Hidden Brain - Did I Really Do That?

Episode Date: October 11, 2022

Have you ever been falsely accused of something? Many of us think there’s only one way we’d act in such a situation: we’d defend ourselves. We’d do whatever it takes to clear our name — and above all else, we’d never, ever confess to something we didn’t do. But psychologist Saul Kassin says that’s a myth. This week, why we sometimes act against our own self-interest — even when the stakes are at their highest.Did you catch our recent episode about how we can make better use of our time? You can find it here. And if you like our work, please consider a financial contribution to help us make many more episodes like this one. 

This is Hidden Brain, I'm Shankar Vedantam. There is a reasonable assumption we make as we go through life. Groups act in their own self-interest. Merchant sell things in order to make money. Employers want to hire the best employees. Sports teams want to win matches. The assumption of self-interest is also the lens through which we understand how individuals behave. We can see why someone might lie on a resume in order to get

ahead. We also know that no one would lie on their resume to make themselves look worse. When people are accused of wrongdoing, it makes perfect sense that the guilty would claim to be innocent. But every ounce of common sense tells us, no innocent person would ever confess to doing something wrong. We understand as a matter of common sense and intuition that people behave in ways that favor their self-interest. How in God's name does that favor your self-interest? How and why people come to betray their self-interest? This week on Hidden Brain. In the sixth grade, Saul Casson received an assignment from his teacher to write a book report. It took him about a nanosecond to decide to write about his hero, Mickey Mantle.

I was a huge Yankees fan and I wanted to do a really good job. The baseball star was not the only object of Saul's affections. His sixth grade teacher was up on a pedestal too. I loved Mrs. Avery. I had a crush, to be honest, on Mrs. Avery. I wanted to impress Mrs. Avery. And so I spent a lot of time on this book report. I just remember being excited to get the grade back.

I thought it was a really good paper. I'd spent a lot of time on it. And when she called me up, she would call people and they'd come up and get their paper. This was toward the end of the school day. And I just remember her glaring at me in such a way that I looked at the grade. And there was, with a circle around it, a big red F. And there was, with a circle around it, a big red F. I said, I don't understand, and she says, will you plagiarize it? Saul found himself dumbfounded. He loved Mrs. Avery, and he loved Mickey Mantle,

and he had poured his heart and soul into the book report. I didn't want to break out into tears in front of my classmates and in front of her, so I held it together. I got home, flicked open into tears in front of my classmates and in front of her, so I held it together. I got home, flicked open the door, there was my mother, and I burst out crying. Mrs. Avery accused me of cheating. She didn't ask me if I plagiarized, she told me that I did. And I just will never forget the helplessness that I felt at having been accused of something I didn't do and not really knowing how to respond in a way to defend myself.

It was Saul's mother who finally obtained justice. She demanded proof from Mrs. Avery that the book report was plagiarized. Mrs. Avery looked for evidence but couldn't find any, so she changed Saul's grade. But the moment of helplessness stayed with Saul, why had he been unable to speak up? Saul grew up to become a psychologist. His area of study, how people interpret the actions of others. He was especially fascinated by juries. Here were people whose conclusions about defendants had life and death stakes.

To evaluate the psychological factors that shaped how juries think, Saul came up with cases where some jurors might feel a defendant was guilty, while others might feel he was innocent. Saul figured ambiguous cases would shed light on how people make up their minds about guilt and innocence. He started running experiments with volunteers playing the role of jurors. He noticed there were some cases where his volunteers were totally unanimous. A couple of cases came back that elicited no variability. As far as everybody was concerned, everybody was guilty. Fortunately, we also asked subjects in those studies to explain

a verdict. What was the basis for your verdict? And in the cases that I recall, everybody cited a confession. A confession. When a defendant in a criminal case admitted he had done something wrong, volunteers playing the role of jurors saw these as open and shut cases. Someone says they're guilty? They're obviously guilty. My first response was, well that's interesting, it looks like we'll have to remove confessions from evidence in order to use cases.

