Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling

J. Investig. Psych. Offender Profil. 5: 79–91 (2008)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jip.83

Interviewing a Psychopathic Suspect

JEREMY QUAYLE*
National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA), Hook, Hampshire, UK

Abstract
Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterised by affective, interpersonal, antisocial,
and lifestyle elements. Studies of the association between psychopathy (e.g. as operation-
alised in the Psychopathy Checklist—Revised) and criminal behaviour suggest that police
interviewers and interview advisors would benefit from an understanding of how psycho-
pathic suspects are likely to behave during investigative interviews. Approaches to the
identification of psychopathic characteristics in suspects are considered with reference to
the P-Scan screening tool and possible indicators of psychopathic characteristics in
serious offences. Psychopathic characteristics that are likely to impact upon interview
behaviour are outlined in order to suggest how the effects of these may be anticipated,
and how strategies may be employed to maximise an interviewee’s productive participa-
tion in the interview and to minimise the interviewee’s tendency to disrupt, distort, or
control the interview process. The manner in which psychopathic individuals attempt to
deceive others and how a psychopathic suspect’s lies might be identified are discussed.
Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Key words: psychopathy investigative suspect interviewing

In his highly influential clinical profile, Cleckley (1976) described the prototypical psy-
chopathic individual as superficially charming and intelligent, yet unreliable, dishonest,
insincere, manipulative, and egocentric. The psychopathic individual is sexually promiscu-
ous, does not experience love or empathy, and does not form lasting attachments to other
people or principles. The psychopathic individual exhibits ‘inadequately motivated anti-
social behaviour’ (i.e. antisocial behaviour that has no obvious motivation, such as mate-
rial gain or influence), shows a blatant lack of shame or remorse for harm done to others,
and fails to learn from experiences. Studies have shown that psychopathic individuals are
responsible for a disproportionate amount of serious, repetitive crime and violence. For
example, whilst Neumann and Hare (2008) estimate that the base rate of psychopathy in
the general population to be around 1%, between 12.1% and 40% of rapists (depending
upon the level of risk of the sample) would satisfy the criteria for a diagnosis of psy-
chopathy (Brown & Forth, 1997; Prentky & Knight, 1991; Serin, Mailloux, & Malcolm,

*Correspondence to: Jeremy Quayle, NPIA, Bramshill, Hook, Hampshire, RG27 OJW, UK.
E-mail: Jeremy.Quayle@npia.pnn.police.uk

Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

80 J. Quayle

2001). Psychopathic individuals begin offending at an early age (Vitelli, 1999), are more
criminally active throughout their lives than other offenders (e.g. Harpur & Hare, 1994),
are more criminally versatile (Simourd, 1997), and present a greater risk of criminal
recidivism (see Douglas, Vincent, & Edens, 2006, for a review). The psychopathy literature
strongly suggests that it will often be necessary for police detectives to interview suspects
with psychopathic characteristics, and therefore, an understanding of these characteristics
and how they may impact on investigative interviews would be valuable to police inter-
viewers and those who advise them.
In this paper, interpersonal and affective characteristics of psychopathy as operation-
alised in Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991, 2003) are described
in order to illustrate how psychopathic characteristics can be exhibited by suspects during
a police interview. Strategies are suggested that should enable police interviewers to
control or minimise the unhelpful and disruptive potential of psychopathic interviewees,
and to maximise the likelihood that useful responses are elicited. Possible differences in
the presentation of psychopathic and non-psychopathic individuals when attempting to
deceive are considered, together with the potential this may afford in detecting deception
in psychopathic suspects.
Whilst it is acknowledged that there are female psychopaths, the vast majority of indi-
viduals receiving a diagnosis of psychopathy are male, and most psychopathy research
has considered only male psychopathic individuals. For this reason and for reasons of
convenience, in this paper, psychopathic individuals will be referred to as male.

IDENTIFYING PSYCHOPATHIC CHARACTERISTICS IN A SUSPECT

Unless a suspect resides in a custodial or mental health setting, it will not be possible to
diagnose psychopathic personality disorder. Nevertheless, psychopathic characteristics
may be suggested in a suspect’s mode of interacting with others, his history and manner
of offending, and in other information concerning his lifestyle, relationships, and educa-
tional and employment history, etc. The nature of psychopathy and how psychopathic
characteristics may be identified in a suspect are considered below.
The most widely used tool for diagnosing psychopathy in criminal justice settings is
the PCL-R. This tool is considered the ‘gold standard’ for assessing the disorder, and the
characteristics described within the PCL-R manual afford a generally accepted conceptu-
alisation of psychopathy. Hence, this conceptualisation will form the focus of explorations
of psychopathic characteristics considered within this paper.
The original Psychopathy Checklist (PCL) was devised by Hare in 1981 and had 22
checklist items. The interpersonal, affective, antisocial, and lifestyle characteristics of the
disorder were derived from the clinical conception of psychopathy detailed in Cleckley’s
(1976) book The Mask of Sanity. The current version of the PCL-R has 20 checklist items,
each of which reflects a different characteristic of the disorder. The PCL-R manual (Hare,
2003) provides detailed descriptions of each psychopathic characteristic and how they may
be identified in an individual. The following 10 psychopathic characteristics may be
evident during a police interview:

