Law enforcement professionals such as police and sheriffs conduct the vast majority of initial interviews and interrogations involved in criminal investigations. The recent reexamination of historical cases like the Central Park Five and the West Memphis Three, in which innocent individuals were wrongfully imprisoned for years, has highlighted the vital importance of the interview process. These cases, both of which included false confessions, have clearly demonstrated the importance of conducting interviews in a manner that increases the chances of gaining accurate and factually correct information and reduces the likelihood of false confessions and obtaining inaccurate and false information. This becomes even more important when characteristics of the interviewee are also taken into consideration. Research consistently demonstrates that some individuals are more susceptible to phenomenon such as suggestion than others. Individuals who are younger (generally), or who have cognitive impairments, memory problems, or mental illnesses have all been found to be more vulnerable to suggestibility.¹ Suggestibility increases the likelihood of false confessions and refers to an individual’s vulnerability to adopt the views, statements, and opinions of another.² Suggestibility can result from various sources including verbal cues (e.g., a strong and aggressive voice tone) and nonverbal cues (e.g., a head nod), statements, and gestures. For example, a person may come to accept that certain events may or may not have occurred or occurred differently from his or her memory following an interaction with an interviewer who provides either subtle or overt suggestions (i.e., hints, clues, questions, statements, or gestures such as raised eyebrows). Following these interactions, the individual can be convinced that events happened differently from his or her initial recall. Suggestibility involves the acceptance of this information even if it is inaccurate and factually incorrect. Even individuals without impairments have increased vulnerability to suggestibility under various circumstances, including when questioned under stressful social situations such as law enforcement interviews following an alleged crime.

Suggestibility Basics

As previously identified, suggestibility occurs when a person is inadvertently or deliberately exposed to inaccurate or misleading information. This inaccurate or misleading information is then incorporated into the person’s account and memory of events even if the memory is incorrect and false. In these circumstances, the individual can be completely unaware of the inaccuracy of the information that was introduced directly through verbal communication or induced through nonverbal communication.

Suggestibility can be induced through questioning techniques, such as how questions are asked or phrased during interviews. For example, when interviewers ask leading questions, those being interviewed may feel they are being prompted or expected to respond in a particular way, e.g., “It seems obvious to me that you never intended for things to go this far, isn’t that correct?” (spoken with a soft and caring tone). Interviewers also may inadvertently introduce suggestibility through repeated questioning. For example, “I’m going to ask you again, did you go to Joe’s house that evening?”; “Joe claims you were at his house, isn’t that true?”; “What time did you arrive at Joe’s house?”; “Who was at Joe’s house when you arrived that evening?” Individuals may also feel pressured to respond in a certain way for fear of being perceived as uncooperative or guilty, e.g., “Come on Sam, we know you were there! Just confirm this so we can move on to the more important things!”; “It doesn’t look good for you when you keep pausing and saying you don’t know” (Loud, strong, frustrated voice tone).

Other influences for the level of suggestibility also occur. Experts Gisli Gudjonsson and Noel Clark propose that interrogative suggestibility is more likely to occur in people who experience a greater sense of uncertainty about the questions being asked or the subject matter being discussed.³ Suggestibility is also more likely to occur when there is a stronger interpersonal trust with the interviewer or interrogator. If an interviewer can build trust with a witness or suspect, the person may be more likely to want to please the interviewer, and it may be easier to elicit the answers the interviewer seeks. Furthermore, suggestibility is more likely to occur if an individual believes he or she is expected to know the “correct” answer to the questions being asked and the person perceives there to be a “correct” answer. When speaking to the police, individuals may feel a tremendous amount of pressure to cooperate and give the police the information they are seeking, which increases the odds of suggestibility. This combination of traits is often found in individuals with cognitive impairments. Similarly, those people with high levels of interpersonal trust, who have a poor understanding of the complexities of interpersonal interactions and who perceive authority figures, such as law enforcement officers, as having only helpful intentions and always being truthful may also be more vulnerable to suggestibility. This can include individuals with the before-mentioned conditions as well as individuals with lower levels of intellectual functioning.

