Blindness in the Interrogation Room: A review article about the potential role of choice blindness during suspect interrogations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26481/marble.2013.v3.156Abstract
Research indicates that humans display a phenomenon called choice blindness. When we choose between alternatives, we are sometimes blind to the mismatch between our original choice and its outcome. Taking the initial findings about choice blindness as a starting point, this article explores whether choice blindness could also play a relevant role in interrogation situations. The explorations revolve around a hypothetical scenario: An innocent suspect is faced with an interrogation situation in which the investigator manipulates the testimony and thus introduces a mismatch between the original testimony and the manipulated one. Could this mismatch go unnoticed by the suspect due to choice blindness? Recent experimental evidence with a focus on this question is reviewed. It is generally concluded that the role of choice blindness in eliciting outright false confessions to extreme allegations is limited; however, it can still pose a threat to innocent suspects by leading them to give contradictory testimony in interrogations. Suggestions for future research are made and advice on the practice of law enforcement is given.
References
Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. C. (2001). Criminal interrogation and confessions (4th ed.). Gaithersberg, MD: Aspen.
Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969).
Hall, L., Johansson, P., Tärning, B., Sikström, S., & Deutgen, T. (2010). Magic at the market place: Choice blindness for the taste of jam and the smell of tea. Cognition, 117, 54-61.
Johansson, P., Hall, L., Sikström, S., & Olsson, A. (2005). Failure to detect mismatches between intention and outcome in a simple detection task. Science, 310, 116-119.
Johnson, M. B., & Drucker, J. (2009). Two recently confirmed false confessions: Byron A. Halsey and Jeffrey M. Deskovic. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 37, 51-72.
Kassin, S. M. (2008). False confessions. Causes, consequences, and implications for reform. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 249-259.
Kassin, S. M., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2004).The psychology of confessions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(2), 33-67.
Kassin, S. M., & Kiechel, K. L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: Compliance, internalization, and confabulation. Psychological Science, 7, 125-128.
Kassin, S. M., Leo, R. A., Meissner, C. A., Richman, K. D., Colwell, L. H., Leach, A. M., & La Fon, D. (2007). Police interviewing and interrogation: A self-report survey of police practices and beliefs. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 381-400.
Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2002). ‘He’s guilty!’: Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 469–480.
Merckelbach, H. (2012, December 1). Alleen doden en dwazen veranderen nooit van mening. NRC Handelsblad, p. 2.
Merckelbach, H., Jelicic, M., & Pieters, M. (2011a). Misinformation increases symptom reporting-a test-retest experiment. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2.
Merckelbach, H., Jelicic, M., & Pieters, M. (2011b). The residual effect of feigning: How intentional faking may evolve into a less conscious form of symptom reporting. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 33, 131-139.
Snyder, M., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (1978). Hypothesis-testing processes in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1202–1212
Sauerland, M., Schell, J., Collaris, J., Reimer, Ν., Schneider, Μ., & Merckelbach, H. (2013). Blindness for one’s history of norm-violating behaviors and its implications for suspect interrogations. Behavioral Sciences and the Law.
Wagenaar, W. A. (2002). False confessions after repeated interrogation: The Putten Murder case. European Review, 10, 519-537.
