Module 2 Assignment 1
Module 2 Overview
The most important element that exists in both interviewing and interrogating is the development of good information. Forensic psychology professionals are typically interested in developing interview techniques that concern feelings, beliefs, and emotions. They do not assign validity to these expressions except in the sense of personal or subjective validity. Truth is what is true for the client.
Interrogators often believe that they can develop a sense for when they are being lied to. They begin to notice certain behaviors that occur in a suspect when they think that the suspect is lying. On the basis of the presence or absence of certain behaviors in a suspect they are interrogating, interrogators often experience an increase or decrease in the suspect's confidence if the suspect had actually committed the crime.
The problem is, interrogators may be quite mistaken about the meaning of nonverbal behavior. Nonverbal behavior is like dreams—many interpretations are possible, and it's often not possible to verify the interpretations. Indeed, an interrogator's conviction that a suspect is lying can be one of the factors that leads to a false confession. Forensic psychology professionals devise experiments and research to investigate the meaning of nonverbal behavior, and their findings do not generally support the assertions of interrogators that certain interpretations should be associated with certain behaviors.
Think about it this way: Have you ever been nervous when you were lying? Think about a time when you were nervous for reasons unrelated to lying. Maybe you were in a job interview. Maybe you were hoping to impress a first date. Do you think there is something particularly different about one form of nervousness as opposed to another? As it turns out, there is not. Certain behaviors are more common when a person is nervous, but there are many reasons to be nervous in an interrogation that are unrelated to lying. Forensic psychologists are interested in reaching the right conclusions for the right reasons.
Describe, explain, and integrate the role differences and outcome differences between psychological interviewing and assessment and interviewing and interrogation in the context of criminal investigations, workplace investigations, and the wide variety of settings in which investigations take place.
Analyze and apply models of and approaches to interrogation and interviewing across the diversity of forensic professional settings, legal situations, and different types of interviewee.
Apply and integrate ethical and legal standards within the practice of interrogation and interviewing with all populations, including special populations such as youth and the aged, vulnerable individuals, victims and family members, and cultural groups.
Critically evaluate practice strategies used and information obtained using current research and best practices related to interviewing and interrogation.
Interviewing; Interrogation; Deception
Some writers like to suggest that interviewing and interrogating are a blend of art and science. The reality is that we should, as forensic psychology professionals, emphasize the science of the process and rely less on the art.
The science of psychology can add reliable and valid strategies to both the interviewing and the interrogating processes. Just as mental health professionals rely on the psychometric properties of psychological test instruments, we should establish the adequate psychometric properties for interviewing and interrogating techniques. We can identify techniques that are reliable and valid and then develop data for normative groups. Once we establish these techniques, we can train other practitioners on these skills and evaluate the effectiveness of training. Such an approach will help reduce false confessions as well as guilty offenders from going free.
In the forensic psychology program, you have learned about the differences between the role of the clinician and the forensic mental health professional. You have also discussed the ethical dilemmas faced by mental health professionals working professionally in the legal arena. Much of this discussion has focused on the practice of the profession, such as in conducting evaluations or testifying in court. However, these differences are also present in research. For example, much of the psychological research on the detection of deception identifies weaknesses in the area and generally concludes that most trained professionals cannot detect a lie any better than chance. However, much of the criminal justice and law enforcement literature suggests that it is possible to identify a liar based on verbal and nonverbal behaviors. It is important to note that there are dissenting parties on both sides of the argument; some law enforcement writers challenge the assumptions, whereas some professional psychological researchers argue that detection is possible.
