Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

402 A Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions
in compliance were noted according to mood. Subjects in the happy condition
were subsequently significantly more compliant than subjects in the neutral
condition. Furthermore, far less compliance was noted among the subjects in
the angry than in the neutral condition.
The authors concluded that happiness not only increased compliance; in this
experiment it was necessary in order for anybody to comply with a subsequent
task request. Similarly, anger induction not only decreased compliance, but also
resulted in significant changes taking place to the extent that subjects took
an opposite view to that communicated by the experimenter. In other words,
they reacted in quite an extreme way. The implication for real-life interrogation
is that making suspects angry can badly backfire and result in a so-called
‘boomerang’ effect (Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981). This principle is based
on ‘reactance theory’, which is a counterforce that motivates people to assert
themselves when their freedom to choose or act is threatened (Brehm & Brehm,
1981). I have discussed elsewhere (Gudjonsson, 1995b) how interrogative pressure
may backfire and make suspects retract the confession they had previously
made.
Another implication for real interrogations is that suspects who are interviewed
by the police whilst in a negative emotional state, such as when suspicious
or angry, need to be interviewed very carefully because they may be
more likely to misinterpret interactional cues and attribute negative qualities
to the interrogator and his or her messages. If this happens then the suspects
are less likely to be forthcoming and open to suggestions, it will be more difficult
to establish satisfactory rapport and the likelihood of reactive arousal will be
greatly enhanced.
The studies reviewed indicate that mood does under certain circumstances
influence susceptibility to suggestions. An individual who is in a positive mood
is more likely to cooperate with requests and accept suggestions than a person
who is in a negative mood. However, as Milberg and Clark (1988) rightly point
out, when the mood of the subject is self-focused its effects on compliance may
be quite different to those mentioned above. For example, a self-focused positive
mood may make people feel more confident in their own judgement and abilities.
This is likely to reduce their reliance on external cues when asked misleading
questions or requested to do things they would rather not do. Indeed, earlier in
this chapter it was shown how a sense of ‘competence’ and ‘potency’ in relation
to perceptions of the self made subjects more resistant to misleading questions
and interrogative pressure.
SUGGESTIBILITY AND TEST SETTING
Gudjonsson (1995e) investigated whether the setting where subjects were
tested made a difference to the suggestibility scores on the GSS 1 and GSS 2. In
this study, 353 subjects who were assessed for judicial purposes were classified
into two groups according to where they were tested: prison versus hospital
outpatients. No significant difference was found between the two groups with
regard to any of the suggestibility scores. The mean suggestibility scores in this