Interpersonal characteristics
• glibness/superficial charm;
• grandiose sense of self-worth;

Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Investig. Psych. Offender Profil. 5: 79–91 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/jip
 Interviewing a psychopathic suspect 81

• pathological lying; and

• conning/manipulative.

Affective characteristics
• lack of remorse or guilt;
• shallow affect;
• callous/lack of empathy; and
• failure to accept responsibility for own actions.

Antisocial and lifestyle characteristics

• need for stimulation/proneness to boredom and
• poor behavioural controls.

Psychopathic characteristics that are unlikely to affect interview behaviour

In addition to the psychopathic characteristics outlined previously, 10 further characteris-
tics detailed within the PCL-R are unlikely to affect the course of an investigative inter-
view, because they are largely concerned with ‘historical’ psychopathy indications:
• impulsivity;
• parasitic lifestyle;
• early behavioural problems;
• lack of realistic, long-term goals;
• irresponsibility;
• juvenile delinquency;
• revocation of conditional release;
• promiscuous sexual behaviour;
• many short-term marital relationships; and
• criminal versatility.
Nevertheless, it is argued that an understanding of these characteristics is important for
interview advisors and interviewers who are to work with a psychopathic suspect, because
this should equip them with a valuable appreciation of the individual’s possible life history,
way of living, and thinking styles—all factors that may be pertinent to a criminal
investigation.
The characteristics of personality disorders, such as psychopathy, are persistent (i.e.
they have been present to some degree since the individual’s childhood, are present now,
and are likely to remain present in his future life) and pervasive (i.e. they are exhibited
in all/most areas of functioning). Consequently, the characteristics that may have been
exhibited during an offence (e.g. poor behavioural controls, conning and manipulation,
impulsivity, superficial charm, and callousness) will have been present in key areas of
functioning such as during the offender’s education (e.g. in the form of bullying, cheating,
unruliness, general rule-breaking, and truancy), in the offender’s home life (e.g. in the
form of domestic violence, physical and sexual abuse and neglect of children, and sexual
violence/sadism), and in the offender’s work life (e.g. in the form of bullying, intimidation,
rule-breaking, and exploitation of colleagues and positions of power/responsibility).
It is worth pointing out here that the stereotypical, layperson’s conception of psycho-
pathic individuals as ‘crazed, axe-wielding maniacs’ is largely inaccurate. As can be seen

Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Investig. Psych. Offender Profil. 5: 79–91 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/jip
82 J. Quayle

(previously), only three of the 20 characteristics described in the PCL-R relate directly to
offending behaviour. Indeed, it has been suggested that many psychopaths do not come
into contact with the criminal justice system, and use their personality characteristics to
good effect in arenas such as business, leadership and management, and politics (e.g. Hare,
1999). It is not difficult to imagine how characteristics such as glibness/superficial charm,
grandiose sense of self-worth, callousness/lack of empathy, conning/manipulative, lack of
remorse or guilt, and shallow affect might prove beneficial to individuals in these lines
of work.
In clinical settings, undertaking a PCL-R assessment requires a thorough analysis of
information collected from a number of sources such as records and reports concerning
an individual’s developmental, educational, employment, and relationship histories,
and, ideally, (although not necessarily) an in-depth interview(s) with the individual.
Whilst there is an abbreviated version of the PCL-R known as the PCL-SV (Psychopathy
Checklist—Screening version; Hart, Cox, & Hare, 1995), this too is designed mainly for
use in clinical settings by a suitably trained and qualified clinician. Hence, unless the
person to be interviewed by police investigators resides within a secure or custodial setting,
a PCL assessment will not be possible. Nevertheless, as suggested previously, psychopathy
may be strongly indicated in an individual’s life history and presentation. In such situa-
tions, a rough screening version of the PCL tools known as the P-Scan (Hare & Hervé,
1999) may be useful. The P-Scan is a 90-item checklist that screens for behaviours and
traits that are indicative of psychopathy. It is designed to be used in non-clinical settings
by mental health and criminal justice professionals who have a reasonable familiarity with
the clinical and research literature on psychopathy, and can provide valuable indications
of the possible presence of psychopathy in an individual. Given adequate information on
the suspect and, ideally, statements and impressions of the suspect based on interviews, a
suitably experienced behavioural investigative advisor (BIA), or clinical or forensic psy-
chologist should be able to give an opinion to investigators as to whether a suspect is
possibly or likely to possess psychopathic characteristics.
Suspicions over the possible psychopathic characteristics of the unknown offender who
has committed an offence may also arise from the accounts of an offence(s) given by
surviving victims as well as an understanding of the possible motive(s) for an offence.
Whilst it may not be possible to infer categorically that an (unknown) offender is psycho-
pathic, studies would suggest that the presence of certain offence characteristics makes
this more probable. In order to illustrate this notion, some key characteristics of the rapes
and murders that may be perpetrated by psychopathic offenders are considered further.