Therefore, there is a wide range of factors associated with an individual that can influence being prone to suggestibility. These factors can include

• cognitive factors, e.g., intellectual disability, impaired problem-solving and decision-making skills;
• neurodevelopmental disorders, e.g., fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, autism spectrum disorder);
• memory impairments and memory distrust;
• mental health issues; and
• personality and social factors, such as temperament, attachment styles, and the ability to manage stress and self-esteem.

In addition to these factors, other issues can also impact suggestibility, including having a substance abuse disorder or experiencing chronic sleep-related issues.⁴

Both children and adults are susceptible to interrogative suggestibility.⁵ Research shows that the susceptibility of children to suggestibility is typically the result of three factors:

1. Children tend to trust people in a position of authority and children are eager to please.
2. Children may be driven to protect their peers.
3. Children may have the urge to say anything to escape the interrogation setting as soon as possible.

Beyond these factors, adverse life experiences (e.g., neglect, physical and sexual abuse, and psychological and emotional trauma), traumatic brain injuries, and substance use can play a role in a child’s level of suggestibility.⁶

Suggestibility can be exacerbated when individuals experience multiple levels of vulnerability in combination with particular questioning techniques. For example, the repeated, aggressive questioning of a sleep-deprived individual with diagnosed cognitive impairment who has been detained for questioning is likely to compound the risks of suggestibility. Unfortunately, these factors are considered typical and are often present during police interviews.

Intent Versus Outcome

Despite being intended to “break through” and finally get to the truth, questioning techniques that increase suggestibility can result in inaccurate and misleading information. These inaccuracies can have adverse effects and consequences at every stage of the criminal and legal systems. Accurate, self-reported information is central to most aspects of the legal process, from police interviews to legal decision-making (e.g., waiving Miranda rights), determining competency to stand trial, and serving as a witness. Police interviews and interrogations are clear examples of highly stressful and emotionally charged situations characterized by repetitive and often leading questions conducted under a range of social and environmental pressures, all of which can increase the risk of suggestibility. Courtroom testimony, whether the person under question is appearing as a defendant or witness, results in the same questioning techniques and pressures. Obtaining accurate information under these circumstances is both crucial and, at times, difficult. However, accurate information is crucial to determining whether or not to file charges or making decisions about guilt or innocence.

Implications for Law Enforcement Professionals

The serious consequences of suggestibility in criminal justice settings necessitates that law enforcement professionals be intimately familiar with the concept of suggestibility and the steps that can be taken to decrease its likelihood. Educational and training programs that incorporate information about suggestibility and appropriate questioning techniques for use in interviews and custodial interrogations can and must be utilized to reduce the risks of investigators inadvertently inducing suggestibility. Coercive interviewing techniques should be abandoned because of their links to suggestibility. It is only through such efforts that false information, including false confessions leading to wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice, will be minimized.

Minimizing the Risk of Suggestibility

In order to minimize the chances of suggestibility influencing responses obtained in a law enforcement interview, the following suggestions are provided. First, consider the background of the person being interviewed to determine if they have any of the individual risk factors that increase the likelihood of suggestibility. For example, if the person is younger, has a diagnosed neurodevelopmental disorder, has experienced a traumatic brain injury, or has other significant medical or mental health condition, the interviewer should be highly cautious of the possibility of suggestibility. Second, if there are any specific concerns about an interviewee’s susceptibility to suggestibility, interviewers may consider implementing safeguards such as carefully checking available records and collateral sources of information to disprove or confirm information provided by vulnerable interviewees. Third, interviewers can also minimize the contextual influences, which can increase suggestibility, using the following techniques:

• Minimizing the influence of a stressful physical environment by providing a less distracting, quieter, and calmer interview space
• Allowing individuals sufficient time to process information and formulate responses without increased pressure
• Providing the interviewee with frequent breaks and sufficient food and water to minimize stressors and fatigue as well as perceptions of forced responding
• Routinely checking to make sure the person understands the questions and the content being discussed to minimize acquiescent responses that may be less accurate
• Avoiding appearances of being overly friendly, both verbally and nonverbally, or implying some kind of reward (e.g., lesser sentence) for cooperation
• Avoiding being excessively authoritarian and coercive
• Implementing the use of open-ended, short, and clear questions without the use of slang or colloquialisms that can cause confusion and misunderstandings

