gudjonsson etal 2004 the role of personality in relation to confessions and denials

THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY IN RELATION TOCONFESSIONS AND DENIALS

GISLI H. GUDJONSSONa*, JON FRIDRIK SIGURDSSONb

and EMIL EINARSSONb

aDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, LondonSE5 8AF, UK; bDepartment of Psychiatry, University Hospital, IS-101 Reykjavik, Iceland

(Received 30 May 2003; in final form 11 September 2003)

The main aim of the study was to replicate a previous study into personality factors associated withconfessions and denials. It was hypothesised that antisocial personality traits and active involvement incriminal behaviour would be associated with false confessions and false denials. The participants were 666university students in Iceland. Each was asked about false admissions made to teachers and parents in thepast, as well as about confessions or denials (true and false) made to the police during questioning. Theparticipants completed questionnaires relating to offending and personality. One-quarter (25%) of theparticipants stated that they had in the past been interrogated by the police in relation to a suspected offence,of whom 54% said they had confessed. The base rate of guilt in the study of those interrogated by the policewas 66%. Only two participants (1.2% of those interrogated) claimed to have made false confessions to thepolice, whereas 6.2% claimed to have made false confessions to teachers or parents at some time in their lives.False confessions to teachers and parents were significantly associated with antisocial personality traits and theextent and seriousness of self-reported delinquency. In conclusion, antisocial personality characteristics,impulsivity, and the extent and seriousness of self-reported delinquency were the most significant predictors ofwho had a past history of making false confessions to teachers and parents.

Keywords: Antisocial Personality Traits; Delinquency; Confessions; Denials; False Confessions; Interrogation

INTRODUCTION

When investigating crimes, one of the methods that the police have at their disposal is to

interview suspects in order to obtain a confession. When suspects confess to the crime of

which they are suspected, then their self-incriminating admissions are often used against

them in court (Gudjonsson, 2003). On occasions, denials, when shown to be false, can also be

used against defendants to prove their guilt in court (Leo, 1996).

In England about 60% of suspects confess to the police during interviewing, whereas in the

USA the rate is about 45% (Gudjonsson, 2003). What remains relatively unknown and

under-researched is the base rate of true confessions, false confessions, true denials and false

denials, respectively, among suspects and how these different outcomes relate to suspects’

personality. This four-group distinction about the outcome of a police interview was first

articulated in Gudjonsson’s (2003) book The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions. A

Handbook . The book shows how the focus of research on police interviewing has been

ISSN 1068-316X print/ISSN 1477-2744 online # 2004 Taylor & Francis Ltd

DOI: 10.1080/10683160310001634296

*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

Psychology, Crime & Law, June 2004, Vol. 10(2), pp. 125 �/135

125

mainly on confession rates and on the nature of false confessions. Little research has been

carried out into denials, true or false.

There are a number of models available to explain confessions. Gudjonsson (2003) reviews

six such models: ‘The Reid Model’ (Jayne, 1986); ‘A Decision-Making Model’ (Hilgendorf

and Irving, 1981); ‘Psychoanalytic Models’ (e.g. Reik, 1959); ‘An Interactional Model’

(Moston et al. , 1992); ‘A Cognitive�/Behavioural Model’ (Gudjonsson, 1989a); and ‘The

Ofshe�/Leo Model’ (Ofshe and Leo, 1997). Whereas the first four models focus principally

on the psychological factors behind true confession, the Cognitive�/Behavioural Model and

The Ofshe�/Leo Model are applicable to both true and false confessions.

Two further models are available, which are exclusively relevant to false confessions.

Firstly, the best-known model of false confessions is that of Kassin and Wrightsman (1985),

where false confessions are seen as falling into three psychological types: voluntary, coerced-

internalised and coerced-compliant. Recently, Gudjonsson (2003) proposed a modification

to the threefold typology of Kassin and Wrightsman, changing the word ‘coerced’ to

‘pressured’ and adding a category that indicates the source of pressure (i.e. internal,

custodial, and non-custodial).