Psychopathy and ‘serious’ offences

The Massachusetts Treatment Centre: Third Revision (MTC: R3) (MTC: R3, Knight &
Prentky, 1990; Prentky & Knight, 1991) represents an empirically grounded typology that
explicitly acknowledges the role of psychopathy in rape (see Knight & Guay, 2006 for a
review). According to this typology, rapists vary according to four primary motivations:
(1) opportunism, (2) pervasive anger, (3) sexual gratification, and (4) vindictiveness.
Rapists are also classified according to other factors including social competence and
sadism. According to the MTC: R3, four types of rapists are said to be predominantly
psychopathic:
1) opportunistic with high social competence (type 1)
2) opportunistic with low social competence (type 2)

Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Investig. Psych. Offender Profil. 5: 79–91 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/jip
 Interviewing a psychopathic suspect 83

3) pervasively angry (type 3)

4) overtly sadistic (type 4)
whilst five types are predominantly non-psychopathic:
1) ‘muted’ sadistic rapists (type 5)
2) non-sadistic with high social competence (type 6)
3) non-sadistic with low social competence (type 7)
4) vindictive with high social competence (type 8)
5) vindictive with low social competence (type 9)
The work of Knight and Prentky illustrates how the possibility of psychopathy in an
unknown offender might be inferred after a consideration of the rapist type (as defined by
MTC: R3) and the motivations underpinning these.
In addition to Prentky and Knight’s typology, a number of key studies lend support to
the idea of an association between psychopathy and sadism (see Porter & Woodworth,
2006 for a detailed review). For example, Holt, Meloy, and Strack (1999) found that trait
measures of sadism and psychopathy (assessed using the PCL-R) for offenders in a
maximum security prison were significantly and positively correlated. In a study of sexual
homicides committed by 18 psychopathic and 20 non-psychopathic Canadian offenders
reported by Porter, Woodworth, Earle, Drugge, and Boer (2003), most (84.7%) of the
sexual murderers scored in the moderate to high range on the PCL-R. In addition, they
reported that homicides committed by psychopathic offenders contained a significantly
higher level of both gratuitous and sadistic violence than non-psychopathic offenders.
Most (82.4%) of the psychopaths exhibited some degree of sadistic behaviour in their
homicides compared with 52.6% of the non-psychopaths. Similar findings have been
reported by Briken, Nika, and Berner (1999) and Meloy (2000).
Woodworth and Porter (2002) investigated the differences in the characteristics of
murders committed by psychopathic and non-psychopathic offenders. In line with predic-
tions, almost all (93.3%) of the murders committed by psychopathic offenders were
‘instrumental’ or ‘cold-blooded’ in nature (i.e. pre-meditated and motivated by some
external goal and not by an extreme emotional reaction), whilst less than half of the
murders (48.4%) committed by non-psychopathic offenders had such characteristics. Data
suggested that the instrumentality of psychopathic murders is almost entirely attributable
to the affective and interpersonal characteristics of the disorder.
O’Toole (2007) provides a useful account of how psychopathic characteristics and even
subtypes of psychopathic offenders might be inferred from a crime scene assessment. For
example, she illustrates how callousness/lack of empathy, glib/superficial charm, and
conning/manipulative characteristics may be evident in the manner a psychopathic offender
accesses his victim(s). She suggests that psychopathic offenders may
• use ‘a certain persona, that is appealing and believable to the victim to obfuscate the
threat he poses’ (p. 312) when seeking to con a victim into spending time with him;
• employ a ruse that involves acting helpless, vulnerable, or in trouble so that a victim
feels compelled to help, and in doing so, puts him/herself into a vulnerable position;
• use a ‘surprise’ approach, whereby the offender seeks to take immediate control of a
victim using a sudden, unexpected encounter;
• perform a ‘blitz’ attack, involving the application of extreme and overwhelming
violence;
or combinations of these acts.

Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Investig. Psych. Offender Profil. 5: 79–91 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/jip
84 J. Quayle

Whilst the studies and ideas presented here suggest that it may be possible to infer
psychopathic characteristics from victim statements and crime scene analysis, there are at
present no empirical studies demonstrating a direct association between combinations of
specific crime scene behaviours and psychopathy. Hence, caution should be exercised
before making any such inferences about unknown offenders.

