&gal and Criminological Pycholog (1996), 1, 259-269 Printed in Gnat Brituin 259

0 1996 T h e British Psychological Society

The relationship between types of claimed false

confession made and the reasons why suspects
confess to the police according to the
Gudjonsson Confession Questionnaire (GCQ)

Jon Fridrik Sigurdsson

The Prison and Pmbation Administration, Borgaartuni 7, IS- 150 Ry&avik, Iceland

Gisli H. Gudjonsson*
Dqartment of PsycboioD, Institute of Pgcbiatry, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hi14 London SE5 8&,
UK

The study investigates differences in the factor scores on the revised version of the
Gudjonsson Confession Questionnaire ( G C Q according to the type of claimed false
confession made to the police during interviewing. The GCQ was factor analysed on
404 prison inmates and six factors emerged from a varimax rotation, which were used
to study the perceptions and reactions of 61 inmates who claimed to have made a
false confession to the police sometime in their lives. Their false confession was
classified in two ways. Firstly, those who claimed to have made a false confession in
order to protect somebody else were compared on the GCQ factor scores with those
who claimed that they had confessed falsely for other reasons. Secondly, those
inmates who claimed that they had made a coerced-compliant type of false
confession were compared on the GCQ with those who had made a coerced-
internalized false confession. As predicted, significant differences emerged with regard
to the GCQ scores. The findings indicate that there is a significant relationship
between the type of claimed false confession made and the participants’ perceptions
of their police interview.

In recent years there has been a growing scientific interest in the nature of false
confessions made during a police interview (Gudjonsson, 1992, 1995; Gudjonsson &
MacKeith, 1990, 1994). Kassin & Wrightsman (1985) describe three types of false
confession which they refer to as voluntary, coerced-compliant and coerced-
internalized. Whereas the coerced-compliant type of false confession relates to
suspects giving in to police pressure for some instrumental gain (e.g. avoidtng further
interviews, pressure or custody), the coerced-internalized type refers to those suspects
who begm to believe that they committed the crime of which they are innocent.
Gudjonsson (1992) gives many case illustrations of the different types of false
confession according to the Kassin & Wrightsman theoretical framework and
emphasizes the importance of false confessions whtch result from the wish to protect
a significant other (e.g. a peer, a friend, a relative). This type of false confession is not
* Requests for reprints.
260 Jon Fridrik Skurdsson and Gisli H. Gudjonsson
adequately described by the Kassin & Wrightsman theoretical framework. Such a
confession may be typically voluntary, but it may sometimes be related to the coerced-
compliant type (Gudjonsson, 1992).
Sigurdsson & Gudjonsson (1996a) investigated the personality of 62 prison inmates
who claimed to have in the past made a false confession to the police during
interrogation. The claimed false confessors were significantly more personality
disordered, compliant and emotionally labile than the other prison inmates. The
reasons they gave for having made the false confession fell into two main groups,
which consisted of protecting somebody else and giving in to police and custodial
pressure. Those who claimed to have confessed falsely due to police and custodial
pressure could be subdivided into groups which correspond to the coerced-compliant
and coerced-internalized types.
The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relationship between the
different types of claimed false confession and scores obtained on the revised version
of the Gudjonsson Confession Questionnaire ( G C Q (Sigurdsson & Gudjonsson,
1994). The GCQ consists of a number of questions that relate to the reasons
participants give for having confessed to the police and their attitude towards the
confession. It was constructed to assess cases where participants had confessed to
crimes they claimed to have committed. However, the questionnaire can also be used
to study the perceptions and reactions of Participants in relation to alleged false
confession. This is the first study to do so.
Studies conducted into the GCQ have consistently shown that there are three main
reasons why suspects confess to the police to crimes they have committed
(Gudjonsson & Petursson, 1991; Gudjonsson & Bownes, 1992; Sigurdsson &
Gudjonsson, 1994). These are referred to as externalpressure,internalpressure and perception
ofproof: There was also an inbibitoty factor found which made the participants reluctant
to confess to the crimes they had committed. In the present study a revised version
of the GCQ was used to investigate the participants’ perceptions and reactions to the
police interview. A previous factor analysis of the revised questionnaire revealed two
further factors, referred to as dmg intoxiation and alcobof, respectively (Sigurdsson &
Gudjonsson, 1994).
It was hypothesized that those participants who claimed to have confessed falsely
in order to protect somebody else would score lower than the other claimed false
confessors on the GCQ external pressure factor and would report lower resistance to
police pressure, because their claimed false confession was largely voluntary and would
therefore not require much external pressure in order to be elicited. In addition, those
who said that they had been protecting somebody else were found to have high
drug-dependency problems (Sigurdsson & Gudjonsson, 19966) and it was therefore
expected that they would score higher than other claimed false confessors on the dmg
intoxiation factor.
It was hypothesized that the coerced-internalized claimed false confessors would
score higher on the internal pressure and dmg intoxiation factors than the coerced-
compliant false confessors. Believing that one had committed the crime, even if one
had not done so, would theoretically result in increased internal pressure to confess.
In addition, being under the influence of drugs or experiencing drug withdrawal during
the police interview makes some suspects feel confused (Sigurdsson & Gudjonsson,
 Claimedfalse confessions 261