Some important overlaps exist between the different models, although each makes

somewhat different assumptions about why suspects confess to the police during question-

ing. In broad terms, suspects confess when they perceive that there is strong evidence against

them, when they need to relieve feelings of guilt, when they cannot cope with the custodial

pressure, and focus on the immediate consequences of their actions rather than the long-term

ones. Although the suspect’s personality is considered important in some of the models in

producing confessions and denials, the nature of the specific vulnerabilities and traits are not

articulated, except in relation to suggestibility and compliance (Gudjonsson, 2003).

Compliance is theoretically most associated with the pressured-compliant type of false

confession and suggestibility in relation to the pressured-internalised type.

The research of Gudjonsson and Sigurdsson (1994) and Sigurdsson and Gudjonsson

(1996a) among Icelandic prisoners showed that 12% of the inmates claimed to have made a

false confession some time in their lives to the police. Among this sample, antisocial

personality characteristics, such as poor socialisation, and active participation in criminal

behaviour from a young age were good predictors of their reporting having made false

confessions (Sigurdsson and Gudjonsson, 2001). There is also a good reason to believe that

those who attempt to deny their true criminal involvement during interrogation are likely to

possess antisocial personality traits (Gudjonsson and Sigurdsson, 1999). Both types of

behaviour (i.e. a false confession and a false denial) involve suspects lying for some

instrumental gains (Gudjonsson et al ., 2004).

In a recent study of 1080 young college students (age 15�/25 years) in Iceland, Gudjonsson

et al . (2004) studied confessions and denials among 268 participants who reported that they

had been interrogated by the police on one or more occasion in their lives. The base rate of

guilt in the study among those interrogated was 67%, 59% claimed to have made a true

confession to the police, and 3.7% claimed to have made a false confession to the police. The

confession rate among those who were truly guilty of the offence was 81%, which means that

19% of guilty suspects denied the offence (i.e. they were false deniers). With regard to false

confessions, 10% claimed to have made a false confession to teachers or parents in the past.

False confessions and false denials were found to be significantly associated with antisocial

personality traits. Those participants who made true confessions and true denials were most

normal in their personality.

126 G. H. GUDJONSSON et al.

The purpose of the present study was to investigate differences in the personality and

offending behaviour of persons who made confessions or denials when interviewed by the

police, according to the four confession-denial categories listed above. Whereas previous

research has focused on police detainees (e.g. Moston et al ., 1992; Gudjonsson et al ., 1993),

or prison inmates (Gudjonsson and Sigurdsson, 1994; Sigurdsson and Gudjonsson, 1996a,b,

1997, 2001), the present study involved interviewing representative groups of college students

who are known, from our previous research (Gudjonsson and Sigurdsson, 2004), to have a

high level of self-reported offending and some involvement with the police. On the basis of

the literature (for a review of the literature see Gudjonsson, 2003), we hypothesised that

those persons who make false confessions to the police, as well as those who make denials of

offences they have committed (i.e. false deniers), are more likely than true confessors and

true deniers to: (a) be disordered in their personality (e.g. possessing antisocial personality

characteristics); and (b) have an extensive history of delinquency and offending. We also

hypothesised that persons with a history of making false confessions to parents and teachers

would be more antisocial in their personality than the other participants, and to be more

likely to make false confessions to the police.

The present study is a replication of the previous study, but it is carried out among

university students rather than a broad range of students in further education in Iceland.

This is an older and a better-educated group, whose offending, in contrast to college

students, is more strongly associated with serious traffic violation (e.g. driving whilst

intoxicated) rather than property offences and acts of violence (Gudjonsson and Sigurdsson,

2004).

In science, replication of research findings is important. In the present study replication is

particularly important, because in the original study several of the findings were stunning

and potentially of considerable theoretical and practical importance. This includes the high

rate of involvement of the college students with the police and in criminal activities, the

theoretical and practical implications of the distinctions between confessions and denials

(both true and false) and the respective base rates, and the significant relationship of false

confessions and false denials to antisocial personality characteristics.

