Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

The Psychology of False Confession: Research and Theoretical Issues 191
According to Schein, Schneier and Barker, the three theories discussed above
emphasize, in terms of a basic mechanism, the enhanced suggestibility and uncritical
thinking that commonly result from mental and physical stress and exhaustion.
Furthermore, the three theories imply that the ‘new’ beliefs, attitudes,
values and behaviour co-exist with the previous ones rather than becoming fully
integrated into the personality of the prisoner. This has important implications
because it suggests that attempts at indoctrination have no long-lasting or permanent
psychological changes upon the prisoner once he is repatriated.
Schein, Schneier and Barker disagree that psycho–physiological stress necessarily
produces a state of uncritical thinking and high suggestibility. They
prefer to argue that severe stress facilitates ‘unfreezing’ and is an incentive
to change. The problem with the Chinese interrogators, according to Schein,
Schneier and Barker, was that they were not very clear or explicit about the
ways in which the prisoners should change. In other words, there were no explicit
or implicit suggestions given by the interrogators, although the prisoners
were all subjected to immense pressure to change. They had to work out, by
trial and error it seems, how precisely they were to change. It is possible that
by not describing the ways in which prisoners should change the interrogators
were ensuring that each prisoner chose the outcome most acceptable to him
personally. Alternatively, the Chinese interrogators were deliberately trying to
confuse and disorientate the prisoners.
Schein, Schneier and Barker argue that the psychophysiological theories
help explain how ‘unfreezing’ was facilitated by severe stress and how resistance
was weakened over time, but they do not at all address the processes of
‘changing’ and ‘refreezing’. For these important processes we need to look at
learning, psychoanalytic and sociopsychological theories.
The Schein, Schneier and Barker review of learning theories identifies three
main approaches, all of which rely in varying degrees on Pavlovian conditioning.
First, Meerloo (1954) presents a rather loosely defined and poorly argued
theory about Chinese interrogators, where the behaviour of prisoners is said
to be controlled by ‘negative and positive stimuli’ (p. 810). Negative stimuli
included physical and mental pressure, fatigue and hunger, which resulted in
mental submission. Positive stimuli for desired behaviour included food and verbal
praise. Second, there is Sargant’s (1957) extension of Pavlov’s experimental
theory of neuroses, which was discussed in relation to psycho–physiological
theories of stress. Third, there is the work of Farber, Harlow and West (1957)
and Santucci and Winokur (1955). Here the principles of Pavlovian and instrumental
conditioning are combined and this is the learning approach favoured
by Schein, Schneier and Barker. The argument is that anxiety and guilt are
conditioned by threats and punishments and this eventually results in compliant
behaviour as a way of reducing conflict. Once compliant behaviour occurs
then it is selectively reinforced by the interrogators.
Schein, Schneier and Barker argue that psychoanalytic formulations of confessions
obtained by Communists point to the importance of an authoritarian
superego, in conjunction with a relatively weak ego, as a predisposition
and proneness to being influenced easily by people in authority. Similarly,
Meerloo’s psychoanalytic formulations (1951, 1954) emphasize the importance