The Effectiveness of Interrogations on Psychopaths
1
The Effectiveness of Interrogations on Psychopaths Steven Helseth Winona State University The Effectiveness of Interrogations on Psychopaths “Psychopaths are responsible for more than 50 percent of the serious crime committed” and “[o]n average, about 20 percent of the male and female prison inmates are psychopaths (Hare, 1993).” In light of the previous statements, I find it hard to believe that there is not more of an emphasis on psychopathy during legal procedures. There has been research done on the aggression of psychopaths in prison (Dolan, 2003), as well as the recidivism rates of psychopaths (Langstrom & Grann, 2002; Sjostedt & Langstrom, 2002; Grann, Langstrom, Tengstrom & Kullgren, 1999). There has not been any research on the effectiveness of interrogation procedures when dealing with psychopaths. I believe that we need to assess the effectiveness of current interrogation procedures in eliciting confessions from psychopaths. I also think that we need to look at the different ways in which interrogators assess guilt during interrogations, and the effectiveness of these methods on psychopaths. In the following paper, I will discuss some background information on psychopathy. Then, I will explain the interrogation procedure as it relates to psychopathy. I will then examine the effectiveness of certain interrogation procedures in eliciting confessions. Following this, I will show the problems in the techniques used to assess the guilt of a psychopath, by the interrogative, scientific and psychological perspectives. In order to answer the two main questions in the paper, I will propose two research studies. One study will be dealing with the WSU Psychology Student Journal, Issue A
effectiveness of current interrogation techniques on eliciting confessions from psychopaths. The other study will examine methods of assessing guilt when dealing with psychopaths. One of the most recognized authorities on psychopathy is Dr. Robert Hare. Dr. Hare, along with his colleagues, developed the Psychopathy Checklist, followed by the Psychopathy Checklist Revised, known as the PCL­R. The PCL­R is recognized as one of the best instruments for measuring psychopathy, as well as one of the most effective (Fulero, 1995; Stone, 1995 in Grann, 1999). The PCL­R is broken down into two separate factors (Hare, 1991; Hare et al., 1990; Harper, Hare, & Hakstain, 1989; Templeman & Wong, 1994 in Grann, 1999). The first factor is composed of emotional or interpersonal traits (Hare, 1993). These traits include being superficial, egocentric, remorseless, deceitful, manipulative, and emotionally shallow. The second factor is composed of behavioral traits relating to social deviance. These traits include being impulsive, exhibiting poor behavioral controls, needing excitement, lacking responsibility, having early behavioral problems, and exhibiting adult antisocial behavior. Some of the emotional/interpersonal traits that I find to be especially important to the interrogative procedure are being glib and superficial, being egocentric and grandiose, being deceitful and manipulative, and having shallow emotions. Referring to psychopaths being glib and superficial, they are skilled at making themselves look good. They may make themselves out to be an expert on topics that they really are not. This trait makes them good
Steven Helseth The Effectiveness of Interrogations on Psychopaths
at flattering the people around them in order to take advantage of them (Hare, 1993). In addition, psychopaths are very egocentric. They appear very cocky in the presence of others. They seem to have extreme confidence in themselves as well as in their abilities. Psychopaths are also very deceitful and manipulative. The inner focus of a psychopath makes their lying more effective. They are not worried about being found out, so when confronted, they will simply adjust their story to adhere to the lie they are telling. This makes it hard to tell when you have caught a psychopath in a lie, because they will not be affected. Psychopaths also have shallow emotions. They do not seem to experience emotions in the same way that most people do. The one behavioral trait that I believe would hold some importance in relation to the interrogation process is the impulsive nature of the psychopath. Psychopaths are very impulsive in their decisions. They do not take the time to weigh the consequences of their actions and are likely to act in order to achieve immediate pleasure or to avoid something that is inconveniencing them at the time. With a lengthy interrogation, they may not worry about the consequences of confessing, as much as the inconvenience of being questioned. All of these traits could affect the interrogation of a psychopath. The role of low fearfulness in the psychopath plays into many of the other traits of a psychopath (Lykken, 1995). Lykken believes that every person has a different level of fearfulness. He calls this the person’s fear quotient. At one end of the spectrum are those people who are extremely fearful of relatively non­dangerous situations. These people would be considered phobic. There are also people at the other end of the spectrum, who experience very low fear when faced with extremely dangerous situations. Psychopaths fall on the low fear end of the spectrum. Lykken believes that psychopaths may appear shallow emotionally, but this could be due to their low fear. Having low fear could cause them not to be angry or jealous for the same reasons that a fearful person might. Lykken conducted a research study WSU Psychology Student Journal, Issue A