METHODS

Participants

The participants were 666 university students in Iceland. There were 332 (49.8%) males and

329 (49.4%) females in the study (Information on gender was missing for further five (0.8%

of the participants)). The average age for the sample was 24.02 (range 19�/48, SD�/4.0).

Instruments

1. The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1975; Haraldsson and

Bjornsson, 1985)

This 101-item questionnaire, which has been translated into Icelandic and standardised

(Eysenck and Haraldsson, 1983) measures three main personality dimensions (Psychoticism

(a�/0.59), Extraversion (a�/0.84), Neuroticism (a�/0.80), and socially desirable response

set (Lie Scale; a�/0.74)).

PERSONALITY IN RELATION TO CONFESSIONS AND DENIALS 127

2. The Adult Impulsivity, Venturesomeness and Empathy Questionnaire (IVE; Eysenck and

Eysenck, 1991)

This is a 54-item questionnaire measuring three personality traits, impulsivity (a�/0.78),

venturesomeness (a�/0.81) and empathy (a�/0.70).

3. Gough Socialisation Scale (Gough, 1960; Megargee, 1972)

This 54-item scale is one of the best self-reported measures of proneness to anti-social

behaviour (Blackburn, 1993) and measures the extent to which individuals have internalised

the values of society. The lower the score the more likely the person is to possess antisocial

personality traits (a�/0.68).

4. Gudjonsson Compliance Scale (GCS; Gudjonsson, 1989b, 1997)

This is a 20-item scale that measures the propensity of the person to go uncritically along

with requests made by others, largely in order to please others or to avoid conflict and

confrontation. The GCS was developed for two different purposes. First, to identify persons

who are susceptible to making a false confession under interrogative pressure. Secondly, to

identify those who are susceptible to being pressured into crime by peers and others. It is the

second purpose of the GCS which is relevant to the present study (a�/0.71).

5. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965)

This 10-item scale consists of positive and negative self-appraisal statements rated on a four-

point scale ranging from ‘‘strongly agree’’ to ‘‘strongly disagree’’. Scores range from 10 to 40

with higher scores reflecting low self-esteem (a�/0.86).

6. Self-Reported Delinquency Scale (Mak, 1993)

This scale consists of 34 items that assesses various delinquent acts. These range from minor

antisocial acts (e.g. cheating games machines, truancy from school, drinking alcohol under

age in a public place, consuming soft drugs) to more serious acts (e.g. forcing somebody to

have sex against their will, using weapons in a fight, setting a fire to damage property,

physically assaulting somebody, theft, driving a vehicle whilst intoxicated). The participants

are asked to indicate whether they had engaged in any of the delinquent acts in the past 12

months and these make up nine offence domains or subscales. In the present study the nine

subscales were not used, because the primary purpose of the study was to focus on the extent

of delinquency as measured by the Total Offending Score (TOS) devised by Sankey and

Huon (1999). This is based on the seriousness rating of each of the scale’s 34 items by judges

from different backgrounds (i.e. police officers, teachers, lawyers, psychology students). The

mean seriousness score for each item is multiplied by the participant’s response to each item,

giving a range of scores from 0 to 474. In the present study, a Serious Offending Score (SOS)

was also calculated according to a formula devised Sankey and Huon (1999), by adding the

mean seriousness score for the seven most serious offences (i.e. beating others, weapon fight,

forced sex, drunk driving, fire setting, burglary, blackmail).

7. Background, Interrogation and Confession Questionnaire (BICQ)

The BICQ is a 19-item questionnaire developed specifically for the purpose of this type of

study, which provided background information about each participant, including age,

gender, substance abuse problems, false confessions made to teachers and parents, reasons

for the false confessions, times spent in a police cell over night, being interrogated by the


police about a suspected offence, the type of offence interrogated about, whether or not he or

she committed the offence, with whom the offence was committed, whether there was a

confession or a denial made, the main reasons for making a confessions or a denial, giving a

false confession to the police during questioning, the reasons for making a false confession,

and the reason why he or she was being questioned by the police in relation to the false

confession.

