False Accusations in an Investigative Context: Differences between Suggestible and Non‐suggestible Witnesses

Abstract

False sexual abuse allegations have spurred research on suggestibility, on the assumption that leading questions may produce false accusations. Most researchers, however, have not measured the likelihood that those who respond to suggestive questioning will take the next step and make a formal (false) accusation. The present study incorporates both aspects of abuse investigations: suggestibility (i.e., responsiveness to questions in a leading interview) and false accusations (i.e., signing a formal complaint against an innocent suspect). Participants (N = 129) were observed in a laboratory session and then interviewed twice about their experiences by an interviewer who suggested that the laboratory assistant had behaved inappropriately. Although only 17% of the participants were suggestible, 39% agreed to sign the complaint. Suggestible participants were significantly more likely to make a false accusation than were non‐suggestible participants. However, because of the low rate of suggestibility, most false accusations were made by non‐suggestible participants. Implications for the legal system are discussed. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Tall Tales Across Time: Narrative Analysis of True and False Allegations

“…In all of these regards, narrative analysis of a sample of allegations made to police (confirmed to be genuine or deceptive) would be of value in aiding our understanding of testimonial consistency over time. Other factors also would be beneficial to include in such analyses, such as the level of suggestibility of the statement provider (Kaasa, Cauffman, Clarke‐Stewart, & Loftus, ), the degree of emotionality surrounding the crime or present in the claim (Peace, Porter & Almon, ) and the extent to which the reports appear plausible or are bizarre in nature (Peace, Brower, & Rocchio, ). Each of these could have significant influences on perceptions of credibility.…”

A broken tandem

“…To break witness resistance, the use of accusations and confrontations, together with offers of empathy and sympathy as well as moral justifications that excuse lack of cooperation are recommended (Inbau et al, 2013). These accusatorial interviewing techniques increase resistance and deteriorate memory recall (Vrij et al, 2017), and have also been shown to increase false allegations against the innocent in laboratory experiments (Kaasa et al, 2013;Loney & Cutler, 2016), legal cases (Moore et al, 2014), and can contribute to miscarriages of justice (Guerra- Thompson, 2012;Gross & Gross, 2013;Moore et al, 2014; The National Registry of Exonerations, 2020).…”

“…Particularly in the context of investigative interviews, in which police investigators can, advertently or inadvertently, introduce post-event misinformation, the memory reports of crime witnesses are not protected from contamination (Frenda et al, 2011;Loftus, 2005). The introduction of misinformation is facilitated by the use of closed, direct and leading questions (Sharman & Powell, 2012), increasing inaccuracy in witness reports, and even risking false allegations from witnesses (Kaasa et al, 2013;Loftus & Pickrell, 1995). Moreover, memory traces which are not reported due to lack of cooperation are vulnerable to forgetting considering normal decay and lack of rehearsal.…”

“…Such interviewing practices restrict the opportunity to facilitate recall, testing memory recognition of the interviewer's knowledge instead of eliciting information from the witness memory recollection and thus leading to incomplete accounts (Clifford & George, 1996;Fisher, 1995). In addition, there is evidence of an inappropriate use of leading questions, which have been shown to more readily implant post-event information from the investigative team's version of the events into the memory and account of a witnessed crime, contributing to potential confabulation or false statements and allegations (Kaasa et al, 2013;Loftus & Pickrell, 1995;Sharman & Powell, 2012). The largest repository of overturned wrongful convictions in the United States confirms that false testimony from witnesses (e.g., perjury) is the number one factor contributing to miscarriages of justice, being present in around 60% of the 2572 overturned convictions (The National Registry of Exonerations, 2020).…”

“…However, such accusatorial interviewing techniques may be counterproductive, as research has shown that they increase resistance and degrade memory recall (Vrij et al, 2017). Laboratory experiments have also demonstrated that the use of accusatorial techniques to interview witnesses increases the likelihood of false allegations (Kaasa et al, 2013;Loney & Cutler, 2016).…”