2
to test his low fear hypothesis. The study was designed to compare the conditioned responses of psychopaths, ordinary criminals, and normal people. Psychopaths were defined by matching Cleckley’s Criteria for a psychopath. Cleckley’s criteria lay the ground work for the PCL (Hare, 2003). The first stage of the experiment was to determine the subjects’ tolerance threshold to a painful electric shock in order to make sure that the shock delivered in the second stage was painful enough to condition the response. Electrodermal responses to the shock stimulus were measured in the second stage. The subjects were told that they would hear a buzzer or feel a shock. First the buzzer was presented without the shock. Then, the buzzer would sound for five seconds followed by a shock. These buzzer­shock trials were done in order to condition a response to the buzzer. Then, the buzzer was presented again, without the shock, to examine the extinction of the conditioned response. It was shown in the study, that psychopaths showed less of a conditioned response to the buzzer. One explanation for this is that they are not afraid of the imminent shock because of their low fear. This helps illustrate Lykken’s low fear hypothesis. Lykken believes that psychopaths are harder to socialize because of their low fear. Lykken explains psychopaths as being genetically different by having a hard to socialize genotype. Psychopaths can be properly socialized, but it requires extreme parental competence as well as a healthy environment around them. The unsuccessful socialization of many psychopaths causes them not to develop the same feeling of right and wrong as socialized people. The psychopath’s low fear, as well as improper socialization, could lead to problems in the interrogation process. Although there has not been any formal research on the topic, the world of interrogation is not completely naïve to psychopathy. A good portion of the prison population is composed of psychopaths, meaning that many interrogators
Steven Helseth The Effectiveness of Interrogations on Psychopaths
have dealt with psychopaths before. Holmes (2002) writes in his book about the many encounters that he has had with psychopaths. When they enter the room, they try to overpower the interviewer. One of their main goals is domination. They will maintain constant eye contact as well as try to run the conversation. Holmes says that in order to avoid being fooled by psychopaths, you should listen carefully to the lack of real people, names and addresses in the stories they tell. Holmes says that the best indicator of a psychopath is their relentlessness. They will not take no for an answer and will sit there and talk for as long as it takes them to convince you of their story. Some interrogators, like Holmes, may think they are skilled at identifying when they are dealing with a psychopath. However, there is little mention about psychopaths in interrogation literature, and even less information on how to deal with them (Hess, 1997, White, 2001, & Yeschke, 1987). There have been many examples of people who are skilled in working with psychopaths, who have been fooled by them (Hare, 2003). Hare talked about a forensic psychologist who was fooled by someone interviewing for a job. This person seemed to fit the description of a psychopath and caught the psychologist’s attention because of his brilliance, and ideas. The psychologist later realized that this person was an imposter who was trying to scam him. Psychopaths are very good at manipulating and deceiving experts. Interrogators may not be as skilled as they think at identifying psychopaths. When it comes to assessing psychopathy, the PCL­R and PCL:SV have been used in different areas where the law and psychopathy intersect. The PCL:SV is a shorter screening version of the PCL­R. There is a high correlation between the PCL:SV and the PCL­R (Hart et al., 1995 in Dolan & Blackburn, 2005). The predictive validity of the PCL­R on violent recidivism and general recidivism has been shown significant in many studies (Langstrom, 2002; Sjostedt, 2002; Grann, 1999; Serin, 1996). One such study, by Serin (1996), was a follow up study to add to the WSU Psychology Student Journal, Issue A
3