Key Tips and Take-Aways for Professionals Working in Law Enforcement

The key points and tips included here can guide law enforcement professionals seeking accurate information free of the influences of suggestibility:

• Cognitive, personality, and social factors may contribute to one’s susceptibility to suggestibility. Caution should be used when interviewing vulnerable individuals.
• Children and adults are susceptible to interrogative suggestibility.
• Adverse life experiences, neurocognitive and neurodevelopmental issues, chronic sleep problems, and substance use can also play a role in suggestibility.
• High-pressure interview or interrogation techniques can increase the likelihood of suggestibility.
• Repetitive and leading questions can increase the likelihood of suggestibility.
• Suggestibility increases the chances of a false confession.
• Clear communication using open-ended, simple questions improves communication and may decrease suggestibility.
• Evidence-based interviewing techniques can increase the likelihood of accurate information.
• Officers and investigators can benefit from staying current on related research literature.
• Ongoing training, education, and consultation related to the topic of suggestibility can reduce the likelihood of its occurrence. d

Notes:

¹Maggie Bruck and Laura Melnyk, “Individual Differences in Children’s Suggestibility: A Review and Synthesis,” Applied Cognitive Psychology 18, no. 8 (December 2004): 947–996; Stephen J. Ceci and Maggie Bruck, “Suggestibility of the Child Witness: A Historical Review and Synthesis,” Psychological Bulletin 113, no. 3 (1993): 403–439; Gisli H. Gudjonsson, “Suggestibility, Intelligence, Memory Recall and Personality: An Experimental Study,” British Journal of Psychiatry 142, no. 1 (January 1983): 35–37; Gisli H. Gudjonsson et al., “Age and Memory Related Changes in Children’s Immediate and Delayed Suggestibility Using the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale,” Personality and Individual Differences 102 (November 2016): 25–29; J. Zoe Klemfuss and Alma P. Olaguez, “Individual Differences in Children’s Suggestibility: An Updated Review,” Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 29, no. 2 (2020): 158–182.

²Saul M. Kassin and Gisli H. Gudjonsson, “The Psychology of Confessions: A Review of the Literature and Issues,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 5, no. 2 (November 2004): 33–67; Gisli H. Gudjonsson, “Interrogative Suggestibility and Compliance,” in Suggestibility in Legal Contexts: Psychological Research and Forensic Implications, eds. Anne M. Ridley, Fiona Gilbert, and David J. LaRoney (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell, 2013), 45–61.

³Gisli H. Gudjonsson and Noel K. Clark, “Suggestibility in Police Interrogation: A Social Psychological Model,” Social Behaviour 1 (1986): 83–104.

⁴Akiko Murakami, Robert J. Edelmann, and Paul E. Davis, “Interrogative Suggestibility in Opiate Users,” Addiction 91, no. 9 (September 1996): 1365–1374.

⁵Gudjonsson et al., “Age and Memory Related Changes in Children’s Immediate and Delayed Suggestibility Using the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale.”

⁶Youjin Chae et al., “Event Memory and Suggestibility in Abused and Neglected Children: Trauma-Related Psychopathology and Cognitive Functioning,” Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 110, no. 4 (December 2011): 520–538; Sophie Davison and Michael Gossop, “The Problem of Interviewing Drug Addicts in Custody: A Study of Interrogative Suggestibility and Compliance,” Psychology, Crime & Law 2, no. 3 (1996): 185–195; Kim E. Drake, “Interrogative Suggestibility: Life Adversity, Neuroticism, and Compliance,” Personality and Individual Differences 48, no. 4 (March 2010): 439–498; Kim Drake and Ray Bull, “Individual Differences in Interrogative Suggestibility: Life Adversity and Field Dependence,” Psychology, Crime & Law 17, no. 8 (2011): 675–687; Kim E. Drake, Ray Bull, and Julian C.W. Boon, “Interrogative Suggestibility, Self‐esteem, and the Influence of Negative Life‐events,” Legal and Criminological Psychology 13, no. 2 (2008): 299–307.

Please cite as

Jerrod Brown et al., “Suggestibility in Police Interviews and Interrogations: A Beginner’s Guide for Law Enforcement Professionals,” Police Chief Online, April 6, 2022.