1994) whch may predispose them to malung a coerced-internalized false confession

(Gudjonsson, 1992).
The present study also compared the GCQ scores of the claimed false confessors
as a group with their scores for a separate offence where no false confession had been
made. It was expected that the GCQ scores for the three primary factors, external
pressure, internalpressure and perception ofprod would differ sigmficantly between the two
police interviews. That is, there would be more externalpressure in relation to the offence
they claimed not to have committed and lower internal pressure and perception ofproof:

Method
Participants
The study comprised 507 prison inmates, which included 465 men (92 per cent) and 42 women (8 per
cent). A further 19 inmates (4 per cent) refused to cooperate with the study and two participants were
excluded because of their poor mental state. The mean age of the total sample was 30.8 years (SD = 9.6).
The inmates were serving a prison sentence for various imprisonable offences. There were no remand
prisoners in the study. Of the 507 inmates, 62 (12 per cent) claimed that they had made a false confession
to the police sometime in their lives.

Instruments
AU participants completed the revised version of the Gudjonsson Confession Questionnaire (GCQ),
which was used by Sigurdsson & Gudjonsson (1994). The revised GCQ consists of 52 items, with each
item being rated on a seven-point Likert scale. The lower end of the scale is labelled ‘Not at all’ (scores
1 and 2) and the upper end as ‘Very much so’ (scores 6 and 7 ,with the label ‘Somewhat’ indicating a
range of in-between scores (scores 3, 4 and 5).

Procedure
New admissions to the Icelandic prisons were asked to participate in the study. Except for two inmates,
they were tested within 10 days of admission to one of the five prisons in Iceland. After explaining the
purpose of the study, each prisoner was asked a number of questions, which included questions aimed
to establish if they have ever made a false confession to the police. The classification of false confession
in the present study is dependent on the self-report of the prison inmates.
The inmates completed the GCQ in relation to the offence for which they were serving a prison
sentence. Those inmates who claimed that they had made a false confession sometime in their lives also
completed the GCQ for the interrogation about the offence they claimed to have confessed falsely to.
The participants were interviewed individuallyand in private where the questionnaires were administered.
Only five (8 per cent) of the 62 claimed false confessors reported having made a false confession concerning
the offence for which they were currently serving a prison sentence. Each of the false confessors was asked
to provide a detailed account of the alleged false confession, which was recorded verbatim.
All participants were told that the information they provided would be confidential and anonymous. It was
made clear to them that the assessment would not influence in any way their status within the prison system.

