Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

118 A Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions
This is not an exhaustive list of models. For example, Ofshe and Leo (1997a,
1997b) have developed their own classification of confessions, which they argue
applies equally to true and false confessions. Their model is discussed in detail
in Chapter 8 in relation to theories of false confessions, because it focuses
primarily on false and coerced confessions. It builds on the work of Irving and
Hilgendorf (1980), and extends the decision-making model in the rational choice
tradition to false confessions.
The Reid Model of Confession
Jayne (1986) provides an informative model for understanding the process that
results in a confession during interrogation. The model is based upon the ‘nine
steps’ of interrogation discussed in detail in Chapter 1. Jayne refers to the model
as the ‘Reid Model’, because it was developed by John E. Reid and Associates
of Chicago. The model attempts to explain why the ‘nine steps’ of interrogation
are successful in eliciting confessions.
The model construes interrogation as the psychological undoing of deception.
Criminal deception is primarily motivated by avoidance behaviour; that is,
avoiding the likely or possible consequences of being truthful. The two types of
consequence of being caught in deception are labelled ‘real’ and ‘personal’. Real
consequences generally involve loss of freedom or financial penalties. Personal
consequences involve lowered self-esteem and damaged integrity. Having to
admit to criminal behaviour is embarrassing to most people and this makes it
difficult for them to confess.
Successful deception is reinforced in accordance with operant conditioning
principles. Thus, undetected lying is rewarding and increases the chances of further
lying. However, successful socialization teaches people that it is wrong to lie
and when lying occurs people may experience an internal conflict, which is comprised
of feelings of frustration and anxiety. The increased level of anxiety associated
with lying induces the person to confess. Least internal anxiety is generated
by telling the truth. The level of anxiety is assumed to increase linearly
from omission to evasion to blatant denial. As the level of anxiety increases, the
person copes by the operation of defense mechanisms which function to reduce
anxiety and restore self-esteem. The two main defense mechanisms relevant to
interrogation are ‘rationalization’, which serves to help the offender by avoiding
full responsibility for the offence (i.e. the offender somehow rationalizes the
offence), and ‘projection’. Projection means that the offender attributes blame
for the offence to some external source (e.g. the victim). Both rationalization
and projection serve to distort the account of what really happened.
According to the model, a suspect confesses (i.e. tells the truth) when the
perceived consequences of a confession are more desirable than the anxiety
generated by the deception (i.e. denial). The perceived consequences and perceived
anxiety can be manipulated psychologically by the interrogator. Thus,
(the) goal of the interrogation ...istodecrease the suspect’s perception of the consequences
of confessing, while at the same time increasing the suspect’s internal
anxiety associated with his deception (Jayne, 1986, p. 332).