Saul wanted cases where volunteers disagreed with each other. Cases involving confessions, where everyone agreed with everyone else, were useless. It became a nuisance variable, so right away we tossed out cases involving confessions because confessions were a nuisance. It happens so often in science as well as in life. We fail to notice something important because we are so intent on something else. It took Saul a while to realize his nuisance was telling him something important. As he continued to study juries, Saul decided he needed to better understand how police procured

evidence in criminal trials. He decided to audit a law school class on evidence. I got the case book, I did all the reading, and there was a footnote in that case book in which they referenced an interrogation manual, the most popular interrogation manual. So I thought, wow, how interesting to see what they're doing to interrogate. And so I went to the library and pulled out that edition of that manual, and I read the book. What kind of techniques were in this manual, Saul?

Just one or two examples. Well, for starters, the opening salvo of an interrogation was to bring in a suspect and declare an accusation of guilt. This, of course, is exactly what Mrs. Avery had done in the sixth grade. We know you did this. Don't lie. In fact, I believe in that first manual, they advised the interrogate to come in with a folder full of materials and toss it on the table and said, we've got a lot of evidence against you. And they suggested doing that, even if you didn't have a whole lot of evidence. So right out of the gate, I'm looking and I'm saying, okay, wow, these are powerful tactics. These are almost milgram-esque.

In the early 1960s, Stanley Milgram conducted a series of experiments on blind obedience. He tested a volunteers with comply with instructions from an authority figure. The most famous experiment featured an experimenter who demanded that a volunteer subject someone else to painful electric shocks. 150 volts. In reality, no one received shocks. The experiment was designed to test if volunteers were willing to go along with crazy instructions. If the volunteer resisted, the experimenter had a series of verbal prads to keep the experiment going. It's absolutely essential that you continue.

You had no other choice teacher. You must continue the experiment requires that you continue. And the prods are designed to get a subject to first administer a 15 volt shock and then a 30 volt shock. And in 15 volt increments to bring that subject up to the point where they would be asked to administer a 450 volt shock which on Milgram shock machine was listed as XXX severe shock Answer is woman

born of 50 volts When you look at this paradigm you go nobody's gonna do that Well we're going out of the reviews as a door. The experiment requires it to go on teaching. 65% of subjects go all the way up the shock scale to 450 volts. That's a meal-grim. Now I look at the interrogation manual. You bring them in, isolated, no friends or family members or lawyers present. There is instead of an

experimenter as an authority figure, a police detective who has real authority, and that police detective aims to accuse you of something and get you to make an admission of guilt. And through a process of gradual escalation and a series of prides that are listed, the detective's goal, is to get you to make a small confession or an admission of, I was there. And then a slightly greater admission. I saw what happened. And then a slightly greater admission.

I was minimally involved. And eventually, 15 volts at a time, the goal is to get that person to make a full admission of guilt, coupled by a full narrative confession that explains the chronology and the story. The authority figure in Milgram's obedience experiment, it's a psychology experiment or wearing a white lab coat who has no real authority and no real power over those subjects. If an authority figure like a psych experiment can produce that level of obedience, can you imagine what a detective who has power over your fate and future might be able to produce?

And that's what unnerved me. I kept thinking, geez, if they bring innocent people into the situation, they're going to get some milkroom-like results. Saul realized he was confronting two powerful facts. Fact number one, Jury's belief people when they offer confessions. Fact number two, police are taught to extract confessions from people using a series of powerful psychological techniques. You don't have to assume bad intent on the part of detectives for this to be a problem. Like the rest of us, detectives assume no one who is innocent will admit to being guilty.

Saul decided to look more closely at the science of confessions. Only he found there was no science of confessions. Only he found, there was no science of confessions. When someone says they did something wrong, it seems so self-evidently obvious that they did do something wrong that no one had really studied it. Saul did find one early example though, a case study described in the early 20th century by a psychologist named Hugo Munsterberg. Munsterberg has a chapter titled Untrue Confessions and in it he describes this case out of Chicago, the murder of Bessie Hollister. What was interesting and what I think made him skeptical about the

confession was, first of all, the suspect whom confessed had limited cognitive abilities and was a vulnerable person to issue as a suspect He then realized that they then brought him in for hours of interrogation in which he was described that he embellished a story from one telling to another Turns out he provided some details in that story and it turns out that some of those details were false. And so we have a situation where he was interrogated for long periods of time. He was a vulnerable suspect in the confession he gave was not particularly accurate in relation to the case facts. And yet the prosecutor pushed forward and within a kid you not one week he was convicted and shortly thereafter he was hung. Saul started looking for other cases of untrue confessions in the history books.