Procedure

Students taking a course in forensic psychology at the University of Iceland administered the

questionnaires as a part of their practical course work. The participants were approached

either individually or in small groups and asked to participate in a study that was concerned

with self-reported offending and its relationship with attitudes and personality. They were

told that their responses were anonymous and confidential.

The tests were administered in the following order: Mak Self-reported Delinquency Scale,

Background, interrogation and confession questionnaire, Gudjonsson Compliance Scale,

Gough Socialisation Scale, Eysenck IVE, EPQ, and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.

RESULTS

Offending and Type of Offence

According to the results of the Mak Self-Reported Delinquency Scale, out of the 666

university students, 645 (97%) reported that during the previous 1 year they had committed

at least one offence as listed within the scale. The mean Total Offending Scores for the males

and females were 42.9 (SD�/33.4) and 35.5 (SD�/23.5), respectively. This difference

between males and females was significant (t�/3.31, d.f.�/659, p B/0.001). The Serious

Offending Scores were 5.4 (SD�/10.4) and 3.5 (SD�/7.9) for males and females, respectively.

This difference was significant (t�/2.60, d.f.�/659, p B/0.01).

Interrogation and Confessions

Table 1 gives the frequencies with which the university students had been interviewed by the

police, the number who had confessed during questioning, the base rate of guilt during

questioning, and the number of participants interviewed who claimed that they had made

false confessions to the police at some time in their lives. The figures for the university

students in the left column are compared with those found in our previous study of the

college students (Gudjonsson et al ., 2004). The figures for those interrogated, those who

confessed, and the base rate of guilt, are very similar to those found in the previous study.

The false confession rates during interrogation were 1.2% vs 3.7% for the university and

college students, respectively. The only significant difference between the two samples related

to the higher false confession rates given by college students to parents and teachers (6.2% vs

10.4%).

Out of the total sample, 165 (24.8%) said they had been interrogated by the police on one

or more occasion in their lives. The interrogation figures for males and females were 108

(33%) and 57 (17%), respectively. The gender difference is highly significant (x2�/20.61,

d.f.�/1, p B/0.001). The great majority of the participants (n�/102, 64%) said they had only


been interrogated once, 35 (22%) twice, 22 (13%) more than twice, and seven did not state

how often they had been interrogated by the police.

The most common types of offence for which the participants had been interrogated by the

police were: serious traffic violation (41%); property offences (22%); criminal damage (17%);

drug-related offences (5%); and violent offences (4%). The majority (61) said they had

committed the offence in the company of others.

The confession rate for the 165 persons interrogated was 53.7% (n�/88), with the

corresponding confession figures for males and females being 64 (59%) and 24 (43%),

respectively. There were significant gender differences with regard to whether or not the

person made a confession during interrogation (x2�/3.21, d.f.�/1, p B/0.05).

The base rate of guilt for those interviewed by the police was 66.3% (n�/110). The figures

for males and females were 69% (n�/75) and 61% (n�/35) for males and females,

respectively. This difference was not significant (x2�/0.92, d.f.�/1, NS).

The rate of confession was 86 out of 110 (78%) for the participants who said they had

committed the offence; the corresponding figures for males and females were 85% (64 out of

75) and 69% and (24 out of 35), respectively. The gender difference is significant (x2�/4.21,

d.f.�/p B/0.05).

In the present study only two participants who had been interrogated by the police claimed

that they had made a false confession, one was male and one was female.

Differences in Personality Between the Confessors and Deniers

Table 2 gives the mean and standard deviation test scores for the true deniers, true

confessors, and false deniers. As there were only two false confessors in the study their mean

scores were left out of the table. One-way ANOVA showed significant differences on two of

the test scores: Venturesomeness (F�/6.0, d.f.�/2, p B/0.01), and Mak Total Offending Score

(F�/3.2, d.f.�/2, p B/0.05). With regard to the Venturesomeness score, the significant

difference lies between the true confessors and true deniers (ScheffeB/0.01), whereas for the

TABLE 1 Differences between university and college students in relation to interrogation, base rate of guiltand confessions.