Results
Factor anabsis of the GCQ
The GCQ was factor analysed on a sample of 404 prison inmates, who completed the
questionnaire for the offence they were currently imprisoned for. Two of the questions
262 Jon Fridrik S&urdrson and Gisli H. Gudjonsson
relating to co-defendants and the presence of a solicitor during the police interviews
had to be left out of the factor analysis because they were only filled in by a small
minority of participants (they were asked to ignore the questions if they did not apply
to their case). The contents of the remaining 50 questions are shown in Appendur 1.
The factor analysis of the GCQ included 61 of the claimed false confessors who are
participants in this study. It revealed 12 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, but a
Scree test m e , 1994) suggested that six factors should be selected for rotation. The
varimax loadings on these six factors, which accounted for 43 per cent of the variance,
are shown in Appendix 1. Only loadings equal or above .40 were used to make up the
factor scores for each participant. The six factors we found are referred to as:
(1) Externa/pressure, which consists of 12 items and refers to perceived pressure from
the police or fear of custody (e.g. ‘Did you confess because you were frightened of
the police?’, ‘Did you confess because you were frightened of being locked up?’) and
regret of having confessed (e.g. ‘Do you now regret having confessed?’).
(2) Interna/pressure, which contains 11 items related to the need of the suspect to
confess as a way of relieving distress, shame, gudt or loneliness (e.g. ‘Did you find it
difficult to confess because you were ashamed about having committed the offence?’,
‘Did you confess because you felt gudty about the offence?’, ‘Did you experience a
sense of relief after confessing?’,‘Did you confess because you felt isolated from family
and friends?’).
(3) Perception ofpmoj which contained six items related to the police being able to
prove the suspect’s gudt (e.g. ‘Did you confess because you were apprehended
committing the offence?’, ‘Did you believe that there was no point in denying it?’).
(4) Drug intoxiahon, which contained six items relating to drug intoxication or
withdrawal symptoms during the police interviews or at the time of the offence (e.g.
Were you under the influence of other intoxicating substances [other than alcohol]
during the police interview?’) and the protection of a co-defendant (e.g. ‘Did you
confess to protect somebody else?’).
(5) Legal rights, which contained three items related to the explaining and
understanding of the suspects’ rights during interrogations (e.g. Were your rights
explained to YOU?’, ‘Did you at the time understand what your rights were?’).
(6) Resistance, which contained six items related to the denial and unwillingness to
confess to the police (e.g. ‘Did you first deny having committed the offence?’, Were
you initially very unurllling to confess?’).
The first three factors, external pressure, internal pressure and perception of pmoj are
facilitative factors in the sense that they increase the likelihood that suspects wdl
confess. The resistance factors, in contrast, make it difficult for suspects to confess. The
drug intoxiahon factor makes the confession more complicated, because of drug
intoxication and the involvement of another person the suspect is protecting by
confessing to the police (Sigurdsson 8c Gudjonsson, 1994).

Thefactor scores
Differences between groups were analysed by the use of t tests for independent
samples in order to test the hypotheses formulated in the introduction. We are aware
that the use of multiple t tests increases the likelihood of significant findings occurring
 Claimedfalse confessions 263
Table 1. t tests between the claimed false confessors who said that they had been
protecting someone else and the other claimed false confessors on the GCQ factors

Protectingb Not protecting

Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
(N=21) (N=28) t value
Factor 1: External pressure' 2.3 (0.9) 5.0 (1.4) - 7.84**
Factor 2: Internal pressure 1.8 (0.5) 2.3 (1.0) - 2.1 5*
Factor 3: Perception of proof 2.2 (0.9) 3.5 (0.9) - 4.93**
Factor 4 Drug intoxication' 3.7 (1.3) 2.3 (1.2) 3.84**
Factor 5: Legal rights 5.2 (2.0) 4.1 (2.2) 1.68
Factor 6: Resistance' 1.8 (0.8) 4.2 (1.3) - 7.18**

*p<.OS;p<.OOl.
'One-tailed test.
bSevencases of protecting somebody else also included alleged police coercion. These were excluded from
the analysis.

Table 2. t tests between the coerced-compliant and the coerced-internahzed claimed

false confessors on the GCQ factors

Coercedxompliant Coerced-internalized
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
(N=18) (N=9) t value
Factor 1: External pressure 5.1 (1.2) 4.9 (1.6) 0.27
Factor 2: Internal pressure' 2.0 (0.4) 2.9 (1.5) - 2.43*
Factor 3: Perception of proof 3.4 (0.9) 3.9 (1.0) - 1.26
Factor 4 Drug intoxication' 1.9 (1.0) 3.0 (1.6) - 2.25*
Factor 5: Legal rights 3.7 (2.2) 5.2 (2.2) -1.72
Factor 6: Resistance' 4.3 (1.0) 4.2 (1.6) 0.22
*p< .05.
"One-tailed test.

by chance. This can be a problem when several t values are of marginal significance.
In the present study most of the tvalues were well above the minimum .05 significance
level.
Table 1 describes the difference in mean scores on the six factors of the GCQ
between those participants who claimed that they had confessed falsely in order to
protect somebody else and those who had not. Those who claimed to have confessed
falsely to protect somebody else scored significantly lower on external pressure, internal
pressure, perception o f proof and resistance, and higher on dmg intoxication.
Table 2 describes the difference between the coerced-compliant and the coerced-
internalized false confessors. The coerced-compliant false confessors scored
significantly lower on internalpressure and dmg intoxication.
Table 3 compares the GCQ scores of 51 false confessors who completed the GCQ
for the interrogations about the offence they claimed not to have committed and the
264 Jon Fndnk Sigurdsson and Gisli H. Gudionsson
Table 3. t tests (dependent samples) between the claimed false confessors on the GCQ
factor scores for the offence they claimed not to have committed and the current
offence (N= 51)