He found quite a few. Eventually, he came up with a classification system. The first kind were voluntary false confessions, like the time in 1932 when a famous aviator son was kidnapped. Charles Lindbergh was at the time an American hero and his infant son was kidnapped and it was big news as you can imagine and 200 people volunteered confessions to that kidnapping and ultimately police did not charge any of them. Ultimately, none of them had anything to do with it. It's interesting, some extent ironic,

that when someone volunteers a confession, police are inherently suspicious, and they look for proof of guilt to corroborate that voluntary confession. So they might ask, for example, for facts. Okay, you say you committed this crime, tell me about the case facts. Describe the crime scene to me or lead me to the weapon or lead me to the victim. And invariably, innocent voluntary false confessors can't do it. voluntary false confessions are cases in which innocent people without any

external pressure from police step forward and confess to crimes they didn't commit. Sometimes they're protecting somebody else. It might be a child covering for a parent or a parent covering for a child, so sometimes it's a sort of a rational reason like that, and in sometimes it's a sort of a rational reason like that. And sometimes it's a reason that reeks of pathology and somebody needing to gain attention. The motives may vary, but it is my sense that voluntary false confessions don't present much of a problem for the criminal justice system. So a second kind of false confession is something that you've termed compliant confessions.

And as you started to look at the historical record, you find quite a few examples of this, sometimes going back decades or even centuries. You tell the story about events that took place in the 17th century, for example, in Salem. Yeah, the Salem, which trials are a great example. Compliant false confessions, these are cases where somebody is under great amounts of stress. They are motivated to put an end to that stress. They want out of that bad situation. They're not even thinking about long-term consequences. They may have come to believe it's in their better interest to confess than to deny involvement.

They know they're innocent, but they confess anyway as a way to get out of a bad situation. Those types of cases go back throughout history. In the Salem Witch Trials, some suspects who failed to confess were executed. Given the choice between making a false confession and being put to death, many chose to lie about their guilt. Of course, the Salem Witch Trials took place over 300 years ago. The same thing couldn't happen today, could it? Could it? You know, I was teaching at Williams College.

It's a liberal arts college in Massachusetts. It was 2002. And I was preparing for classes in the fall. And this producer called and said, I wonder if you can look at some confessions for us. I said, OK, what's the case?" And she said, we promised not to mention this to anyone. I said, sure, it's confidential. And she said, it's the Central Park jogger. And I went silent.

When we come back, the story of the Central Park Jaga. You're listening to Hidden Brain, I'm Shankar Vedanta. This is Hidden Brain, I'm Shankar Vedantam. A quick word before we start this next segment, we're going to be discussing two violent crimes that psychologists Saul Cassin has studied. These cases include graphic accounts of murder and rape. Around 9pm on evening in April 1989, a 28-year-old woman was attacked while taking a run in Central Park in New York. She was beaten, raped, and left for dead.

Around 1.30am, she was found unconscious by two passers-by. She was rushed to the hospital where she remained in a coma for 12 days. Psychologists saw Cassand remember the news stories about the horrific crime. For a city that was already on edge, this was the breaking point. The papers were just filled with headlines that we got to solve this. I understand fully that when this happened and when it was reported and the heinousness of the crime, the city was in the state of outrage and demanding that we find who did this. Within 72 hours NYPD solved the case. There were a number of kids running through

the park that night, wreaking havoc on some bystanders, and police immediately started rounding people up, going into their neighborhoods, bringing others in, they interrogated all sorts of kids, and ultimately found five kids who confessed 14, 15, 16 years old. All were black or Latino. Police questioned them for hours

and got their confessions, including four on videotape. The way New York City worked their confessions in those days, starting in the 1970s, 1980s, was the detectives interrogated off camera. They brought their suspect to a point where they were ready to confess and then they delivered them to an assistant district attorney who stepped in with a camera on and took the confession. Would you please tell us what your full name is?

Your full name is? Your full name is? Your full name is? Okay. Okay. And would you please state your full name? Your full name? Harry, Demetra,

put your lies. Okay. Would you please sit up and tell me what your name is? Karen, Timber, put her lies. Thank you. Would you sit up and tell me what your name is? I'm in the name of Senator. I'm sorry, you have to keep it from that. Name of Senator. And how long do you have to wait for me?

