Interrogation is a critical tool in law enforcement and intelligence gathering, aiming to elicit information from individuals who may be unwilling to disclose it. Psychological tricks, or techniques, play a pivotal role in this process. These methods leverage the intricacies of human psychology to encourage cooperation and extract truth. This article delves into the most effective psychological strategies used in interrogation, examining their scientific foundations, ethical considerations, and real-world applications.

Keywords: psychological interrogation techniques, interrogation methods, psychological tricks in interrogation, interrogation ethics, law enforcement psychology, Australian interrogation practices, PEACE model, false confessions, cognitive load in interrogation.

Interrogation relies heavily on understanding human behaviour and cognitive processes. Psychological tricks used in this context are designed to overcome resistance, build rapport, and influence the subject’s decision-making (Gudjonsson 2003). These techniques are grounded in social psychology, cognitive psychology, and behavioural science.

Building Rapport

• Description: Establishing a connection with the subject to create a comfortable environment (Alison et al. 2013).
• Methods: Using open body language, active listening, and empathy to build trust.
• Scientific Basis: Rapport increases the likelihood of cooperation due to the subject’s increased comfort and reduced anxiety (Vanderhallen & Vervaeke 2014).

Mirroring and Matching

• Description: Subtly imitating the subject’s body language, tone, and speech patterns.
• Methods: Reflecting posture, gestures, and verbal cues.
• Scientific Basis: Mirroring fosters a sense of familiarity and trust, leading to increased rapport (Chartrand & Bargh 1999).

Use of Cognitive Load

• Description: Increasing the subject’s mental effort to make deception more difficult (Vrij et al. 2008).
• Methods: Asking the subject to recount events in reverse order or multitask during questioning.
• Scientific Basis: Lying requires more cognitive resources than telling the truth; increasing cognitive load can expose inconsistencies (Ward et al. 2012).

The Reid Technique

• Description: A confrontational approach that presents evidence (real or fabricated) to elicit confessions (Inbau et al. 2013).
• Methods: Accusations, denials interruption, and presenting false evidence.
• Scientific Basis: Aims to break down resistance by making denial seem futile.
• Controversy: Criticised for potentially leading to false confessions (Kassin et al. 2010).

Good Cop, Bad Cop

• Description: Two interrogators take opposing approaches—one harsh, one sympathetic—to elicit cooperation.
• Methods: The ‘bad cop’ is aggressive, while the ‘good cop’ offers protection and understanding.
• Scientific Basis: Exploits the contrast effect and desire for relief, prompting the subject to confide in the ‘good cop’ (Schenkler 2010).

Emotional Appeals

• Description: Leveraging the subject’s emotions to encourage confession.
• Methods: Appealing to guilt, shame, or fear of consequences.
• Scientific Basis: Emotions can override rational resistance, leading to increased compliance (Gudjonsson 2003).

Maximisation and Minimisation

• Description: Maximisation exaggerates the severity of the situation, while minimisation downplays it to encourage confession.
• Methods: Threatening harsh consequences or suggesting leniency.
• Scientific Basis: Creates a psychological pressure-cooker, making confession seem like the best option (Russano et al. 2005).

Use of Silence

• Description: Allowing uncomfortable silences to prompt the subject to fill the void.
• Methods: Remaining silent after a response, encouraging the subject to continue speaking.
• Scientific Basis: People tend to dislike silence in conversations and may divulge more information to break it (Zamir et al. 2018).

Projection of Blame

• Description: Suggesting external factors are responsible for the subject’s actions.
• Methods: Offering justifications or excuses that minimise personal responsibility.
• Scientific Basis: Reduces the subject’s internal conflict about confessing (Gudjonsson & Petursson 1991).

False Evidence Ploy

• Description: Presenting fake evidence to convince the subject that their guilt is known.
• Methods: Claiming to have fingerprints, DNA, or eyewitnesses.
• Scientific Basis: Increases the subject’s perception that denial is futile (Kassin & Kiechel 1996).
• Ethical Concerns: Can lead to false confessions and is controversial in legal contexts.

While psychological techniques can be effective, they raise significant ethical issues.

