostedt, G., & Langstrom, N. (2002).
Assessment <strong>of</strong> risk for criminal recidivism
among rapists: A comparison <strong>of</strong> four
different measures. Psychology, Crime &
Law, 8, 25 – 40.
White, W. (2001). Miranda’s warning
protections: Police interrogation practices
after Dickerson. Ann Arbor, Michigan: <strong>The</strong>
University <strong>of</strong> Michigan.
Yeschke, C. (1987). Interviewing: An
introduction to interrogation. Springfield,
Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.
WSU Psychology Student Journal, Issue A Steven Helseth