They described the jogger as she was running. They described her location. They described dragging her down through the grass. They were clear tread marks. And they gave a description of a woman who had been beaten in the head with a heart object, closed, pulled off, and left for dead. You just left her laying in the bushes.

Yes. Did you try to hide her so she would get banned? I tried to hide her on the date they did. You cannot look past those statements on video. They got some of the facts right. They're basically telling the same story. There are some annoying disparities and contradictions between them, but they get enough facts right. some annoying disparities and contradictions between them,

but they get enough facts right. None of the boys had attorneys present. In the video confession of 16-year-old Corey Weiss, he's sitting in what looks like a classroom. It's past midnight. His knees are shaking with nervous energy. A prosecutor grills him with questions. What's your last name, please?

Why? Why? And how old are you? 16. Did you go to school? That's right. What do you go to school? The wrong steps in high school.

And what grade are you in there? He said he was involved in the rape. He was present and he played a minimal role. I believe he said he had held her legs while someone else pulled her pants down. What was he doing as much as he was doing? Were you guys after her crash? No.

I was about to say no. I could see the expressional face there. And I felt kind of bad. That kind of, this is my first extreme I did to. And it's a female history. When you hear a statement like that, he not only describes what happened, but then describes his own expression of remorse.

I'm sorry I did this, he basically said. This is my first rape, it's gonna be my last. This my first rape. This I never did this before, it's gonna be my last. Here's a confession that's not just communicating an admission of guilt and some narrative details that are accurate in relation to the crime facts, but now he's reflecting on his own motivation and remorse and acceptance of responsibility. How does a judge and a jury look past that statement? And when you have four of them, even though they don't align with each other perfectly,

how can a jury look past those four statements? All five teenagers were convicted. For several years most everyone thought they were guilty. The convictions continued to not solve however. And then day, he got a call from ABC News. The producer said ABC had received a tip that the teenager's confessions were made up. And so they sent me two big Xerox-type boxes and I spent the next couple of weeks probably doing terrible teaching at Williams because I was completely distracted by this case.

And when I was done, I was horrified. There was no evidence of their guilt. The confessions were contradictory. What was some of the details, if you remember it, that actually were at odds with one another. And this is the complicated thing because sometimes, of course, you have three eyewitnesses at a scene of anything that happens at traffic crash They in fact are not going to agree in fact There's a wealth of psychological studies that show that they will not agree on all of the details And in fact they might come up with important discrepancies and in some ways it's suspicious if five people at the scene of a traffic crash describe it perfectly Yes, so there's a part of you that thinks some of these

discrepancies might actually be because people forget memory is fallible, so it's actually not surprising that some things might clash with one another. Yes, and I think that's what everyone was thinking. I didn't know this in 1989, but I learned in 2002 that detective showed Cory Wise pictures of the victim. So he was able to describe her. He was taken to the crime scene. He gave a vivid description of the crime scene. They all did.

Turns out two of them were taken to the crime scene. Now that's contaminating their memories. That's now, this is not their statement. You've motivated and incentivized them because they think it's in their best interest to cooperate. you've motivated and incentivized them because they think it's in their best interest to cooperate and you've spooned that them information to provide a compelling accurate confession. But you're right. Nobody expected a full alignment of all the facts. And that's why I think the judges and juries they were convicted at two different trials were able to look past those discrepancies. The judges and jurors in the trials behaved exactly like the volunteers in Saul's early

jury experiments. The suspects had confessed, case closed. It didn't matter that there was compelling evidence pointing in another direction. There were several semen samples taken, sent to the FBI lab. That summer, the results came back. First, all of those samples taken trace back to one person. They all match each other. That person was not one of those five confessors. The judge knew it, the jury's knew it. We have two juries in which they are told that they confessed on the one hand

but they're excluded by the DNA on the other. And as one of the jurors said in an interview years later, they had a confession and if there's a confession, what else is the need to know? ABC News contacted Saul because a previously convicted criminal had come far white to claim responsibility for the crime. A serial rapist named Matthias Reyes said he was the one who had attacked the Central Park Jogger. The sample taken from the crime scene matched his DNA. In December of 2002, their convictions were overturned. The DA's office filed a motion to overturn the convictions and the judge agreed with that motion and so they were convictions overturned. The DA's office filed a motion to overturn the convictions and the judge

