Japanese police officers’ feelings and beliefs about interrogation

1. Japanese police officers’ feelings and beliefs about interrogation TaekoWachi, Kaeko Yokota, Yusuke Otsuka, Hiroki Kraishi, Kazumi Watanabe, & Michael E. Lamb National Research Institute of Police Science, Japan University of Cambridge

2. Previous studies in Western countries: Interviewing styles and confessions • Humanitarian techniques are more likely to lead to confession rather than dominant techniques. • Holmberg & Christianson (2002) • 83prisoners（murderers and sexual offenders）in Sweden • Self-reported questionnaires • Kebbell, Alison & Hurren (2008) • 43 prisoners (sexual offenders)in Australia • Experiments using fictional cases

3. Interviewing styles and offenders’ psychological well-being • Holmberg, Christianson & Wexler (2007) • ‘Sense of Coherence’ scales were used to examine the offenders’ psychological well-being. • Interviewing styles and confessions are related to the offenders’ psychological well-being. • Offenders who felt respected during the interview showed higher SOC than those who did not feel respected. • Offenders who had admitted their crimes showed higher SOC than deniers.

4. The purpose of the current study • This presentation has two aims: • To describe the interviewing techniques used in Japan • To investigate the relationship between the following variables; • Interviewing styles and confessions • The interrogators’ and suspects’ feelings after the interrogation

5. The characteristics of the Japanese legal system • A maximum of 23 days from arrest to the institution of prosecution • Corroborating evidence is required. • Recording police interviews (suspects, victim and witnesses) are not allowed. • Recording the parts of interviews by prosecutors has been introduced.

6. Methods: Participants • Police officers who interviewed suspects between January and September 2008 • The characteristics of the suspects • Adults • Those who had committed murder, robbery, arson,rape, kidnapping or forced indecency • Those who had initiallydenied and then confessed (either partially or fully) • Those who were not mentally retarded or mentally ill.

7. Methods: Participants • 276 police officers across Japan • Gender: Male 271, female 5 • Age: M=40.5 (SD=8.7),median38.5 • Years of investigative experience: M=11.2(SD=8.2) • Rank: Constables 27, Sergeants 132, Inspectors 115, Chief inspectors 2

8. Methods: Material and Procedure • Self-reported questionnaireswere administered: • Interviewing techniques • Confession types (partial or full) • Investigators’ feeling after the interrogation • (Perceived) Suspects’ feelings after the interrogation

9. Methods: Analysis • Interviewing styles • Factor analysis(MLmethod, promaxrotation) for interviewing techniques • Anon-hierarchical cluster analysis (K-means)for classifying the interviewing styles • Interviewing styles and feelings • 2 × 4 ANOVAs (full or partial confession ×four types of interview styles) were conducted to examine the relationships between the interviewing styles and feelings of police officers / suspects

10. Results: Interviewing styles • Fivefactors were obtained. • Presentation of evidence • Confrontation • Active listening • Rapport building • Discussion of crime

11. Results: Examples of items • Presentation of Evidence : 4 items • Implying that there was evidence of guilt • Confronting the suspect with actual evidence • Confrontation: 5 items • Expressing impatience and anger towards the suspect • Raising your voice during the interrogation

12. Results: Examples of items • Active listening : 6 items • Listening to the suspect’s life story, such as personal history • Listening to the suspect’s stories about his/ her significant others (e.g. parents, spouse, children) • Rapport building : 7 items • Attempting to build a good relationship with the suspect • Treating the suspect in a friendly manner

13. Results: Examples of items • Discussion of the crime: 4 items • Attempting to persuade the suspect to think about the meaning of the crime committed • Appealing to the conscience of the suspect

14. Results: Interviewing styles • Based on the five factors, four interviewing styles were identified. • Evidence focused approach • Confrontational approach • Relationship focused approach • Undifferentiated approach

15. Figure 1. Fourinterviewing styles. Each bar shows the mean score on the five factors.

16. Result: Interviewing style • Evidence focused approach • The highest score on Presentation of Evidence factor • The second highest scores on Active Listening and Confrontation factors • Listen to the suspects’ account closely, show evidence and sometimes confront the suspect with the evidence? • Confrontational approach • The highest score on Confrontation factor • The second highest score on the Discussion of the crime factor • Confront the suspects not about inconsistencies between evidence and suspects’ accounts but by discussing their criminal offences and victims?

17. Result: Interviewingstyle • Relationship focused approach • The highest scores on Active Listening, Rapport Building, and Discussion of the crime factors • Listen to the suspects’ stories very attentively, attempt to build a good relationship, and discuss the crime and victims to make the suspects think about them • Undifferentiated approach • The lowest scores on the five factors • Less likelyto employ specific interviewing techniques

18. Result: Information • One item: The suspect was willing to provide information unknown to the police • Main effects for confession type (F (1, 256) = 19.01, p < .001) and interviewing style F (3, 256) = 3.17, p = .003).

19. Result:Sympathy • Three items: I experienced the same feelings as the suspect did./ I felt affection for the suspect. / I felt sorry for the suspect. • Main effect for use of interviewing style, F (3, 259) = 3.19, p = .02.

20. Result: Suspects’ satisfaction • Four items: The suspect appeared to experience a sense of relief./The suspect appeared to be pleased that he/she had confessed • Main effects for confession type (F (1, 256) = 39.04, p < .001) and interviewing style F (3, 256) = 5.06, p = .002).

21. Result: Suspects’ remorse • Oneitem: The suspect appeared to regret having committed a crime. • Main effects for confession type (F (1, 256) = 20.98, p < .001) and interviewing style F (3, 256) = 4.36, p = .005).

22. Conclusion • Four types of interviewing styles were identified. • Police officers who employed the relationship focused approach were more likely • to sympathize with the suspects • to believe that the suspects disclosed information • to believe that the suspects were satisfied with their confessions and remorseful about their crimes

23. Limitations • All ratings were provided by the police officers. • These are the police officers’ perspectives. • Studies examining the offenders’ opinions are needed. • I will survey prisoners about their feelings after being interrogated.

24. References • Holmberg, U. and S.-A. Christianson (2002). "Murders’ and sexual offenders’ experiences of police interviews and their inclination to admit and deny crimes." Behavioral Sciences and the Law,20: 31-45. • Holmberg, U., Christianson, S. Å., & Wexler, D. (2007). Interviewing offenders: A therapeutic jurisprudential approach. In S. Å. Christianson (Ed.), Offender's memories of violent crimes (pp. 355-371). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. • Kebbell, M., L. Alison, et al. (2008). "Sex offenders' perceptions of the effectiveness and fairness of humanity, dominance, and displaying an understanding of cognitive distortions in police interviews: A vignette study." Psychology Crime & Law14(5): 435-449.

25. Thank you very much for your listening Contact: wachi@nrips.go.jp