reflection

Research Article

Investigating True and False Confessions Within a Novel Experimental Paradigm Melissa B. Russano,1 Christian A. Meissner,2 Fadia M. Narchet,2 and Saul M. Kassin3

1Roger Williams University, 2Florida International University, and 3Williams College

ABSTRACT—The primary goal of the current study was to

develop a novel experimental paradigm with which to

study the influence of psychologically based interrogation

techniques on the likelihood of true and false confessions.

The paradigm involves guilty and innocent participants

being accused of intentionally breaking an experimental

rule, or ‘‘cheating.’’ In the first demonstration of this para-

digm, we explored the influence of two common police inter-

rogation tactics: minimization and an explicit offer of

leniency, or a ‘‘deal.’’ Results indicated that guilty persons

were more likely to confess than innocent persons, and that

the use ofminimization and the offer of a deal increased the

rate of both true and false confessions. Police investigators

are encouraged to avoid interrogation techniques that

imply or directly promise leniency, as they appear to re-

duce the diagnostic value of any confession that is elicited.

When law-enforcement officers question a suspect they believe

to be guilty, the primary goal of the interrogation is to elicit a

confession (Joseph, 1995; Kassin, 1997). Many legal scholars

and researchers consider confession evidence to be the most

potent form of evidence that exists, and research indicates that

a confession is a very damning piece of evidence (Kassin &

Neumann, 1997). Furthermore, obtaining confessions from guilty

persons is both a desirable and oftentimes a necessary step in the

apprehension and conviction of lawbreakers, as true confessions

alleviate the pressures on an overburdened criminal justice

system by encouraging guilty pleas and speeding the process of

justice (Costanzo, 2004).

Unfortunately, numerous instances of false confessions have

been documented. A striking example involves the 1989 case of

the ‘‘Central Park Jogger,’’ in which five teenage boys provided

false confessions to the rape and assault of a 28-year-old

woman. Despite the fact that all of the teenagers later retracted

their confessions and no other physical evidence conclusively

linked them to the crime, they were convicted and served up to

12 years in prison. Years later, Matias Reyes, a convicted serial

rapist and murderer, confessed to being the sole perpetrator of

the attack. DNA tests of semen and pubic hair found at the

scene of the crime confirmed that Reyes was guilty, and the boys

were officially exonerated in December of 2002 (Younge, 2003).

Although the actual rate of false confessions is difficult to

determine, the Innocence Project’s analysis of cases in which

DNA evidence has exonerated the wrongfully convicted suggests

that approximately 20% involved false admissions or confessions

(Scheck, Neufeld, & Dwyer, 2001). In a prior assessment of 350

wrongful convictions, Bedau and Radelet (1987) found evi-

dence of false confessions in 14% of their sample. Considering

the fundamental importance of confession evidence and the

need to ensure its reliability, researchers have begun to inves-

tigate the psychological processes involved in police interviews,

interrogations, and elicitation of confessions (Gudjonsson,

2003; Kassin, 1997; Lassiter, 2004; Meissner & Russano, 2003;

Wrightsman & Kassin, 1993).

INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES

With regard to the collection of confession evidence, the goal of

the criminal justice system should be to implement procedures

that are diagnostic, meaning those that increase the rate of true

confessions while minimizing the rate of false confessions. In

order to achieve diagnosticity, it is important to understand the

factors that influence the likelihood that a suspect will provide a

confession, including the psychological techniques that police

commonly use in the interrogation room. It is widely assumed

that the techniques used by police are effective in yielding

confessions, and research indicates that between 40% and 76%

Address correspondence to Melissa B. Russano, Roger Williams University, School of Justice Studies, One Old Ferry Rd., Bristol, RI 02809; e-mail: [email protected].

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE

Volume 16—Number 6 481Copyright r 2005 American Psychological Society

of all suspects confess in response to interrogation (see Gud-

jonsson, 2003). Inbau, Reid, Buckley, and Jayne (2001), authors

of Criminal Interrogation and Confessions (a handbook de-

scribing the most widely used interrogation procedure in North

America), have argued that although their proposed techniques

will persuade guilty suspects to confess, they do not compel

innocent suspects to do the same. However, Inbau et al. have

provided no scientific data to support this claim, and a number

of researchers have expressed concern that some of the tech-

niques advocated by modern-day interrogation manuals (in-

cluding but not limited to the Inbau et al. manual) may lead to

false confessions (e.g., Gudjonsson, 2003; Kassin, 1997; Kassin

& McNall, 1991).

Researchers have categorized the interrogation methods pro-

moted by interrogation manuals into two general types, namely,

maximization and minimization (Kassin & McNall, 1991).