agreed with that motion and so they were convictions overturned. The city eventually paid the boys $41 million for the mistake and for the suffering that they had inflicted on them. But what exactly happened during those confessions all? Do we know what happened that prompted the kids to basically make the confessions they did? Well, we know what the kids say happened. The kids were in the interrogation rooms for a range of 14 to 30 hours. The kids say they were threatened

that promises were made. They believed that by minimizing their involvement, each one I mentioned, nobody confessed to the rape, each one said I played a subsidiary minor role. Each one upon confession was arrested, and each one was surprised. They thought they were going home. It means they were led to believe that we think the role you played is no big deal. So cooperate with us and everything will be okay. And hence, they were surprised that they were put under arrest. I don't know what happened.

I know that they claimed they felt physically threatened. They claimed threats and promises were made. Detectives deny it. I have no idea what happened behind the scenes, but I do know that their confessions were false and that each one minimized their role in a way that would make some sense. That's not unique to the jogger case. You see it all over the place. So we've looked in some ways at the strange phenomenon where some people will step forward voluntarily to say that they have committed a crime when they haven't and perhaps they're

looking for attention, perhaps they are psychologically disturbed. And we've looked at cases where people might come forward and confess, perhaps because they feel under pressure or they feel that this is a way that they can go home and see their families. You also talk in some ways about a more complicated psychological dimension of false confession, where these confessions are actually internalized. Talk about this idea, then in some ways, this might be the most difficult idea to absorb, where someone actually comes to believe that they have committed a crime. Yes, it was difficult to me. I didn't know what I was seeing the first time I saw it.

There was a case in the 1970s, in which a 17-year-old boy named Peter Riley, in New Canaan, Connecticut, came home and found his mother in a pool of blood having been beaten to death and stabbed. And Riley's confession was fascinating because first of all, he adamantly denied having anything to do with this. He had no history, no background,

no conflict with his mother. He wasn't a violent person. But he confessed. And why did he confess? Because after hours and hours and hours of interrogation, the detective offered him a polygraph exam, a lie detector test. Peter, you say you didn't do this. We think otherwise. We have evidence. Are you willing to take a lie detector test? Trusting in the lie detector test. Then trusting in his own innocence, Peter said, yes, I would. At which point, they administered a test and lied about the results. They said, Peter, you failed the test. And he said, that's not possible. And they said, well, it is possible. You fail the test. It shows deception. And sometimes the test tells us things about

you or a person that even they don't know about themselves. So it looks like you killed your mother, even if you don't remember it. Now, Peter's in this quandary. On the one hand, they're claiming to have unimpeachable medical. Sometimes the polygraph is referred to as medical evidence, sometimes it's referred to as scientific evidence, but it's objective, and it can tell us things about you and your behavior that even you don't recall. So Peter on the one hand has this unimpeachable evidence presented to him. Now he's 17.

And God knows what his mental and emotional state is at this time. His mother is his only surviving relative. And he grows up trusting police and like most Americans doesn't know that they're allowed to lie about evidence. So Peter is trying to reconcile on the one hand, they say that I failed the lie detector test. And on the other hand, I don't remember it that way. And they presented him with some options. You know, sometimes that happens. People block unpleasant memories or people lose consciousness and they gave him a way to bridge this gap between their unimpeachable evidence and his lack of memory. And so they convinced him that he must have done it.

that he must have done it. He transitions from the state of denial to, well, it looks like I did it. When you hear these cases, often the first utterances are things like, I must have done it. It looks like I did it. It appears that I did it. They're not saying, oh, yeah, now I remember. They're concluding. They're inferring that they must have done it because after all you have this evidence. And then he transitions from that tentative hypothetical language of inference into a full blown, oh my god, I killed my mother, I pulled out a knife and I stabbed her. And that was his confession. He was immediately arrested and he was convicted. And a year and a half or so later, a new DA came into the office, looked through the case files, realized that Riley was elsewhere at the time of death that couldn't have been him,

and vacated his conviction and he was never retried again. That's the first time I'd seen, and I didn't know how to define it at the time, what turned out to be what we called internalization. I couldn't tell how momentary it was, how long it lasted, but it was clear that at some point, for some period of time, he came to believe in his own guilt. So the police basically have arrested someone. They've prosecuted the person, they found the person guilty.

