Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

346 A Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions
The first component relates to the nature of the social interaction involved.
Many of the social aspects of the police interview were discussed in Chapters
1 and 2. It is evident from that discussion that the police interview is a closed
social interaction. For example, in his observation of police interviews with the
Brighton CID, Barrie Irving noted:
The interview is a closed social interaction: the room is closed, the participants
close to each other, interruptions are avoided as far as possible (Irving, 1980,
p. 122).
Similarly, Inbau et al. (2001) comment:
The principal psychological factor contributing to a successful interrogation is
privacy—being alone with the person during questioning (p. 51).
The second distinguishing component of the police interview is that it involves
a questioning procedure. There may be two or more participants and the questions
asked typically relate to some factual material that the interviewer wishes
to obtain about what the person has heard, seen or done. Feelings and intentions
may also be enquired about. In most instances the questions asked are
concerned with past events and experiences. This means that the memory recollections
of the respondent are particularly important. Anything that interferes
with the memory process makes it more difficult for the interviewer to obtain
valid information from the respondent.
The third component relates to the nature of the suggestive stimulus. Questions
can be ‘leading’ because they contain certain premises and expectations,
which may or may not be informed and well founded. It was also shown that
questions can be leading because of the context in which they appear.
The fourth component makes it explicit that there must be some kind of
acceptance of the suggestive stimulus. This does not necessarily mean that the
person incorporates the suggestive information into his or her memory. Rather,
the suggestion must be perceived by the respondent as being plausible and
credible.
The final component states that the respondent must give some kind of behavioural
response to the suggestive stimulus. It is not sufficient for the interviewer
that the respondent believes or accepts the suggestion privately. The
respondent must indicate, either verbally or non-verbally, whether or not he or
she accepts the suggestion. On occasions the respondent may accept the suggestion
offered by the interviewer but is reluctant to commit himself or herself
to a definite answer.
The Gudjonsson–Clark (1986) definition of interrogative suggestibility provides
the framework for a theoretical model that helps to further our understanding
of the process and outcome of the police interview. It was mentioned
earlier in this chapter that interrogative suggestibility bears little resemblance
to other types of suggestibility. Elsewhere (Gudjonsson, 1989b), I take this argument
further and show that from a conceptual point of view there are four main
features of interrogative suggestibility that differentiate it from other types of