research on the predictive validity of the PCL­R for general and violent recidivism. The study looked at recidivism rates for inmates in the two years following their release from prison. The research found that the PCL­R was a better predictor of violent recidivism than actuarial risk scales, or the subject’s prior history of violent crimes. General and violent recidivism rates were higher for psychopaths than non­ psychopaths. Psychopaths, on average, would also fail, by committing a crime, sooner than non­psychopaths. Researches have tried to use psychopathy when predicting violence in prisons. One study examined the behavioral infractions of subjects who had been given the PCL: SV assessment (Dolan, 2005). The subjects were 100 male antisocial personality disorder offenders. These subjects were given the PCL: SV and the SCID – II. Independent researchers then looked at the case files 12 months down the road to examine the infractions. They found that PCL: SV scores correlated with physically aggressive and verbally aggressive infractions. The higher the inmates scored on the PCL: SV, the more infractions they had. They also found that those who scored higher on the PCL: SV had a shorter length of time before the first infraction. The PCL: SV and the PCL­R have been used in studies involving violence in prison, as well as studies involving recidivism rates. This would provide some evidence that the PCL­R could be used in research studies dealing with interrogations. What I have talked about relating to psychopathy is just a sliver of the information and research involving it. I chose to highlight some specific parts of psychopathy, in order to help illustrate the importance of understanding psychopathy during interrogations. Interrogative, scientific and psychological techniques that are used in determining deceit, as well as eliciting confessions, may not be as effective for psychopaths as they are for non­ psychopaths.
Steven Helseth The Effectiveness of Interrogations on Psychopaths
In order to explore how interrogative techniques may be flawed when dealing with psychopaths, I will explain the interrogation process. The first two phases of the interrogation process are case analysis and non­accusatory questioning (Holmes, 2002). The case analysis is where the interrogator will gather all of the information about the suspect that they can. The interrogator will gather general background information, information about the specific crime, and information about the criminal background of the suspect. This stage is very important to make sure that there are no holes in the information. The interrogator does not want to be surprised by information from the person’s past showing up later in the interrogation. Putting all of this information together will help the interrogator develop a theory of how the crime was committed in order to guide the interrogation process. Extreme preparation is suggested so that the interrogator can successfully move on to the next stages of the interrogation process. The next stage of the interrogation process is called non­ accusatory questioning. This is the stage where the interrogator does not accuse the suspect of the crime, but merely gathers information, directly from the suspect, and takes some physiological measurements. These measures and questions can be used as leverage later on in the interrogation, if it proceeds. Although they are not accusing the suspect, they will be trying to determine the guilt or the innocence of the suspect during this stage. The interrogator will be looking to see if the suspect appears defensive, hostile, non­ responsive, evasive, nonsensical, hesitant, or lacking confidence. I do not believe that psychopaths are as likely to appear hostile or defensive, because of their superficial nature. They are likely to appear as if they are charming, almost to the fake extent, as opposed to hostile or defensive. In order to make certain traits like hesitation and a lack of confidence stand out, interrogators will ask unexpected questions to the suspect. Many suspects will show a change in demeanor to unexpected questions. One point of view on this is that the suspect feels discomfort to WSU Psychology Student Journal, Issue A
4
come up with information off the top of their head (Hess, 1997). Another point of view deals with the complex inter­related information that the suspect has to process. Not only do they have to make up a coherent detail, but they also have to do it with the pressure of the interrogator bearing down on them (Holmes, 2002). I believe that psychopaths may exhibit different behaviors when presented with unexpected questions. Psychopaths are not likely to show a lack of confidence in their story because they are very egocentric. They take pride in everything they do and have very inflated views of themselves and do not worry about being found out. In fact, they take pride in being able to lie successfully (Hare, 2003). When one man, scoring high on the Psychopathy Checklist, was asked if he ever lied, he responded by saying, “I lie like I breathe, one as much as the other.”(Hare, 2003) Psychopaths are less likely to hesitate because they are making up lies on a sentence­to­ sentence basis. They do not worry about the coherence of the total story, or the consequences of being found out. This freedom allows them to respond with little to no hesitation but this freedom could end up hurting a psychopath in the interrogation process. Psychopaths have no worries of consistency and coherency, which causes the inconsistencies and nonsensical nature of the stories they tell to appear obvious. Holmes has also realized the same inconsistencies through his personal experiences dealing with psychopaths. He suggests that, as much as psychopath’s stories appear to make sense on the surface, if you listen carefully to the lack of real names and real places, in their stories, you can see that they do not make as much sense as they appear to. When dealing with psychopaths, an interrogators focus should shift from looking for hesitation and a lack of confidence, to the internal inconsistencies and nonsensical nature of the information being presented. If the decision is made to move on to the accusatory stage of the interrogation, Holmes