A new DA comes in and basically says, the person's not guilty. Now, there's still someone who's been murdered, someone who's been killed. Yes. What do the cops do? In this case, they did nothing. They did not pursue these alternative suspects. There was good reason to believe that they had other suspects not saying they were the perpetrators, but certainly people worthy of investigation. And that did not happen. I've gotten to know Peter and a number of other exonerees who are frustrated that police didn't go back and reinvestigate the case and find out who killed their mother, their father or both. I mean, some people might look at your work and say, you know, Saul

Kassen spends a lot of time trying to get people who are in prison out of prison, but there's another way to look at what you're doing, which is also to say the fact that we've put the wrong person in prison, yes, that's a tragedy for that wrong person for Peter, but it's also a tragedy for society because the real killer has not been brought to justice. Not only has the not killer been brought to justice, but here's what the statistics show. In the Innocence Project cases where DNA excludes the wrongfully convicted, and sometimes that DNA hits on a perpetrator. Many of those cases, that perpetrator went on to commit

one or more multiple violent offenses, including homicides and sexual assaults. When you get a confession from an innocent person and close that case, you're not doing a whole lot of good for public safety. When we come back, what happens in our minds when we are induced to make false confessions and the use of police interrogation tactics in workplaces and private organizations? You're listening to Hidden Brain.

I'm Shankar Vedantam. So many TV crime shows center on detectives who have an uncanny ability to spot the right suspect. But psychologists saw Cassin as found that the confidence police have in their hunches is mostly unfounded. He once ran an experiment where he asked prison inmates to confess to two crimes, one they had committed and one they had not committed. How good were lay people and police detectives in telling truth from fiction. Bottom line was the average accuracy rate was 54%. Truth and lie detection studies give us an average when you meta-adalize all of the studies.

They give us an average accuracy rate of 54% exactly what we found. In other words, we would do about as well in telling about truth from lies if we flipped a coin. But that's not all. In the study, police were actually worse than college students at detecting deception. We found that our student observers were more accurate than our police observers.

In part, because the police observers kept over-believing the false confessions, and we found that the police observers were a whole lot more confident than our student observers. They were not accurate and they were confident, not a good combination. Rumpfl conviction's archives are filled with those mistakes. We simply confirmed that now in the laboratory. Saul and other researchers have also examined a number of psychological factors that cause suspects to make false confessions.

Some people seem to be more suggestible. This line of research was developed by a former cop turned psychologist, Gisley Good Johnson. He was a police officer in Iceland. Eventually left the force and got a degree in clinical psychology. He had taken much to his dismay of false confession, in a case, and became interested in suggestibility effects.

Gisley Good Johnson came up with experiments that mimicked aspects of police interrogations. He'd give volunteers a story and then ask them to recall it. And then he would say, I'm going to ask you a series of questions, and he would ask questions many of which were leading and suggestive of information that was not in the story. And he measured how many of those questions to people then insert into their memory. When volunteers recalled something correctly, he would also sometimes tell them How many of those questions do people then insert into their memory?

When volunteers recalled something correctly, he would also sometimes tell them they were wrong. He would say, nope, that's not right, you got to do this again. Eventually, he became interested in both types of suggestibility. Can we cause people to change their memory by presenting misinformation embedded in questions. And then can we cause people to change their memory by giving them negative feedback? The answer to both questions was yes. The studies found that some people were more suggestible than others.

Children, for example, were easier to manipulate than adults. When interrogators ask leading questions, they may unintentionally change the memories of suspects and eyewitnesses. When detectives reject what a suspect or eyewitness says, they may think they are merely testing the veracity of the statements, but they might also be causing some people to develop inaccurate memories. We think that asking questions is a neutral activity, but in fact, the questions you ask can shape the answers you get. Another factor in false confessions, Saul cites a study by the psychologist Leonard Bigman, who found that when a stranger wearing

a uniform, barked instructions at people on the street, they immediately followed those instructions. And he found that people obeyed that order at high levels. This arbitrary order from a stranger when they were wearing a uniform at high levels. And it just goes to show something about blind obedience. One of the other ideas that you explore is that we are really dependent on social support. Can you talk about the idea that one of the ways in which many interrogations are constructed is to deprive us of these social supports and the social supports in fact are integral

to our maintaining our ability to function psychologically. Yes, it is the opening predicate of a police interrogation is to isolate the subject. Bring them in and put them in a room alone in our station and no friends, no family members, no phones, preferably in a soundproof room where they can't hear voices and phones out there so that they're feeling isolated and alone. My God, social psychologists, health psychologists know that people need people and that that need to belong and that need to affiliate, especially is true under stress. is true under stress. And that when people have social support present, they're able to tolerate more pain. Physiologically, they show levels of relaxation

while under stress. It's important for people to have that. And yet, when you look at what happens in the interrogation room, the first thing is you are isolated and you are away from the people you know. The other thing they don't get in an interrogation, police are characterizing the crime, they're characterizing the evidence.