• False Confessions: Some methods, particularly those involving deception or pressure, can lead to innocent people confessing to crimes they did not commit (Kassin et al. 2010).
• Legal Rights: Subjects may be unaware of their rights, and certain techniques can infringe upon the right to silence and legal counsel.
• Moral Responsibility: Interrogators must balance the pursuit of truth with respect for human dignity and autonomy (Conti 1999).

In Australia, the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 emphasises the importance of lawful and ethical interrogation practices, highlighting the need for integrity in eliciting confessions.

Australian law enforcement agencies employ psychological techniques in interrogation but are governed by strict legal frameworks.

• PEACE Model: Australia favours the PEACE model (Preparation and Planning, Engage and Explain, Account, Closure, and Evaluate), focusing on information gathering rather than coercion (Shepherd & Griffiths 2013).
• Emphasis on Ethics: The model promotes ethical interviewing, minimising the risk of false confessions and respecting the rights of the individual.

Research supports the effectiveness of certain psychological techniques while criticising others.

• Effective Techniques: Building rapport and using cognitive load are supported by empirical studies as effective and ethical (Alison et al. 2013; Vrij et al. 2008).
• Criticised Methods: The Reid Technique and the use of deception are criticised for ethical reasons and the risk of false confessions (Kassin et al. 2010).

Psychological tricks used in interrogation are powerful tools that, when applied ethically, can aid in uncovering the truth. Understanding these techniques is crucial for legal professionals, psychologists, and law enforcement to ensure they are used appropriately. Balancing effectiveness with ethical responsibility is essential to uphold justice and protect individual rights.

• Alison, L., Alison, E., Noone, G., Elntib, S. & Christiansen, P. 2013, ‘Why tough tactics fail and rapport gets results: Observing rapport-based interpersonal techniques (ORBIT) to generate useful information from terrorists’, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 411-431.
• Chartrand, TL. & Bargh, JA. 1999, ‘The chameleon effect: The perception–behavior link and social interaction’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 76, no. 6, pp. 893-910.
• Conti, RP. 1999, ‘The psychology of false confessions’, The Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 14-36.
• Gudjonsson, GH. 2003, The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions: A Handbook, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
• Gudjonsson, GH. & Petursson, H. 1991, ‘Custodial interrogation: Why do suspects confess and how does it relate to their crime, attitude and personality?’, Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 295-306.
• Inbau, FE., Reid, JE., Buckley, JP. & Jayne, BC. 2013, Criminal Interrogation and Confessions, 5th edn, Jones & Bartlett Learning, Burlington.
• Kassin, SM. & Kiechel, KL. 1996, ‘The social psychology of false confessions: Compliance, internalization, and confabulation’, Psychological Science, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 125-128.
• Kassin, SM., Drizin, SA., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, GH., Leo, RA. & Redlich, AD. 2010, ‘Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations’, Law and Human Behavior, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 3-38.
• Russano, MB., Meissner, CA., Narchet, FM. & Kassin, SM. 2005, ‘Investigating true and false confessions within a novel experimental paradigm’, Psychological Science, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 481-486.
• Schenkler, BC. 2010, ‘The role of psychology in the interrogation room’, Journal of Applied Security Research, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1-17.
• Shepherd, E. & Griffiths, A. 2013, Investigative Interviewing: The Conversation Management Approach, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Vanderhallen, M. & Vervaeke, G. 2014, ‘Between investigator and suspect: The role of the working alliance in investigative interviewing’, in D. Walsh, G. E. Milne, & R. Bull (eds), Investigative Interviewing: Handbook of Best Practices, Routledge, London, pp. 63-90.
• Vrij, A., Fisher, RP., Mann, S. & Leal, S. 2008, ‘A cognitive load approach to lie detection‘, Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, vol. 5, no. 1-2, pp. 39-43.
• Ward, T., Farrow, K. & Willis, G. 2012, ‘The Ethics of Care and Crime Prevention: A New Moral Framework for Community Corrections’, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, vol. 51, no. 8, pp. 474-496.
• Zamir, T., Wahab, EA. & Halim, AS. 2018, ‘The use of silence in psychotherapy: A survey on its usage, experience and meaning among practising psychotherapists’, The European Journal of Counselling Psychology, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 170-181.

How to get in touch

If you or your NDIS participant need immediate mental healthcare assistance, feel free to get in contact with us on 1800 NEAR ME – admin@therapynearme.com.au.