Steven Helseth The Effectiveness of Interrogations on Psychopaths
suggests a three­step formula for confession. The basis of formula is to present evidence and then become assertive. Holmes found that when becoming more assertive, suspects were more likely to confess. He would become more assertive by changing his body posture in order to show the suspect that he was sure of the suspect’s guilt, and he was not going anywhere. This would cause the suspect to realize that they were not going to be able to outlast the interrogator. The suspect did not want to question the interrogator’s intelligence by continuing to lie to them. The assertiveness is the finale of the three­part formula. The first part is to present all of the evidence for the suspect’s guilt to the suspect and the second part is to provide a convincing argument to why the suspect is guilty. The last part of the formula is to present the aforementioned assertiveness in order to ensure the suspect that this is the end of the road. It is making the statement, “we both know you did it, so I am just going to stand here until you confirm it. Don’t worry, I have all night.” I do not believe that the change in assertiveness is as likely to be as effective with psychopaths, because of the lack of fear. With the pride the psychopath takes in their lies, they may take the assertiveness as a challenge. They may try even harder to deceive the interrogator that they are innocent. In the previous sections, I showed how some of the methods used by interrogators might not be as effective for psychopaths. Holmes bases his book on years of interrogation experience, and what he has learned in those years. Research has been done to show that relying on experience and expertise may not make someone more effective at detecting deception. Kassin, Meissner, and Norwick (2005) showed through a research study that introductory level, untrained psychology students, were more accurate at judging guilt and innocence than investigators. The investigators in the study had an average of over 10 years or law enforcement, and a majority of them had been trained in detecting deception. Twenty inmates were paid to provide a videotaped confession of the crime, which they are in prison for, as well as WSU Psychology Student Journal, Issue A
5
fabricate another videotaped confession of a crime, which they were told about. The students and investigators were presented videos of 10 inmates who were providing a true or fabricated confession. The research showed that students were better at judging guilt than the investigators. Investigators showed more false alarms than did students. As far as training and experience were involved; training and experience correlated to the tendency to commit false alarms, as well as lower discrimination accuracy. This research study suggests that it may be troublesome for interrogators, like Holmes, to rely on experience and training in assessing the guilt of a suspect. This research also suggests that interrogators are more likely to assume that the subject is guilty because of their job, as well as their past experience. Psychopaths are very experienced at lying and are very deceitful. If interrogators are not very good at distinguishing guilt from innocence in normal criminals, I believe that they would have even more trouble with deceitful psychopaths. I also wanted to examine how psychopaths would stack up when dealing with empirically proven research on deception. Depaulo, Malone, Lindsay, Charlton, and Cooper (2003) conducted an analysis of 116 reports comparing the behavior of people while lying to the behavior of people while telling the truth, in order to determine the similarities found in detecting deception. His study found that there were some significant differences between those telling truths and lies. The study showed that liars present significantly less detail in their accounts than truth tellers do. Liars were also shown to be less immediate and more uncertain in their responses. Liars had more complaints, had more negative facial expressions, and were less cooperative than truth tellers. Liars were seen as more nervous and tense than truth tellers. However, liars were less likely to make corrections to their statements or acknowledge that they did not remember something. As I have mentioned before, psychopaths are extremely confident in their lying ability,
Steven Helseth The Effectiveness of Interrogations on Psychopaths