They may be lying about the evidence. If you're alone in the room, you have no external checks on that reality. You can't turn to someone else and say, is that true? Do you know if that's true? And so you're not getting additional information. So you're lacking both the support that comes with people and the additional information that comes with people. Could you talk a moment about the role that sleep plays in false confession saw? You cite some really amazing statistics on the likelihood of false confessions, the longer a suspect has kept awake.

The average interrogation lasts about an hour or two. Pretty much captures 90 some percent of interrogations. When you look at the archives of wrongful convictions, where time records are kept, and I emphasize that because often time records are not kept, and I emphasize that because oftentimes records are not kept. The length of interrogation is six hours, eight hours, ten hours, twelve hours, an average of sixteen hours, sometimes up to twenty-four and more. False confessions happen over time. Partly, that is a function of sleep deprivation and deprivation of other needs states, but there are no time limits set on an interrogation in the United States. And what happens over time is a person becomes deprived of food, sleep, sometimes bathroom

breaks. Certainly, they are deprived of social support, as we talked about earlier, which is in some ways as fundamental a need as anything else. And so what you find is that one proxy for a false confession, if you showed me a confession that lasted, the interrogation lasted 60 hours, right away I'd say that person was at some level of risk for that alone. Saul has come up with a number of experiments to see if he can induce false confessions and volunteers using only the kind of tricks and mild pressure that will be approved by university ethics committees.

In one study, he asks subjects to come into his lab and complete a task on a computer. Then the experimenter turns and says, turns to the subject, before you start typing, I should warn you. There's a problem with the hardware in this computer. Whatever you do, don't hit the alt key. If you hit the alt key, we may lose all our data, the computer will crash. So whatever you do, don't hit the alt key. Subjects says, I get it.

About a minute or two in, the experimenter erupts and says, oh my God, what just happened? Looks across the table at the subject and says, did you hit the alt key? The subject says, no, I never touched it. The experimenter insists on a confession. Here is where the experimental manipulation comes in. There is another person sitting in the room with a volunteer.

This person appears to be another volunteer, but is really at Confederate working for Saul. For some volunteers, selected at random, this person now pipes up and tells the volunteer, I saw you hit the alt key. So what happened was that in the presence of false evidence, when the Confederate said, I saw him or her hit that key, we got a substantial increase in the number of people who then falsely confessed and agreed to sign the paper to hitting the alt key.

Some sub-number of them also then internalize the belief. If this experiment showed how false evidence can produce false confessions, Saul is also studied the reverse. He is looked at how false confessions can taint the evidence. In one study, Saul had a volunteer sit in a room with another person. Again, the second person was a confeder Confederate, secretly working for Saul. The two people were divided by a screen. They could hear each other breathing and moving around. All of a sudden, the experimenter entered the room in a half and declared that money had been stolen from an adjacent room. She separated the two people and asked the volunteer in a

one-on-one conversation if the other person had ever left the room. Was she here the whole time? 90-some percent of the time they said, yeah, she was here the whole time. I would have seen her go out, you know, we were chatting away. The experimenter accepted this and left. Then she came back a short while later and said the other person had confessed to leaving the room

and taking the money. The confessed to leaving the room and taking the money. The experimenter asked the volunteer again, Are you sure she was here the whole time? And the subject now drops from being absolutely certain that this other person never left the room, too, I'm not so sure anymore. Now, more than 50% of them cannot vouch for her presence in the room with them, even though she was there breathing at the other side of this wall. They could no longer vouch for her presence because they heard that she had confessed.