Maximization involves so-called scare tactics designed to in-

timidate suspects: confronting them with accusations of guilt,

refusing to accept their denials and claims of innocence, and

exaggerating the seriousness of the situation. This approach

may also include presenting fabricated evidence to support the

accusation of guilt (e.g., leading suspects to think that their

fingerprints were lifted from the murder weapon). In contrast,

minimization encompasses strategies such as minimizing the

seriousness of the offense and the perceived consequences of

confession, and gaining the suspect’s trust by offering sympathy,

understanding, and face-saving excuses. Kassin and McNall

found that individuals most often interpreted minimizing state-

ments as implying leniency in sentencing.

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Kassin and Kiechel (1996) designed the first and only paradigm

for eliciting false confessions in the laboratory. In this paradigm,

the mock crime involved causing a computer to crash by acci-

dentally hitting a forbidden key on a computer keyboard during

a reaction time task. Innocent participants were falsely accused

of hitting the key, and the primary dependent measure was

whether they signed a confession. Kassin and Kiechel found

that 69% of participants falsely confessed, and that this ten-

dency was influenced by the suspects’ vulnerability and the

presentation of false evidence. Other researchers have used

Kassin and Kiechel’s paradigm to investigate various other

possible influences, such as the suspect’s age (Redlich &

Goodman, 2003), gender (Abboud, Wadkins, Forrest, Lange,

&Alavi, 2002), and preexisting stress (Forrest,Wadkins, &Miller,

2002), as well as the consequences of confession (Horselenberg,

Merckelbach, & Josephs, 2003) and the use of minimization and

maximization techniques (Klaver, Rose, & Lee, 2003).

Although this research represents an important first step, the

paradigm is limited by its failure to capture certain key elements

of real-world interrogations and confessions. First, all participants

in Kassin and Kiechel’s (1996) paradigm are factually innocent,

which precludes the elicitation and study of true confessions and

the ability to assess diagnosticity by comparing the rates of true

and false confessions. Second, participants in this paradigm are

accused of accidentally committing a highly plausible ‘‘crime,’’

leaving open the possibility that many participants are unsure

whether they are innocent or guilty. In contrast, most real-world

suspects are accused of intentionally committing a criminal act

and are certain (whether innocent or guilty) of their own culpa-

bility. It appears that researchers have not moved beyond this now

classic paradigm in part because of the difficulty in creating a

paradigm that approximates real-world conditions while treating

participants in accordance with ethical standards.

In an effort to achieve both ecological validity and the ethical

treatment of research participants, the current study introduces

a novel experimental paradigm that can be used to assess the

effects of interrogation techniques on the likelihood of both true

and false confessions. In the current paradigm, participants

were accused of breaking an experimental rule, an act that was

later characterized as ‘‘cheating.’’ Participants were paired with

a confederate, and the two were instructed to solve some logic

problems individually and others jointly. In the guilty condition,

the confederate asked for help on a problem that was supposed

to be solved individually, violating the rules of the experiment.

Participants who provided an answer were guilty of cheating. In

the innocent condition, the confederate did not make this re-

quest, and so participants did not violate the experimental rule.

We were thus able to induce some participants, but not others, to

commit a ‘‘crime’’ (helping another person) that could be con-

sidered prosocial and hence did not cast them in a negative

light. All participants were later ‘‘interrogated’’ and asked to

sign a confession.

We believe there are several strengths of the current para-

digm. The crime we used may be considered by students as a

fairly serious act, as it can be conceptualized as a form of

cheating, without the accusation of cheating necessarily im-

plying immorality. In addition, as in the real world, committing

the crime required intention, and the participants clearly knew

whether they committed the act. Finally, in our paradigm, as in

the real world, some of the individuals being interrogated were

innocent, and some were guilty, which enabled us to assess the

effects of interrogation on the rates of true and false confessions.

In the current study, we assessed the effects of two concep-

tually related techniques, namely, the pragmatic implication of

leniency via minimization tactics (Kassin & McNall, 1991) and

an explicit offer of leniency via a ‘‘deal.’’ Confessions elicited

via the offer of a deal (e.g., ‘‘I’ll make sure you get probation if

you confess to this murder’’) are generally ruled inadmissible

because of concerns that the technique may produce unreliable

confessions (White, 2003). Although the deal technique is not

generally advocated by the major interrogation manuals, there

are numerous case examples showing that the technique is

sometimes used in the real world (see White). In contrast, the

use of minimization tactics is widely advocated in interrogation

482 Volume 16—Number 6

Investigating True and False Confessions

manuals (including that of Inbau et al., 2001), and such tactics

generally yield confession evidence that is admissible at trial.

