May we tighten the screws? An experiment on public acceptance of pressure during police interrogations

Abstract Purpose Many countries have vague limits on how much pressure police may use during interrogations. This leaves room for tactics that increase the risk of false confessions, such as lying about the evidence. Public opinion seems to oppose ‘friendly questioning’, which may justify the use of pressure to obtain confessions. The current study assesses the extent to which the public considers different types of interrogation pressure acceptable, and whether this is influenced by the severity of the alleged crime and whether the suspect has committed similar crimes in the past (guilty bias). Methods We conducted an experiment with a representative sample of 1110 individuals from the Netherlands. Participants evaluated one of twelve vignettes in a 2 (Crime Severity: manslaughter vs. assault ) × 2 (Guilty Bias: no criminal record vs. criminal record involving similar crimes ) × 3 (Interrogation Pressure: neutral vs. lying about evidence vs. physical violence ) between‐subjects design. Results Participants considered a no‐pressure interrogation more acceptable than interrogations that involved pressure, but still showed a high degree of acceptance for lying to the suspect and even some acceptance for the use of physical violence. Participants accepted more pressure for more severe crimes, but did not indicate higher acceptance of pressure in the guilty bias condition, and there were no significant interactions. Conclusions We discuss what the findings mean for practitioners and policymakers and how they relate to the risk of eliciting false confessions from suspects.