Universitystudents

Collegestudents$

x2 Combinedfrequencies

Interrogated by police: Yes 165 (24.8%) 268 (24.8%) 0.00 433 (24.8%)No 500 (75.2%) 812 (75.2%) 1312 (75.2%)

Confessed to police: Yes 88 (53.7%) 154 (57.5%) 0.60 242 (56.0%)No 76 (46.3%) 114 (42.5%) 190 (44.0%)

Said truly guilty of offence: Yes 110 (66.3%) 180 (67.2%) 0.01 290 (66.8%)No 56 (33.7%) 88 (32.8%) 144 (33.2%)

False confession to police: Yes 2 (1.2%) 10 (3.7%) 1.56 12 (2.8%)No 163 (98.8%) 258 (96.3) 421 (97.2%)

False confession to parents/teachers: Yes 41 (6.2%) 112 (10.4%) 153 (8.8%)No 624 (93.8%) 968 (89.6%) 9.10* 1592 (91.2%)

*p B/0.001.$From Gudjonsson et al . (2004).


Mak Total Offending Score the significant difference was between true confessors and false

deniers (ScheffeB/0.05).

A discriminant function analysis of all the test scores between true deniers and false

deniers showed that one of the test scores, the Mak Total Offending Score, discriminated

significantly between the two groups (Wilks’ lambda�/0.918; F (1,88)�/7.82, p B/0.001).

This suggests that those respondents who were most actively involved in offending had the

greatest tendency to deny their offence.

False Confessions to Teachers and Parents

When asked about past false confessions to wrongdoings (e.g. theft, damage to property) to

teachers or parents, 41 (6.2%) claimed to have made such confessions. There was no

significant difference between the males and females (x2�/0.62, d.f.�/1, NS), with 23 (7%) of

the males and 18 (5%) of the females stating that they had made false confessions. When

asked about the reasons for having made the false confession, 24 (59%) said they had done it

to protect somebody else; the rest said that they could no longer recall the reason (29%) or

blamed it on pressure from others (12%).

In order to investigate the personality factors that are associated with making a false

admission to teachers or parents, the two groups (i.e. those who had made admissions versus

those who had not) were compared on the psychometric tests. The results are shown in Table

3. There were significant differences between the two groups on most of the tests, including

the EPQ (Psychoticism, Extraversion), the IVE (Impulsivity, Venturesomeness), the Gough

Socialisation Scale, and the Mak Self-Reported Delinquency Scale (Total Offending Score,

Serious Offending Score). A discriminant function analysis of all the tests in Table 3 showed

that four of the tests discriminated significantly (Wilks’ lambda�/0.913; F (4,604)�/14.5,

p B/0.001) between the two groups. These were the Gough Socialisation Scale (Wilks’

TABLE 2 Mean scores on the psychological tests of true deniers, true confessors, and false deniers.

Psychological tests True deniersn�/51

Mean (SD)

True confessorsn�/87

Mean (SD)

False deniersn�/24

Mean (SD)

Eysenck Personality QuestionnairePsychoticism 2.3 (2.8) 2.4 (2.3) 2.3 (2.4)Extraversion 13.9 (4.6) 14.8 (4.0) 14.8 (3.9)Neuroticism 9.9 (5.1) 9.5 (4.9) 9.7 (3.7)Lie 8.3 (3.7) 8.3 (4.2) 7.3 (3.8)

Eysenck Impulsivity QuestionnaireImpulsivity 5.8 (3.7) 6.7 (3.9) 5.3 (3.9)Venturesomeness 9.4 (3.8) 11.4 (3.2) 10.0 (3.6)Empathy 13.3 (3.1) 13.7 (2.9) 14.0 (3.0)

Gough Socialisation Scale 34.2 (5.6) 33.4 (5.5) 33.7 (5.0)

Gudjonsson Compliance Scale 7.9 (3.5) 8.0 (2.9) 7.1 (3.3)

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale 15.8 (4.2) 16.0 (4.7) 15.1 (4.1)