INTERVIEWING A PSYCHOPATHIC SUSPECT

Little research has been undertaken into the behaviour of psychopathic suspects when
being interviewed by police officers. The predicted behaviours and strategies of countering
these behaviours that are outlined in this paper are based on the interpersonal and affective
characteristics of psychopathy as described in the PCL-R, the author’s experiences of
interviewing and working with psychopathic offenders in custodial settings, and on the
observations of police officers who have interviewed psychopathic suspects in the context
of serious crime investigations. It is strongly recommended that interviews with psycho-
pathic suspects are only undertaken after seeking advice from an experienced BIA and,
ideally, with the BIA able to monitor and advise on the progress of the interview as it is
undertaken.
The ‘PEACE’ model of police interviewing was introduced in 1993 and provides a clear
structure that can be used in all investigative interviews. The components are

• P—planning and preparation;

• E—engage and explain;
• A—account (including clarification and challenge);
• C—closure; and
• E—evaluation (of the interview and the interviewer’s performance).

Because of the unusual constellation of affective and interpersonal characteristics

exhibited by psychopathic individuals, some interviewing techniques are taught to police
interviewers for use during the engage and explain and account components of the
police interview such as

• establishing a rapport
• not interrupting
• initiating a free report
• challenging
• behaving in a friendly, patient and supportive manner

may be ineffective and, as will be explained further, may even be counterproductive

when attempting to yield a confession or useful information from a psychopathic
suspect.
As for any police interview, preparation and planning is of importance. When interview-
ing a psychopathic suspect, however, this not only means ensuring great familiarity with
the case under investigation (i.e. all evidence, antecedent history, and current condition of
the suspect) and the strategy to be employed (with specific objectives), but also anticipat-
ing how the interviewee is likely to behave in response to aspects of the strategy or lines
of questioning. A number of challenging behaviours that may be exhibited by psychopathic
suspects during an interview are described further.

Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Investig. Psych. Offender Profil. 5: 79–91 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/jip
 Interviewing a psychopathic suspect 85

Psychopathic interviewee behaviours

1) Outwitting the interviewer(s): A psychopathic suspect may treat the police interview
as a ‘game’ that has to be won. For example, he may attempt to anticipate lines of
questioning or attempt to take control of the interview through various strategies
such as
• talking at length about himself;
• asking the interviewers questions;
• provoking emotional responses or frustration in the interviewers;
• refusing to answer straightforward questions;
• requesting unnecessary breaks;
• attempting to intimidate the interviewers; and
• questioning the competence or authority of the interviewers.
2) Enjoying being the focus of attention: Being highly narcissistic, the psychopathic
suspect may behave as if he is holding a press conference. Unlike most other inter-
viewees, he may exhibit a few signs of anxiety, embarrassment, or discomfort during
the interview. He may pontificate readily, telling implausible stories about himself,
and present himself as amused by the interview context, as amusing and even
charismatic.
3) Arrogance and grandiosity: The psychopathic suspect may use the terminology and
attitude of fictional lawyers he has observed in films or on television. He may dismiss
other people (including police interviewers and investigators) as worthless, stupid, or
boring, and suggest that other people in his life respect him, envy him or fear him. He
may suggest that he could do the police investigators’ jobs better than they can, and
may even use legal and policing terms in a fairly convincing manner. He may attempt
to intimidate the interviewer by maintaining direct eye contact, using expansive hand
gestures, and if possible, invading the interviewers’ personal space. He may attempt or
request to read any notes interviewers are taking during the interview.
4) Ignoring or minimising the importance of discrepancies: The psychopathic suspect
may not be embarrassed or at all thrown by inconsistencies that are highlighted in his
statements. When this occurs, he may simply modify his account or re-frame informa-
tion so that any discrepancies are eliminated. Modifications to accounts may be highly
convincing and may be achieved by the suspect with remarkable ease.
5) Attempting to shock the interviewer: Psychopathic suspects may speak in a matter-of-
fact or callous manner on topics that most other people would find troubling (e.g. the
harm caused to victims). This may be done in an attempt to shock interviewers into
giving an emotional response. Emotionality may be perceived as a sign of weakness,
and as such, this may be used by the psychopathic individual to take some control of
the interview.
Psychopathic suspects may respond to any frustration, boredom, or perceived slights
and criticisms experienced during an interview with aggressive, threatening, insulting,
or histrionic (e.g. distraught) outbursts. These may, however, be quite short lived, with
the suspect quickly returning to composure as if nothing unusual had happened. Whilst
these outbursts may be attributable to poor behavioural controls, they may also be
contrived to ‘wrong-foot’ interviewers and/or disrupt the flow of the interview.
6) Seeing through attempts to bluff: Being adept at conning and manipulation himself,
the psychopathic suspect may readily see through strategies aimed at eliciting a confes-
sion, obtaining evidence, or prompting contradictory responses.

Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Investig. Psych. Offender Profil. 5: 79–91 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/jip
86 J. Quayle

7) Offering extremely convincing claims of innocence: As indicated previously, psycho-

pathic individuals are adept at lying and deception, and may attempt to fake emotion-
ality. When these are experienced in combination with a psychopathic individual’s
charm and likeability, observers may become quite convinced of the suspect’s inno-
cence, even in the light of compelling evidence to the contrary.
8) Gauging an interviewer’s level of experience, credentials, and confidence: The psy-
chopathic interviewee himself may attempt to ‘turn the tables’ and become an inter-
viewer, asking the police interviewers about their career experience or thinking on the
case under investigation. Because they may be keen to establish a rapport with
the interviewee, police interviewers may be drawn into answering questions that, in
the eyes of the psychopathic suspect, diminish their credibility or authority.
9) Disrupting the interview: Whilst the psychopathic suspect may talk at length about
himself simply for the pleasure of this activity, he may also do this with the intention
of disrupting the interview, particularly when he feels that the balance of control in the
interview needs redressing (e.g. when in the suspects view, the police interviewers are
gaining the ‘upper hand’). Similarly, the suspect may hold up the interview by claim-
ing that he is feeling ill, that he is tired or upset, that he is in need of food or drink, or
through some other request that serves to disrupt the flow of questioning and possible
progress.

Strategies for countering psychopathic interview behaviours

Through the application of a number of techniques, it is possible to counter these
challenging behaviours:
1) Case familiarity: Interviewers must be thoroughly familiar with the details of the case
under investigation. The psychopathic individual may attempt to exploit any gaps,
inaccuracies, or vagaries in the interviewer’s knowledge to his own advantage (e.g.
enabling the suspect to disrupt the flow of the interview and giving the psychopath a
sense of control over the situation).
2) Convey experience and confidence: The psychopathic individual may attempt to
exploit perceived inexperience, inadequate credentials, or lack of confidence to his
own advantage. This is an argument, of course, for only highly experienced inter-
viewers being employed in this role.
3) Create an atmosphere of ‘authority’ and formality: Interviewers should dress in a
professional manner, adhere strictly to relevant procedures, and address the inter-
viewee as ‘Mr’, ‘Ms’, or whatever formal title is appropriate. Because psychopathic
individuals are extremely narcissistic, this will convey to the interviewee that they are
talking to someone who is important like him, and that the interviewers respect
him.
4) Do not be concerned with ‘rapport building’: Building a rapport upon first meeting
a suspect can be a valuable technique in most police interviews, because it may serve
to increase responsiveness in the interviewee. However, taking time to establish a
rapport or adopting an overtly friendly manner with a psychopathic suspect is not
really necessary, and may even be counterproductive. Building a rapport implies
establishing a degree of closeness, empathy, mutual liking, give and take, and a
climate of trust. Psychopathic individuals tend not to be concerned with such matters,
unless these can be used to their own advantage. The suspect may simply use rapport-

Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Investig. Psych. Offender Profil. 5: 79–91 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/jip
 Interviewing a psychopathic suspect 87

building attempts as opportunities to learn about the interviewers in a manner that