Claimed false confessors (N=51 9

Claimed false offence Current offence
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) t value
Factor 1: External pressure' 4.0 (1.8) 3.3 (1.6) --2.25"
Factor 2 Internal pressure' 2.1 (0.8) 2.9 (1.3) 3.97**
Factor 3: Perception of proof' 3.0 (1.1) 4.6 (1.5) 7.44**
Factor 4 Drug intoxication 3.0 (1.5) 3.3 (1.5) 1.41
Factor 5: Legal rights 4.6 (2.2) 5.3 (2.0) 2.01*
Factor 6: Resistance 3.2 (1.5) 3.2 (1.6) 0.01
*p<.O5;p<.OOl.
"One-tailed test.
participant did not fill in the GCQ at all, five participants did not fill in the GCQ for the offence
they claimed not to have committed, and five participants were excluded, because the current offence was
the offence they claimed not to have committed.

offence they were serving prison sentence for at the time of testing. Six participants
did not fill in the GCQ for the offence they claimed not to have committed, and five
participants were excluded, because the current offence was the offence they claimed
not to have committed. The scores for the claimed false confession were significantly
higher on external pressure and lower on internalpressure and perception ofproof:

Discussion
The factor analysis of the revised version of the GCQ supports convincingly the
results of previous studies using the questionnaire to investigate the reasons people
give for having made a confession to the police (Gudjonsson & Petursson, 1991;
.Gudjonsson & Bownes, 1992; Sigurdsson & Gudjonsson, 1994). The first three factors
have consistently been found in previous studies. These are referred to as external
pressure, which relates to police pressure and fear during the interrogations and regret
of having confessed; internal pressure, which relates to feelings of gult during the
interrogation and the need to confess; and perception ofpro0f; which relates to the
participants' perceptions of the evidence against them.
This study also revealed a drug intoxication factor, which relates to the participant's
drug intoxication during the police interviews and at the time of the offence; a legal
rights factor, which relates to the understanding of the participant's legal rights during
the interrogations; and a resistance factor, which relates to the participant's perceived
resistance to confess during the police interrogation.
In this study we used the mean factor scores of the revised version of the GCQ to
investigate the reasons the claimed false confessors gave for having confessed falsely
to the police and how they perceived the police interviews. It is the first study to use
 Claimedfalse confessions 265

the G C Q to investigate suspects’ perceptions and reactions to police interrogations

where they claim that they have made a false confession. The hypotheses tested were
all supported.
The most striking difference in the mean factor scores on the G C Q was between
the participants who claimed to have confessed falsely in order to protect somebody
else and the other claimed false confessors. As was hypothesized those who said that
they had been protecting somebody else scored significantly lower on the external
pressure factor, which suggests that they experienced less police pressure during the
interrogations and reported less regret for having made the claimed false confession
to the police. They were also less inhibited about confessing to the police, which is
consistent with the nature of t h s type of false confession.
Scoring significantly hgher on the dmg intoxkatioon factor is not surprising for this
group of claimed false confessors, as this factor consists of items about protecting
somebody else and drug intoxication at the time of offendmg and during the
interrogations. These participants claimed to have voluntarily made the false
confession to the police in order to protect somebody else. They also seem to be
particularly drug dependent according to Sigurdsson & Gudjonsson (19966), who
found, studying this same group of claimed false confessors, that the drug dependent
participants were particularly likely to have confessed falsely in order to protect
someone else, but how this affected their behaviour during the police interviews is
difficult to say. Being under the influence of drugs, or feeling bad because of
withdrawal symptoms, could have made them confused and unreahstic in their
reactions to the police accusations and may partly explain their motivation to falsely
incriminate themselves.
The number of participants in the study who could be grouped into coerced-
compliant and coerced-internahzed types of claimed false confession was very small,
but revealed a significant difference on two factors, the internal pressure, and dmg
intoxication.As was expected, the coerced-internalized false confessors had experienced
significantly greater internal pressure in the form of remorse and loneliness during the
police interviews. This relates to their coming to believe during the interrogation that
they had committed the offence they were suspected of. What is also important is that
these participants seem to have been significantly more under the influence of drugs
than those who complied with expectations of the police for some instrumental gain,
both during the police interviews and at the time of the offence, thus scoring higher
on the dmg intoxication factor. Again the influence of drugs can be an important factor.
Being heavily intoxicated, at the time of the offence and during the police interviews,
together with greater suggestibility of these internalized subjects (Sigurdsson &
Gudjonsson, 1996b), could explain why they came to believe, during the police
interviews, that they had committed the crime they were suspected of.
Interestingly, when comparing the confessors with themselves, i.e. their factor
scores regarding the offence they claimed not to have committed compared with the
factor scores for the current offence, we see that they reported having experienced
much more police pressure during the interrogations for the offence they claimed not
to have committed as well as much less internal pressure. The implication is that
claimed false confession is predominantly associated with police pressure, although this
of course depends on the nature of the false confession.
266 Jon Ftidtik Sigurdrson and Gisli H. Gudjonsson