Self-Reported Delinquency Scale:Total Offending Score 43.9 (33.7) 42.2 (31.6) 65.5 (72.7)Serious Offending Score 5.8 (9.4) 5.9 (10.7) 11.5 (20.3)


lambda�/0.931; F (1,604)�/14.5, p B/0.001), the Mak Total Offence Score (Wilks’ lambda�/

0.934; F (1,604)�/14.2, p B/0.001), Impulsivity (Wilks’ lambda�/0.923; F (1,604)�/7.4, p B/

0.01), and Mak Seriousness Score (Wilks’ lambda�/0.920; F (1,604)�/5.1, p B/0.05).

Therefore, antisocial personality characteristics, impulsivity, and the extent and seriousness

of self-reported delinquency were the most discriminating factors between the two groups.

DISCUSSION

The finding that almost 25% of the participants reported having been interrogated by the

police is identical to the figure found in our previous study among young college students

(Gudjonsson et al ., 2004). In addition, the confession rate obtained by the police, the base

rate of guilt, and the rate of false confession were similar for the two groups. What mainly

differentiated the two groups of students were the number of false confessions given to the

police and to teachers and parents; the rate of false confession to parents and teachers was

significantly lower among the university students. One likely explanation is that the

university students were less actively involved in criminal activities than the college students,

as well as being less antisocial in terms of their personality.

The relatively high rate of true deniers (i.e. one-third of those interrogated by the police) in

the present study emphasises the importance for the police not to ignore the fact that they

may be interviewing a reasonably high proportion of people who are actually innocent of the

crime of which they are suspected. This finding has important implications for police

practice.

TABLE 3 Differences between those who claimed to have admitted to something (to parents, teachers) thatthey had not done and others on the psychological tests.

Yesn�/41

Mean (SD)

Non�/624

Mean (SD)

t-value

Eysenck Personality QuestionnairePsychoticism 2.9 (2.3) 1.7 (1.8) 4.11***Extraversion 15.9 (3.7) 14.2 (4.2) 2.41*Neuroticism 11.3 (5.1) 10.1 (5.0) 1.34Lie 6.3 (3.7) 9.2 (4.0) �/4.38***

Eysenck Impulsivity QuestionnaireImpulsivity 8.7 (4.4) 5.4 (4.5) 5.56***Venturesomeness 10.8 (4.2) 9.6 (3.8) 1.89Empathy 14.1 (3.0) 14.0 (3.0) 0.08

Gough Socialisation Scale 31.8 (5.7) 36.4 (5.0) �/5.62***

Gudjonsson Compliance Scale 8.7 (3.9) 8.1 (3.1) 1.05

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale 17.8 (5.5) 16.1 (4.5) 2.26

Self-Reported Delinquency ScaleTotal Offending Score 61.5 (48.3) 37.7 (48.3) 5.20***Serious Offending Score 8.1 (13.1) 4.2 (8.9) 2.57**

*p B/0.05, **p B/0.01, ***p B/0.001.


The present findings provide further evidence that false confessions to wrongdoings to

teachers and parents, and to criminal acts during police interrogation do occur. In our prison

studies (Gudjonsson and Sigurdsson, 1994; Sigurdsson and Gudjonsson, 1996a) the reported

rate of false confession during police interrogation was 12%. In the present study the false

confession rate was 0.3% for the entire sample, but 1.2% for those who had been interrogated

by the police. The latter figure can be more meaningfully interpreted, because this gives the

percentage of suspects who confess during interrogation. The findings suggest that only a

small proportion of suspects make false confessions during questioning. In spite of this, the

figure is considerably higher than some writers suggest (e.g. Cassell and Hayman, 1998).

Interestingly, and perhaps not surprisingly, false denial was 15% in the present study and is

therefore much more frequent than false confessions.

Unlike in the previous study, males were no more likely than females to have made false

confessions to teachers and parents. In addition, females were significantly less likely than

males to confess to crimes of which they were guilty.