may enable him to take control of the interview and undermine the interviewers’
authority.
5) Avoid conveying emotions: Interviewers should avoid conveying their own emotions
to the interviewee (e.g. in relation to the disturbing nature of an offence or slow
progress of the interview). As indicated previously, psychopathic individuals often
perceive emotionality as a sign of weakness, and as such may be used by the psycho-
pathic individual to take control of the interview.
6) Show liking or admiration: The psychopathic individual may respond well to compli-
ments and statements that suggest that the interviewer perceives him to be important,
intelligent, and capable. This will play to the psychopathic individual’s narcissistic
tendencies and will serve to keep him talking when necessary.
7) Seek to learn: The interviewer should speak as if he/she is interested in the interviewee
and is wishing to ‘learn’ from him. Again, this will appeal to the psychopath’s narcis-
sistic character and will encourage him to talk. Questions such as ‘What do you think
we should do?’ or ‘Do you think you could help us understand this offence?’ may
prove fruitful. This strategy is likely to be more effective than attempts to bluff or
trick the suspect into providing information. The manner in which such questions are
presented, however, is important. Interviewers should not present as if they are ‘at a
loss’ or desperate for answers, but instead should attempt to convey an impression of
inclusiveness (i.e. that the suspect is a collaborator rather than a superior).
8) Maintain control: Whilst getting the psychopathic interviewee to talk is important,
efforts should be made to retain control of the interview by not allowing him to pon-
tificate endlessly or throw questions back at the interviewers. The more the psycho-
pathic individual feels in control of the interview, the more resistant he will be to
attempts to gain a confession or useful information. It may, therefore, be necessary
to interrupt the interviewee tactfully in order to steer the interview in the desired
direction and to side-step questions he poses carefully.
9) Avoid criticism: Avoid criticising or belittling the psychopathic suspect, as this may
cause him to stop complying with the interview process or cause him to lose focus—
criticism may be met with histrionics (e.g. anger, verbal attacks, or ‘crocodile tears’)
more readily than with non-psychopathic interviewees. This may be difficult to main-
tain if the suspect is particularly non-compliant, already disruptive, or blatantly lying
(e.g. as indicated by verifiable untruths and clear discrepancies in the accounts he has
given).
10) Challenge cautiously: It may be useful or necessary to challenge the psychopathic
suspect concerning discrepancies in his account(s) of offence-related events or his
personal history. Such challenges, however, should be made in a gentle fashion
initially (e.g. using a ‘puzzled’ rather than an overtly confrontational tone to ques-
tioning), unless the interviewer feels confident that a more assertive approach will
not be met with non-compliance, histrionics, or aggression. Of course, such respond-
ing may be difficult to predict.
11) Do not expect a conscience: Avoid appealing to the interviewee’s feelings of remorse,
guilt, empathic understanding, or sense of social obligation. For example, statements
and questions such as ‘We just want to help the victim’s parents. Try to imagine how
they will be feeling right now’ will be of little use. As indicated previously, psycho-
pathic individuals tend not to feel empathy for others, tend not to feel remorse or guilt,
and do not experience negative emotions to any great degree. These are all capacities

Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Investig. Psych. Offender Profil. 5: 79–91 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/jip
88 J. Quayle

that would be necessary for such appeals to conscience to be effective. Instead, the
interview should focus on the objective facts of the case.
In general terms, interviews with a psychopathic suspect should progress in a pre-
planned, logical fashion, so that a clear picture of the case against the suspect is built up
in a step-by-step fashion. Confessions may occur because the case against the psychopathic
individual is clear-cut, because the psychopathic individual is delighted with his own
actions, and because he is pleased with how other people are impressed or shocked by his
daring or ingenuity. In this situation, the ego-fulfilling needs of the psychopathic
individual may begin to outweigh the desire to avoid detection.

Detecting deception in psychopathic suspects

Detecting deception during police interviews is a key area of psychological study (see
Vrij, 2000 for reviews), and because a key characteristic of psychopathy is the propensity
to lie, con, and manipulate, the manner in which psychopathic individuals achieve these
is worthy of some consideration here.
There is some evidence indicating that both the verbal and non-verbal behaviours
of psychopathic individuals when attempting to deceive differ from those of non-
psychopathic individuals. For example, Lee, Klaver, and Hart (2008) asked prisoners to
tell the truth about a crime they had committed and to lie about a theft they had not. Par-
ticipants who were unaware of the prisoners’ psychopathic status judged the psychopathic
offenders’ accounts to be less coherent and seven times less credible than those of non-
psychopathic offenders, whether telling the truth or lying. Consequently, Lee, Klaver, and
Hart suggest that ‘the content of [psychopathic individuals’] speech is not effective at
facilitating manipulation and deceiving others’ (p. 81). Using a sample of incarcerated
male offenders, Klaver, Lee, and Hart (2007) studied psychopathy and non-verbal indica-
tors of deception. Whether lying or telling the truth, PCL-R scores were associated with
speech hesitations and the greater use of arm or hand movements to modify or supplement
speech. When attempting to deceive, the more psychopathic offenders tended to speak
faster, blink more frequently, and move their heads more. These findings suggest that
psychopathic offenders’ ability to lie is also not dependent on their ability to conceal their
deceit through effective control of non-verbal behaviours.
For two main reasons, the propensity to feel and express emotions means that non-verbal
behaviours are more difficult to control when attempting to deceive than verbal behaviours
(DePaulo & Kirkendol, 1989; Vrij, 2000). First, there are automatic links between emo-
tions and non-verbal behaviours that do not exist between emotions and speech content.
For this reason, we may find it more difficult to control our facial expressions and hand
gestures when anxious or angry than to control the words we use to express or attempt to
conceal these emotions. Second, whilst it is possible to communicate nothing verbally
(e.g. by remaining silent or perhaps stating ‘no comment’), it is impossible to remain non-
verbally ‘silent’. For example, whilst an interviewer’s questions may cause an interviewee
to say nothing or to take time to construct a response, emotions elicited by challenging
questions are likely to be evident in non-verbal behaviours during these verbal silences.
For these reasons, signs of deception are more likely to occur when emotions are involved
and/or when attempts to deceive require some thought. Because we know that psycho-
pathic individuals tend not to experience emotions deeply, we might predict that their
non-verbal behaviours when trying to deceive in situations that would be expected to elicit

Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Investig. Psych. Offender Profil. 5: 79–91 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/jip
 Interviewing a psychopathic suspect 89

an emotional response would differ from those of non-psychopathic individuals. Support

for this prediction is reported by Louth, Williamson, Alpert, Pouget, and Hare (1998), who
used computer-based measures to investigate the volume of speech and prosody in psy-
chopathic individuals (non-vocal, non-verbal behaviours). It was found that psychopathic
individuals spoke more quietly than non-psychopathic individuals and did not differ-
entiate, in voice emphasis, between neutral and affective words.
Because these findings appear to suggest that psychopathic individuals do not succeed
in deceiving due to the content of their speech or the ability to control non-verbal behav-
iours effectively, there must be something else about the manner in which psychopathic
individuals communicate that enables them to con and manipulate. It is suggested that the
psychopath’s arrogance and grandiosity, which are misperceived by many to be confidence
or authority, serve to distract from the inadequacies of their narratives and style of talking.
Consequently, experienced police interviewers will often be correct in doubting the cred-
ibility of psychopathic suspects due to the incoherence of their narratives and disingenuous
presentation, provided they are wise to the grandiosity and arrogance of such individuals.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that a psychopathic individual will say anything, whether
lies or truth, if it will attain a desired goal. As Lee, Klaver, and Hart’s (2008) findings
indicate, a psychopathic individual’s truths may be no better than his/her lies: both can
appear unbelievable, both may be used to con and manipulate (take, for example, the use
of ‘brutal honesty’), and both may be delivered using grandiosity as a smokescreen.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterised by clusters of interpersonal, affective,

antisocial, and lifestyle characteristics. Because psychopaths are responsible for a dispro-
portionate amount of offending, individuals working in law enforcement are arguably more
likely than most other people to encounter psychopathic individuals in their work. Hence,
it is suggested that an understanding of how psychopathic characteristics can manifest
themselves in criminal behaviour and during investigative interviews is important to those
advising on police interviewing and to those conducting interviews with suspects.
Potentially psychopathic suspects may be identified during an investigation using a
rough screening tool known as the ‘P-Scan’ and by suitably trained and experienced psy-
chological professionals. Offences under investigation may themselves indicate the pres-
ence of psychopathic characteristics in an unknown offender. Because some routine police
interviewing techniques may not be appropriate when interviewing a psychopathic suspect,
in such instances, interviewers should plan and prepare interview strategies with due
consideration for how psychopathic characteristics might affect the interview process.
A number of interpersonal and affective characteristics of the psychopathic individual
can make the achievement of investigative objectives through interview an extremely
challenging endeavour. However, strategies that should increase the likelihood of success
in an interview may be employed. These principally involve the following:
• ensuring a thorough understanding of the case under investigation;
• managing the impression the interviewers give to the interviewee, such that experience
and confidence are conveyed in an atmosphere of authority and formality;
• minimising opportunities for the interviewee to take advantage of perceived weaknesses
or ‘pressing buttons’, by avoiding ‘standard’ rapport-building attempts and avoiding
conveying emotions to the interviewee;

Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Investig. Psych. Offender Profil. 5: 79–91 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/jip
90 J. Quayle

• using the psychopathic suspect’s grandiose sense of self-worth to the interviewers’

advantage by showing liking or admiration for the interviewee and expressing a wish
to learn from his apparent insight or ‘expertise’;
• maintaining control of the interview by not allowing the interviewee to talk freely at all
times and not allowing the interviewee to ‘turn the tables’ and become an interviewer
himself;
• reducing opportunities for the offender to ‘take offence’ at the interviewer’s apparent
attitude towards him, by not criticising and only challenging cautiously until the inter-
viewer feels comfortable in challenging in a more assertive fashion; and
• not expecting to appeal to the psychopathic suspect’s conscience.
The employment of these strategies should enable interviewers to maximise the interview-
ee’s productive participation in the interview, to minimise his tendency to disrupt, distort,
or control proceedings, and to avoid the use of potentially fruitless or counterproductive
techniques.
There is evidence to suggest that the verbal and non-verbal behaviours of psychopathic
individuals differ from those of other individuals when attempting to deceive. Psycho-
pathic individuals may succeed in deceiving others, not by their choice of words or ability
to control non-verbal behaviours, but by their arrogance and grandiosity, which may be
misperceived as confidence or authority. However, the mismatch between a psychopathic
individual’s verbal expression of emotion and non-verbal behaviours can make his pre-
sentation seem unconvincing when he is attempting to lie. Armed with this knowledge, it
may be possible to identify deception in psychopathic offenders more readily than with
non-psychopathic offenders.