The results suggest that the revised version of the GCQ used in this study is a useful
instrument for studying the reasons why people confess falsely to the police and how
they perceive and react to the police interview. The results indicate that there is a
significant dlfference between the various subgroups of claimed false confessors. This
suggests that people who make a false confession to the police do so for a variety of
dlfferent reasons.

References
Gudjonsson, G. H. (1992). The Pycbohgy of Zntenugations, Conjssions and Testimoy. Chichester: Wiley.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (1995). ‘I’ll help you boys as much as I can’-How eagerness to please can result in
a false confession. Journal ofForensic Pycbiahy, 6, 333-342.
Gudjonsson, G. H. & Bownes, I. (1992). The reasons why suspects confess during custodial interrogation:
Data for Northern Ireland. Medcine, &en& and tbe Law: 32, 204-212.
Gudjonsson, G. H. & Petursson, H. (1991). Custodial interrogation: Why do suspects confess and how
does it relate to their crime, attitude and personality? Persona& and Indvidual Dflmnces, 12, 295-306.
Gudjonsson, G. H. & MacKeith, J. A. C. (1990). A proven case of false confession: Psychological aspects
of the coerced-compliant type. Medcine, Science and the Law, 30, 329-335.
Gudjonsson, G. H. & MacKeith, J. (1994). Learning disability and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act
1984. Protection during investigative interviewing A video-recorded false confession to double murder.
Journal of Forensic Pycbiahy, 5, 35-49.
Kassin, S. M. & Wrightsman, L. S. (1985). Confession evidence. In S. M. Kassin & L. S. Wrightsman
(Eds), 7be Pycbohgy of Evidence and Trial Procedure, pp. 67-94. London: Sage.
Kline, P. (1994). An E q Guide to FactorAna4si.r. London: Routledge.
Sigurdsson,J. F. & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1994). Alcohol and drug intoxication during police interrogation
and the reasons why suspects confess to the police. A&&m, 89, 985-997.
Sigurdsson,J. F. & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1996~).The psychological characteristics of ‘false confessors’. A
study among Icelandic prison inmates and juvenile offenders. Personalig and Individual Dfferences, 20,
321-329.
Sigurdsson,J. F. & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1996b). Illicit drug use among ‘false confessors’: A study among
Icelandic prison inmates. Nordic Journal of Pycbiahy.

Received 1 December 1995; revised version received 22 April 1996

ndix 1: Factor loadlngs (varimax rotation) of the revised Gudjonsson Confession Questionnaire o n the first six factorsa

on Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor bb

id you think that after confessing you would be allowed to go
me? .05 .05 .ll - .43
- .06 -.lo
id you confess because you felt guilty about the offence? -.13 .61 - .13 - .oo .04 - .33
-
id you believe there was no point denying it? -.11 .08 .13 - .23 .21 - .27
id you feel you wznted to get if off your chest? -.lo .66
- - .21 .06 .12 -.16
id you think you might get a lighter sentence if you confessed? .14 .35 -.13 - .06 .07 .03
id you think the police would eventually prove you did it? - .20 .22 .31 .19 .03 .06
id you confess because of police pressure during the interview? .53 .15 - .02 .10 --.lo .48
-
-
ould you have confessed to the police if they had not suspected
u of the crime? - .08 .30 - .41
- - .03 .06 Q
id you think it was in your own interest to confess? -.12 .27 .04 -.16 .28 --38
- .31 $.
id you confess to protect somebody else? .11 .01 -.11 .54 .07 .27
B
-
e you now pleased that you confessed? - .59
- .36 - .oo .03 .21 -.08 23
o you think you would have confessed if at the time you had
lly realized the consequences of doing so? - .63
- .08 .03 - .02 .15 -.18 3a
id you experience a sense of relief after confessing? - .30 .60
- -.16 .18 .15 -.14 5.
d you confess because you were afraid about what would P
ppen if you did not confess? .49
- .27 - .03 .ll .05 .13
ere you initially very unwilling to confess? .29 - .01 - .03 .15 .03 .63
-
o you think you confessed too readily or hastily? .62
- .06 - .06 .18 .oo .20
o you feel the police bullied you into confessing? .52
- .06 - .04 .05 -.17 .38
d you feel tense or nervous whilst being interviewed by the
lice? .22 .46
- .13 .02 -.17 .05
ere your rights explained to you? - .04 .08 .05 - .05 -.68 - .08
d you at the time understand what your rights were? -.13 - .07 .00 - .07 -.78 - .05
d you understand the Police Caution? -.12 - .04 .03 - .09 -.76 .02
d you confess because you were frightened of being locked up? -.55 .32 .08 .09 - .05 .16
d you become confused during the police interviews? .35 .19 .37 .38 - .20 - .02
d you feel you confessed because you did not cope well with the h,
lice interviews? .62
- .23 .08 .08 -.16 .16 2
 N
dix 1: Continued a
00

on Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6*

d thoughts of (or talks with) your family and friends make it

re difficult for you to confess? .29 .36 - .03 .01 - .01 .26
you now regret having confessed? .76
- -.11 - .06 .08 .02 .06
d you at first deny having committed the offence? .14 .02 - .06 .19 - .02 .72
-
d the thought that you might be viewed by others as a ‘criminal’
ke you less willing to confess? .15 .59 - -.14 .25
- .oo - .03
29
d you confess because you had the need to talk to somebody? .04 .42
- - .31 .28 -.lo -.18 3.
d you confess because at the time you felt you needed help? .08 .53
- -.12 .37 - .02 -.17 $
d you find it difficult to confess because you did not want others
know what you had done? .19 .66
- .ll
d you find it difficult to confess because you did not want to
cept what you had done? .13 .67
- .21
d you confess because the police persuaded you it was the right
ing to do? .46
- .34 .10 .04 - .09 .29
d you confess because you were frightened of the police? .54
- .25 .01 .01 - .30 -.02 p
d you confess because you saw no point in denying at the time? .12 .03 .50
- - .01 .05 .28
d you confess because at the time you believed the police would z
at you up if you did not confess? .40
- .06 - .04 .26 - .24 -.16
d you exaggerate your involvement in the offence? .35 - .09 -.19 .I7 .07 -.06
Q
3
d you find it difficult to confess because you were ashamed a
out having committed the offence? .09 .70
- .18 -.13 -.lo .07 5
d you confess because you felt isolated from farmly and friends? .37 .42
- - .05 .25 -.11 .ll
d you find it difficult to confess because you wanted to avoid
e consequences (e.g. be sentenced, go to prison)? .28 .33 .15 - .02 -.11 .52
-
d you minimize your involvement in the offence when
erviewed by the police? .08 - .02 - .02 .24 - .08 .43
-
d you confess because you were apprehended committing the
fence? - .15 -.12 .64
- .03 .02 - .04
d you confess because it was obvious that you had committed
e offence? - .33 .07 .53
- .05 .09 .08
ndix 1: Continued
~~

ion Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor bb

id you find it difficult to confess because you wanted to cover up
e offence in order to protect a co-defendant? .18 - .02 -.lo .54
- .03 .38
id you confess because your co-defendant implicated you? .09 -.11 - .21 .20 - .06 .52
-
ere you under the influence of alcohol during the police
terview? .I0 - .03 .59 .09 - .02 - .22
-
ere you under the influence of other intoxicating substances
uring the police interview? .15 - .09 .19 .65
- - .22 .09
id you experience withdrawal symptoms during the police
terview? .21 .ll .38 .49
- .01 .03 q
ere you under the influence of alcohol when you committed the k
ffence? - .oo .13 .59 .10 .I1 -.27
-
ere you under the influence of other intoxicating substances b
uring the offence? .01 - .03 .12 .68
- -.15 .19 5
a
gs > .40 underlined. $+
r 1: external pressure, factor 2: internal pressure, factor 3: perception of proof, factor 4 drug intoxication, factor 5: legal rights, factor 6: resistance.
s.
F