Educing Information: Interrogation - National Intelligence University

that it is necessary to ask the questions again. The person is also asked to be
more accurate than before. Any change in the person’s answers is noted as a
“shift.” The extent to which people give in to the misleading questions is scored
as “yield.” “Yield” and “shift” are typically added together to make up “total
suggestibility.” 290 According to Gudjonsson, two studies have shown that “it is
possible to manipulate the expectations of the subjects (as described above) prior
to interrogation in order to reduce or enhance suggestibility.” 291
In Gudjonsson and Hilton’s study, a significant difference in suggestibility
was found between three groups of people who were given different instructions
about their expected performance. 292 One group of people (the “High expectation
group”) was told that they were expected to remember most of the story and give
definite answers to all the questions. The second group was given no instructions
about their expected performance. The third group (the “Low expectation group”)
was told that they were not expected to find a definite answer to all the questions.
The most important implication of this finding for police interrogation is that
interrogators “should be aware that certain expectations communicated to subjects
prior to or during the interview can markedly affect the accuracy of the information
obtained.” 293 Gudjonsson also has noted that interrogative suggestibility “is
significantly related to the coping strategies that subjects report using during the
test.” 294 According to his findings, subjects who proved most suggestible “tended
to use ‘avoidance’ coping during the interrogation.” 295 Gudjonsson notes that this
means that they failed “to evaluate each question critically and gave answers that...
seemed plausible and consistent with the external cues provided.” 296 In contrast,
non-suggestible subjects “were able to adopt a critical analysis of the situation
which facilitated the accuracy of their answers.” 297
Section 2. Empirical Findings
Most of the recent empirical studies on confessions have been conducted in
England. 298 With the exception of the 1996 study by Richard Leo discussed below,
most of the U.S. studies date back to the 1960s and have largely focused on
studying the effects of the Miranda ruling on the frequency with which suspects
waive their rights and confess.
How Often Do Suspects Confess
Research shows that many suspects interrogated at police stations confess
to the crime of which they are accused and that a further proportion make
290
Id., p. 283.
291
Id., p. 284.
292
Gisli H. Gudjonsson and M. Hilton, “The Effects of Instructional Manipulation on Interrogative
Suggestibility,” Social Behaviour 4 (1989), 189-93.
293
Gudjonsson, see note 253, p. 285.
294
Id.
295
Id.
296
Id.
297
Id.
298
Gudjonsson, see note 110, p. 130.
163