therefore, they would not be as hesitant or uncertain. Psychopaths are also not likely to be nervous or tense because of their low level of fearfulness. I think the two cues to deception that are most likely to be apparent in psychopaths are the amount of details presented, and the amount of corrections made to their statements. As Holmes suggested, stories from psychopaths will lack actual names and places, which would lead to less detailed accounts. I believe they are less likely to correct their lies, because of the pride that they have in their lying abilities. The scientific approach to detecting deception in normal people may not be as effective when dealing with psychopaths. Some of the cues to deception may not be as easy to detect in psychopaths, while other cues may be easier to detect. I also believe that some approaches from the psychological point of view should be in question when dealing with psychopaths. One psychological model is called the Reid model of confession (Gudjonsson, 1992). This model examines the anxiety caused by lying. When people are successfully socialized they learn that it is wrong to lie. This creates an internal conflict when they are lying, which increases their level of anxiety. According to the model, a person will confess when the consequences of confessing are less than the anxiety that they feel from lying. I do not believe that a psychopath would reach this turning point where the internal conflict outweighs the consequences of confessing. Psychopaths do not experience the proper socialization, due to their hard to socialize genotype (Lykken, 1995). This lack of socialization would cause them not to feel the same moral anxiety brought about when lying. Psychopaths do not experience anxiety in the same way that normal people do, according to the Low Fear Hypothesis. The model suggests that it is the most difficult to elicit a confession from a person with high tolerance for anxiety and guilt. Eliciting a confession from a psychopath would be very difficult because of these traits. According to The Psychology of Confessions, there are four main tactics used when trying to WSU Psychology Student Journal, Issue A
6
elicit a confession. These tactics are appealing to the suspect’s conscience, offering moral justification or a psychological excuse for a crime, identifying and pointing out contradictions in the suspect’s denial and story, and using praise and flattery. Some of these tactics could prove more useful when dealing with a psychopath. Appealing to the suspect’s conscience and offering moral justification would not be very effective when dealing with a psychopath. For the same reasons as stated above, the psychopath does not experience morality, or right from wrong, in the same way that we do. These tactics would be much more useful with a normal person. Identifying and pointing out contradictions in the suspect’s denial and story would also be ineffective in eliciting a confession from a psychopath, because when confronted, psychopaths are likely to change the subject or move on, acting as if it never happened. Using praise and flattery may be the best of the four tactics, because it appeals to the egocentric nature of the psychopath. The Reid model of confession and the four significant tactics may not be as effective in eliciting a confession when dealing with a psychopath. Some aspects may be more important to focus on when dealing with psychopaths, rather than non­psychopaths. In the previous sections, I have shown many reasons why interrogative, scientific, and psychological techniques for eliciting confessions and assessing guilt may be less effective when dealing with psychopaths. There is currently no research examining the effectiveness of interrogations on psychopaths. I think that a good place to start would be a retrospective study, looking at how often psychopaths do confess. This sample would come from many prisons, and be representative of the prison population. I would administer the PCL­R to this sample of the prison population. I chose to use the PCL­R because it has been used in places where psychopathy and the law intersect. I would label those scoring 30 or greater as psychopaths, and those scoring 29 and
Steven Helseth The Effectiveness of Interrogations on Psychopaths
under non­psychopaths. I would look at the subjects’ records and compare the confession rate of psychopaths to non­psychopaths. My hypothesis is that there would be a lower confession rate for psychopaths, than for non­ psychopaths. I am hypothesizing this because of the many areas in which I have shown that the current interrogative techniques would not be as effective, in eliciting confessions, for psychopaths. This could be a good start, in order to determine the current effectiveness of interrogation procedure on psychopaths. This would also be a good comparison for later studies determining the effectiveness of new interrogation techniques on psychopaths. In order to assess whether or not the current methods of determining guilt would be as effective when dealing with psychopaths, I am proposing a second study. I believe that one of the biggest flaws in the interrogation process, relating to psychopaths, is looking for hesitation and a lack of confidence, in order to detect deception. I also believe that the internal inconsistencies of a psychopath’s story may be the best way to detect deception in a psychopath. In order to test this hypothesis, I would like to compare the effectiveness of different interrogation techniques on psychopaths. The difference of the