And they didn't even get to see or read a compelling confession. They were simply given a second-hand account of the fact that she confessed. And that's what we've seen in actual cases. Once a false confession is out of the bag, it corrupts everything around it. It corrupts eyewitnesses, it corrupts, alibis, it corrupts, informants. It corrupts, believe it or not, forensic examiners,

forensic science examiners. When you look at wrongful convictions in the Innocence Project involving confessions, almost 80% of them contained one or more other errors in evidence, and almost invariably those other errors came after the confession. Disturbingly, Saul has found that private companies are taking a leaf out of the police interrogation

manual. Take the case of Joaquin Robles. He worked for AutoZone. He'd been there for a year. He was aspiring to become a manager. And one of the tasks he had was he would take money from the store. And when the bank truck came, he would deliver the money to the truck. And one day, $820 showed up missing.

And the AutoZone had a loss prevention manager. Loss prevention managers are folks in charge of a retail outfit, or, you know, whether it's Macy's or Walmart or AutoZone. And they're empowered to try and recover the loss from theft of money and merchandise. So in the middle of his work day, he was called in by the loss prevention manager and interrogated. So you know what, 820 dollars is missing? It looks like you did it. It looks like you took the money and Roblesight didn't do that and I wouldn't do it. The auto zone loss prevention manager interrogated Robeless for hours and then threatened to call the police.

And Robeless looked at the choices and he said, well, I don't really want to involve police. What do I have to do? And he wrote a confession, dictated to him in which he said, I took the $820. We had family debts to clear. I'm sorry. And he signs his name. And then he signs a promissory note in which he's agreeing to have

that money deducted from his paychecks to compensate auto zone. He signs it, the money is deducted, and he is promptly terminated. Couple of weeks later, turns out that the $820 was not lost, it was a clerical error, and no money was stolen. But it was too late, you'd already been terminated, his reputation had been tarnished. When Robless was asked, why did you agree to sign the confession and give the money? He said, quite simply, it was worth $820 to keep my job.

He figured it was going to keep a job. And so he signed the confession. What would you recommend in terms of ways to limit those, both in the criminal justice system, as well as in corporations? It also seems impractical to basically suggest that police can never use pressure or a manager can never make an employee feel uncomfortable, if in fact something horrendous has happened. What are your solutions to the problems of false confession so?

Well, for starters, those sessions should be fully recorded, so that you and I, a prosecutor and a judge and a jury, can watch it later and understand for ourselves how that came about. Two, it's not a question of the pressure that is felt. Some of the most benign interrogators, investigative interviewers in Europe, for example, they apply pressure to suspects. But here's the important part. They ask open-ended questions. They don't communicate information about the crime. You know, when I get a confession to look at, I'd like to know that all of the facts in that confession

originated with the confessor. And then I can evaluate with those facts accurate, with those facts not accurate. These are evidence-based techniques. And that's the goal right now. I mean, I think what I'm hearing from you, Saul, is really the importance of having investigators in police in some ways think a little more like scientists, which is when you're a scientist and you have a hypothesis, yes, you want the hypothesis to be true. But there also, the scientific method teaches you how to be skeptical of your own hypothesis.

And in fact, it goes to some lengths to try and prove your own hypothesis wrong. And this is, of course, difficult and painful to do because we're often successful in proving our hypotheses wrong. But in some ways, I think that's what I'm hearing you saying, which is that if you start with a very strong hypothesis and you start with a belief in your own infallibility, it becomes very hard to exercise this skepticism to say, I could be wrong.

I couldn't have put it better. You're absolutely right. Saul Casson is a psychologist at the John J College of Criminal Justice. He's the author of Doopt, why innocent people confess, and why we believe their confessions. So I'll thank you for joining me today on Hidden Brain. Shaka, you are very, very welcome. It's a pleasure. Hidden Brain is produced by Hidden Brain Media. Our audio production team includes Bridget McCarthy, Annie Murphy Paul, Kristen Wong, Laura Correll, Ryan Katz, Autumn Barnes, and Andrew Chadwick. Tara Boyle is our executive producer. I'm Hidden Brain's executive editor.

Our Ransang hero today is Harvard psychologist, Maserine Banaji. She introduced me to solve many years ago at a conference, and I became fascinated by his research. Thank you, Mas Mazarin, for pointing us in the direction of a great scholar. If you would like to help us build more stories like this, please act now. Visit support.hiddenbrain.org and show us you have our back. Again, that support.hiddenbrain.org. I'm Shankar Vidantam. See you soon.

you