The explanation for the gender difference in relation to false confessions to the police is

likely to reflect the greater involvement of males than females in delinquency and criminal

acts. Support for this view is found in the studies of Gudjonsson and Sigurdsson (1994) and

Sigurdsson and Gudjonsson (1996a), where false confessions were more commonly found

among female than male prison inmates. This suggests that when females are as actively

involved in criminal behaviour as males they are more susceptible than males to make a false

confession. Females in both of the prison studies were particularly likely to confess falsely to

protect somebody else.

The findings on the reasons given for the false admissions to teachers and parents, and

false confessions to the police, show that the great majority of false confessions are given,

apparently voluntarily, by young people in order to protect somebody else.

From the point of personality testing, the findings are clear and consistent. Abnormal

personality traits, and particularly high EPQ Psychoticism and poor socialisation, are highly

predictive of who makes false confessions and false denials. In contrast, the two groups with

the most normal personality pattern, and the least self-reported history of offending, were

true confessors and true deniers. This appears to reflect the differences in the nature of the

groups (i.e. true confessions and true denials versus false confessions and false denials) and

their personality (i.e. antisocial personality traits), probably reflecting fundamental

differences in the groups’ attitudes towards truthfulness and lying. Although those

participants who reported having made false confessions were most disordered in their

personality, their personality traits, and extent of previous offending history, were consistent

with those of false deniers. Both groups appear to tell lies, whether making false confessions

or false denials, as a way of coping with a particular predicament. The implication is that

both groups may, given the right circumstances and perceived instrumental gains, alternate

between making false confessions and false denials. These are overlapping groups who are

prepared to lie to the police for their own ends. Whether there is a false confession or a false

denial probably depends on the circumstances and perceived gains at the time.

The findings in this community study corroborate those of Sigurdsson and Gudjonsson

(1996a, 1997, 2001) that giving false confessions during interrogations is significantly related

to antisocial personality characteristics and criminal lifestyle. It supports the view that the

great majority of false confessions, including those given to teachers and parents, are aimed

at protecting somebody else rather than resulting from external pressure and coercion. This

type of false confession is undoubtedly different from those coerced by the police and where


psychological vulnerabilities relating to low IQ, suggestibility, compliance and anxiety are of

considerable importance (Gudjonsson, 2003). The main differences between the present

community study and the previous prison studies relate to the relatively greater influence of

poor socialisation, as measured by the Gough Socialisation Scale, rather than EPQ

Psychoticism in the prison sample, and the absence of the influence of compliance, as

measured by the Gudjonsson Compliance Scale. Of course, one must take into account the

small number of alleged false confessors in the present study.

One important limitation to the study is that it is based on self-report data. There is no

independent corroboration available about the participants’ involvement with the police,

about their confessions or denials, or about the confessions they report making to teachers

and parents. In addition, the psychological tests administered are all based on self-report.

In future research it would be helpful to obtain copies of the participants’ criminal records

to verify their involvement with the criminal justice system.

References

Blackburn, R. (1993). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Theory, Research and Practice. Chichester: JohnWiley & Sons.

Cassell, P. G. and Hayman, B. S. (1998). Police interrogation in the 1990s: an empirical study of the effects ofMiranda. In R. A. Leo and G. C. Thomas III (Eds.), The Miranda Debate, Justice and Policing (pp. 222�/

235). Boston: Northeastern University Press.Eysenck, H. J. and Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. London:

Hodder and Stoughton.Eysenck, H. J. and Eysenck, S. B. G. (1991). Adult IVE . London: Hodder & Stoughton.Eysenck, S. B. G. and Haraldsson, E. (1983). National differences in personality: Iceland and England.