techniques would be what the interrogator is looking for to determine guilt. I would like one group of interrogators to focus on the details and coherence of the story. This condition would be referred to as the “Details” condition. I would like another group of interrogators to focus on the hesitation and lack of confidence, as well as the details and coherence of the story. This condition would be referred to as the “Both” condition. I would like a third group to focus on the hesitation and lack of confidence. This condition would be referred to as the “Confidence” condition. I would have two groups of subjects, the first being normal criminals and the second being psychopaths. Like the previous study, the psychopaths would be defined by those having a score of 30 or greater on the PCL­R. I will give half of the criminals, and half of the WSU Psychology Student Journal, Issue A
7
psychopaths, a description of a crime that they did not commit, but I will tell them to pretend that they did. This group will be called the “Guilty” group. The other half of each group will not be given the details of the crime. They will be told to answer the questions truthfully. This group will be called the “Innocent” group. In order to motivate the subjects to convince the interrogators of their innocence, I will tell them they will receive a reward for convincing the interrogator of their innocence. The interrogators will be given the facts of the crime and will be instructed to use the assigned technique to try to assess the guilt of the suspect. I will then look at the accuracy of the different interrogation techniques. I am proposing that the accuracy of the interrogators in the “Details” conditions will be greater when dealing with psychopaths, than the “Both” or “Confidence” conditions. I am also proposing that the “Confidence” condition will have the greatest accuracy when dealing with normal criminals. This study could be helpful in determining whether the interrogator’s focus would make them better judges of guilt when dealing with psychopaths. I have shown that there are many reasons to question the effectiveness of current interrogation procedures on determining guilt as well as eliciting confessions, when dealing with psychopaths. Certain cues to deception may be less prevalent in psychopaths, and at the same time, certain cues to deception may be more prevalent in psychopaths. I have also hypothesized that the focus of the technique used by the interrogator, in order to determine guilt, could determine the effectiveness of the interrogation procedure on psychopaths. The research that I have proposed is a good start to determine the effectiveness of current techniques, as well as the effectiveness of certain guilt assessment techniques. Psychopathy is being taken into consideration when dealing with recidivism rates as well as violence in prison. I believe that acknowledging psychopaths in the interrogation procedure
Steven Helseth The Effectiveness of Interrogations on Psychopaths
could prove useful in determining the guilt of these psychopaths. References DePaulo, B., Malone, B., Lindsay, J., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues to Deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74 – 118. Dolan, M., & Blakcburn, R. (2003). Interpersonal factors as predictors of disciplinary infractions in incarcerated personality disordered offenders. Personality and individual differences, 40(5), 897 – 907. Grann, M., Langstrom, N., Tengstrom, A., & Kullgren, G. (1999). Psychopathy (PCL –R) predicts violent recidivism among criminal offenders with personality disorders in Sweden. Law and Human Behavior, 23(2), 205 – 217. Gudjonsson, G. (1992). The psychology of interrogations, confessions, and testimony. England: John Wiley and Sons. Hare, R. (1993). Without conscience: The disturbing world of psychopaths among us. New York: The Guilford Press. Hess, J. (1997). Interviewing and interrogation for law enforcement. Ohio: Anderson Publishing Co. Holmes, W. (2002). Criminal interrogation: A modern formal for interrogating criminal WSU Psychology Student Journal, Issue A
8
suspects based on the intellectual approach. Illinois: Charles C. Thomas. Kassin, S., Meissner, C., & Norwick, R. (2005). “I’d know a false confession if I saw one”: A comparative study of college students and police investigators. Law and Human Behavior, 29(2), 211 – 227. Langstom, N. & Grann, M. (2002). Psychopathy and violent recidivism among young criminal offenders. Acta Psychiatr Scand, 106 (suppl. 412), 86 – 92. Lykken, D. (1995). The Antisocial Personalities. New Jersey: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Publishers. Serin, R. (1996). Violent recidivism in criminal psychopaths. Law and Human Behavior, 20(2), 207 – 217. Sjostedt, G., & Langstrom, N. (2002). Assessment of risk for criminal recidivism among rapists: A comparison of four different measures. Psychology, Crime & Law, 8, 25 – 40. White, W. (2001). Miranda’s warning protections: Police interrogation practices after Dickerson. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan. Yeschke, C. (1987). Interviewing: An introduction to interrogation. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.
Steven Helseth