Henkel, L. A., Coffman, K. J. (2004). Memory distortions in coerced false
confessions: A source monitoring framework analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18,
567-588.
Intro
The current paper discusses the
possibilities of false memories derived from coerced confessions in the
framework of source monitoring. The
authors begin by demonstrating the importance assigned to confessions in the
legal setting. Research has shown that
confessions increase the likelihood of conviction and lead to longer sentences. Mock scenario experiments have linked
confessions to higher conviction rates than eyewitness and character
testimony. Most troubling, research has
shown that these conviction rate increases also occur when the participants
know that the interrogator used coercive tactics. For the purposes of the current discussion
only the type of false confession that is accompanied by false memories will be
examined.
Although many past works have
examined the social aspects of such confessions, the current thought is to put
these findings through a cognitive filter and find out the processes
involved. Previous research has
suggested source misattributions and memory distortion, and that is the
possible cognitive process that will be examined.
Additionally the current paper
examines interrogation techniques to discuss how these techniques may
facilitate the creation of false memories.
All of these discussions fall under the context of the source monitoring
framework.
Source Monitoring Framework
The source monitoring framework is
the construct that allows individuals to determine the source (internal or
external) of a cognition. This framework allows an individual to make
judgments based on information that people have about memories and their
features. Since these judgments, like
any other, are fallible, misattributions may occur.
According to this framework two
types of judgments exist: heuristic and systematic. Heuristic judgments rely on the qualitative
features of a memory. Systematic
judgments rely on real world plausibility.
Common Interrogative
Techniques
For the purposes of this discussion
the interrogation techniques proposed in Inbau et al.
(2001) will be considered. There are
other techniques used, but those outlined in Inbau
are the most frequently used.
Confusions Between Real and Imagined Events
One common interrogation technique
is a discussion between the interrogator and the suspect about a hypothetical
third person committing the crime. These
discussion often utilize vivid descriptions and
involve the visualization of the scenario by the suspect.
The issue here comes from the
imagining of the scenario. Past research
has suggested that people can be lead to believe that they had actually
performed actions that they had only imagined, in reality. This fits with the source monitoring
framework, as events that have been imagined, especially multiple times, will
become more vivid and result in the activation of a heuristic judgment
suggesting reality.
Suggestion and Postevent Information
Some interrogation techniques make
suspects privy to information they would not have otherwise known about. This information can come from leading
questions, discussions of the crime, crime scene photos, etc. The important issue is that this information
has been brought into light for the innocent suspect.
Past research has suggested that
eyewitnesses show a certain level of suggestibility. That is, individuals may come to believe that
they witnessed things that were only suggested or shown to them later. Because of this misattribution of the source
(the event vs. information from interrogator) errors occur that can be
explained by the source attribution framework.
Repeated Questioning and
Cuing
Repetition is an often used process
in the course of an interrogation. Past
research has suggested that mere repetition of false items can increase their
believability. Additionally repetition can lead to magnification of the
previously discussed error processes, furthering the misattributions.
Turning Lies into Truths
Past research has suggested that
individuals forced to guess on memory test may integrate those guesses as true
memories after some amount of time.
Since much of what has been previously discussed is predicated on suspects
imagining and guessing about what occurred during the crime, this may be a
problem. Additionally, suspects who
confess must write a detailed confession that includes a large amount of
detail. If the detail includes best
guesses at what may have happened, the suspect may integrate these guesses as
memories after a certain amount of time.
Interrogation-Induced Stress
and Memory Distortions
Recent research on the effects of
emotion and stress on false memories has shown troubling results. This research has shown that stress can
increase the likelihood of false memories.
Additional research has shown that false memories for misinformation
occurred more frequently for emotional scenes with a negative valence than for
those with neutral or positively valenced scenes.
Interrogations are very emotional
and stress inducing events by design.
This may lead to a higher level of suggestibility in the suspects. Additionally the added stress and emotion can
heighten the amount of detail and intensity of the imaginings, leading to a greater
chance for source misattribution.
Conclusion
The authors summarize the article by
discussing the possibility of multiple techniques being used in one
interrogation session. It seems
reasonable to assume that if one technique did not work an interrogator might
move on to the next technique. This
could cause a compounding of errors that might be disastrous.
The authors call for more education
for jurors in the area of confessions and the possibility of false
confessions. Additionally they call for
the videotaping of all interrogations and expert testimony on confessions.