Psychological Reports , 53, 999�/1003.Gough, H. G. (1960). Theory and measurement of socialization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,

24, 23�/30.Gudjonsson, G. H. (1989a). The psychology of false confessions. The Medico-Legal Journal , 57, 93�/110.Gudjonsson, G. H. (1989b). Compliance in an interrogation situation: a new scale. Personality and Individual

Differences, 10, 535�/540.Gudjonsson, G. H. (1997). The Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales Manual . Hove: Psychology Press.Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions. A Handbook . Chichester: John

Wiley & Sons.Gudjonsson, G. H. and Sigurdsson, J. F. (1994). How frequently do false confessions occur? An empirical

study among prison inmates. Psychology. Crime & Law, 1, 21�/26.Gudjonsson, G. H. and Sigurdsson, J. F. (1999). The Gudjonsson Confession Questionnaire Revised (GCQ-

R): factor structure and its relationship with personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 953�/

968.Gudjonsson, G. H. and Sigurdsson, J. F. (2004). Motivation for offending and personality. Legal and

Criminological Psychology, 9(1), 69�/81.Gudjonsson, G. H., Clare, I. C. H., Rutter, S. and Pearse, J. (1993). Persons at Risk during Interviews in Police

Custody: the Identification of Vulnerabilities. Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. London: HMSO.Gudjonsson, G. H., Sigurdsson, J. F., Bragason, O. O., Einarsson, E. and Valdimarsdottir, E. (2004).

Confessions and denials and the relationship with personality. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 9(1),121�/133.

Haraldsson, E. and Bjornsson, J. K. (1985). Islensk stodlun personuleikaprofs Eysencks. FelagsvısindadeildHaskola Islands.

Hilgendorf, E. L. and Irving, B. (1981). A decision-making model of confessions. In M. A. Lloyd-Bostock(Ed.), Psychology in Legal Contexts. Applications and Limitations (pp. 67�/84). London: Macmillan Press.

Jayne, B. C. (1986). The psychological principles of criminal interrogation. An Appendix. In F. E. Inbau, J. E.Reid and J. P. Buckley (Eds.), Criminal Interrogation and Confessions, 3rd edn (pp. 327�/347). Baltimore:Williams and Williams.

Kassin, S. M. and Wrightsman, L. S. (1985). Confession evidence. In S. M. Kassin and L. S. Wrightsman(Eds.), The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedures (pp. 67�/94). London: Sage.

Leo, R. A. (1996). Inside the interrogation room. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 266�/303.Mak, A. S. (1993). A self-report delinquency scale for Australian adolescents. Australian Journal of

Psychology, 45, 107�/111.


Megargee, E. I. (1972). The California Psychological Inventory Handbook . London: Jossey-Boss.Moston, S., Stephenson, G. M. and Williamson, T. M. (1992). The effects of case characteristics on suspect

behaviour during questioning. British Journal of Criminology, 32, 23�/40.Ofshe, R. J. and Leo, R. A. (1997). The social psychology of police interrogation. The theory and classification

of true and false confessions, Studies in Law. Politics and Society, 16, 189�/251.Reik, T. (1959). The Compulsion to Confess: on the Psychoanalysis of Crime and Punishment . New York:

Farrar, Straus and Cudahy.Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the Adolescent Child . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Sankey, M. and Huon, G. F. (1999). Offence seriousness in adolescent delinquent behaviour. Legal and

Criminological Psychology, 4, 253�/264.Sigurdsson, J. F. and Gudjonsson, G. H. (1996a). The psychological characteristics of ‘false confessors’. A

study among Icelandic prison inmates and juvenile offenders. Personality and Individual Differences, 20,321�/329.

Sigurdsson, J. F. and Gudjonsson, G. H. (1996b). The relationship between types of claimed false confessionmade and the reasons why suspects confess to the police according to the Gudjonsson ConfessionQuestionnaire (GCQ). Legal and Criminological Psychology, 1, 259�/269.

Sigurdsson, J. F. and Gudjonsson, G. H. (1997). The criminal history of ‘false confessors’ and other prisoninmates. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 8, 447�/445.

Sigurdsson, J. F. and Gudjonsson, G. H. (2001). False confessions: the relative importance of psychological,criminological and substance abuse variables. Psychology, Crime & Law, 7, 275�/289.


Copyright of Psychology, Crime & Law is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

gudjonsson etal 2004 the role of personality in relation to confessions and denials

Documents