REFERENCES

Briken, P., Nika, E., & Berner, W. (1999). Sexualdelikte mit Todesfolge. Eine Erhebung aus
Gutachten. Fortschritte der Neurologie-Psychiatrie, 67, 189–199.
Brown, S. L., & Forth, A. E. (1997). Psychopathy and sexual assault: Static risk factors, emotional
precursors, and rapist subtypes. Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology, 65, 848–857.
Cleckley, H. (1976). The mask of sanity (5th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
DePaulo, B. M., & Kirkendol, S. E. (1989). The motivational impairment effect in the communi-
cation of deception. In J. C. Yuille (Ed.), Credibility assessment (pp. 51–70). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer.
Douglas, K. S., Vincent, G. M., & Edens, J. F. (2006). Risk of criminal recidivism: The role of
psychopathy. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 533–554). New York: Guildford
Press.
Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare psychopathy checklist-revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. D. (1999). Without conscience: The disturbing world of psychopaths amongst us. New
York: Guildford Press.
Hare, R. D. (2003). The psychopathy checklist-revised (2nd Ed.). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. D., & Hervé, H. (1999). The Hare P-Scan: Research version. Toronto: Multi-Health
Systems.
Harpur, T. J., & Hare, R. D. (1994). Assessment of psychopathy as a function of age. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 103, 604–609.
Hart, S. D., Cox, D. N., & Hare, R. D. (1995). The Hare psychopathy checklist: Screening version
(PCL: SV). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Holt, S. E., Meloy, J. R., & Strack, S. (1999). Sadism and psychopathy in violent and sexually violent
offenders. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 27, 23–32.
Klaver, J. R., Lee, Z., & Hart, S. D. (2007). Psychopathy and nonverbal indicators of deception in
offenders. Law and Human Behaviour, 31, 337–351.

Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Investig. Psych. Offender Profil. 5: 79–91 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/jip
 Interviewing a psychopathic suspect 91

Knight, R. A., & Guay, J-P. (2006). The role of psychopathy in sexual coercion against women. In
C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 512–532). New York: Guildford Press.
Knight, R. A., & Prentky, R. A. (1990). Classifying sex offenders: The development and corrobora-
tion of taxonomic models. In W. L. Marshall, D. R. Laws, & H. E. Barabaree (Eds.), Handbook
of sexual assault: Issues, theories and treatment of the offender (pp. 27–52). New York:
Plenum.
Lee, Z., Klaver, J. R., & Hart, S. D. (2008). Psychopathy and verbal indicators of deception in
offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14, 73–84.
Louth, S. M., Williamson, S., Alpert, M., Pouget, E., & Hare, R. D. (1998). Acoustic distinctions in
the speech of male psychopaths. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 375–384.
Meloy, J. R. (2000). The nature and dynamics of sexual homicide: An integrative review. Aggression
and Violent Behaviour, 5, 1–22.
Neumann, C. C., & Hare, R. D. (2008). Psychopathic traits in a large community sample: Links to
violence, alcohol use, and intelligence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76,
893–899.
O’Toole, M. E. (2007). Psychopathy as a behavioral classification scheme for violent and sexual
crime scenes. In H. Hervé, & J. Yuille (Eds.), The psychopath (pp. 301–325). NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Assoc.
Porter, S., & Woodworth, M. (2006). Psychopathy and aggression. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook
of psychopathy (pp. 481–494). New York: Guildford Press.
Porter, S.,Woodworth, M., Earle, J., Drugge, J., & Boer, D. (2003). Characteristics of sexual homi-
cides committed by psychopathic and nonpsychopathic offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 27,
459–470.
Prentky, R. A., & Knight, R. A. (1991). Identifying critical dimensions for discriminating among
rapists. Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology, 59, 643–661.
Serin, R. C., Mailloux, D. L., & Malcolm, P. B. (2001). Psychopathy, deviant sexual arousal, and
recidivism among sexual offenders. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 234–246.
Simourd, D. J. (1997). The criminal sentiments scale-modified and pride in delinquency scale:
Psychometric properties and construct validity of two measures of criminal attitude. Criminal
Justice and Behaviour, 24, 52–70.
Vitelli, R. (1999). Childhood disruptive behavior disorders and adult psychopathy. American Journal
of Forensic Psychology, 16, 29–37.
Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.
Woodworth, M., & Porter, S. (2002). In cold blood: Characteristics of criminal homicides as a
function of psychopathy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 436–445.

Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Investig. Psych. Offender Profil. 5: 79–91 (2008)
DOI: 10.1002/jip