Because previous research suggests that minimization prag-

matically implies an offer of leniency (Kassin & McNall), we

predicted that the two techniques would have the same effect in

the interrogation room, namely, to increase the likelihood of

both true and false confessions.

METHOD

Participants

Three hundred thirty undergraduates (70% female) from a large

Southeastern university received credit in a psychology course

in exchange for their participation. The mean age of participants

was 19.4 years. Fourteen participants were excluded from the

analyses because they expressed a high level of suspicion re-

garding the true purpose of the study. Two were excluded be-

cause during the interrogation they expressed a desire to leave

the experiment, at which point the session was terminated and

the participants were fully debriefed. Eighteen were excluded

because they failed to conform to the guilt manipulation (see the

next section).1

Design and Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the eight cells

produced by a 2 (innocent vs. guilty) � 2 (minimization vs. no

minimization) � 2 (deal vs. no deal) between-subjects factorial

design. They were recruited for a study on individual versus team

decision making and asked to solve a series of logic problems.

A female confederate posing as another participant arrived at

the lab at the same time as the actual participant, and the pair

was greeted by one of six male experimenters who ranged in age

from 19 to 30 years old, with a mean age of 22. The pair was

escorted into a testing room that mirrored a police interrogation

room—it was small, bare, and windowless, containing only a

table and two straight-backed chairs (Inbau et al., 2001).

After the experimenter obtained informed consent and con-

ducted a brief rapport-building session, the participant and

confederate began the problem-solving phase of the experi-

ment. Before leaving them alone, the experimenter informed the

pair that they should work together on designated ‘‘team prob-

lems,’’ but that they should work individually and not discuss

their solutions on designated ‘‘individual problems’’ (this served

as the critical rule of the experiment). In the guilty condition,

the confederate asked for help on a problem that was supposed

to be solved individually, leading most participants to provide

her with an answer (those who did not help were excluded from

the analyses). In the innocent condition, the confederate did not

seek assistance. After the pair completed the logic problems

and a filler task, the experimenter informed them that there ap-

peared to be a problem and that he needed to speak to each of them

individually. The confederate was then escorted out of the room.

Approximately 5 min later, the experimenter, blind to the

participant’s guilt or innocence, reentered the testing room for

interrogation. The experimenter stated that the participant and

the confederate had the same wrong answer on the target

problem, and he accused the participant of sharing answers on

that problem (a tactic known as direct positive confrontation;

Inbau et al., 2001). He said that the professor in charge of the

study had been contacted and was annoyed and upset by the

situation. The experimenter said that he was not sure how the

professor would handle the situation or who else he would have

to notify, and that the professor might consider what happened a

case of cheating. The experimenter then said that the professor

wanted to document what happened by having the participant

sign a statement admitting to sharing answers on problems that

were supposed to be solved individually.

The types of interrogation techniques used were varied. In the

minimization condition, the interrogator was instructed to lessen

the seriousness of the offense by making statements that ex-

pressed sympathy and concern, offered face-saving excuses (e.g.,

‘‘I’m sure you didn’t realize what a big deal it was’’), and sug-

gested to participants that it was in their interest to cooperate by

signing the statement. In the no-minimization condition, no such

statements were made. The offer of a deal was also manipulated.

In the deal condition, participants were told that if they agreed to

sign the confession, then ‘‘things could probably be settled pretty

quickly.’’ Participants were assured that they would receive their

research credit for the day, but they would have to return for

another session without receiving additional credit. They were

also told that if they did not agree to sign the statement, the

experimenter would have to call the professor into the laboratory,

and the professor would handle the situation as he saw fit, with

the strong implication being that the consequences would likely

be worse if the professor became further involved. Participants

were faced with the choice of accepting the deal, which included

the known consequence of having to return for another session, or

rejecting the deal and facing an angry professor and unknown,

but potentially severe, consequences. In the no-deal condition,

participants were told that regardless of whether they signed the

statement, the experimenter would have to call the professor back

and find out what to do next.

If the participant agreed to sign a statement, the experimenter

handwrote a confession for the participant to sign. If the par-

ticipant denied the allegation or hesitated to sign, the experi-

menter repeated the interrogation script up to three more times.

If the participant still refused to sign, the interrogation was

terminated. The decision to sign or not sign a confession served

as our primary dependent measure.

The participant’s decision was followed by debriefing. After

probing for suspicion, the experimenter asked participants to

rate the amount of pressure they felt to sign the confession on

a scale ranging from 0, indicating no pressure at all, to 10,1Inclusion of these participants did not change the pattern of results.

Volume 16—Number 6 483

M.B. Russano et al.

indicating the most pressure they could imagine. The experi-

menter then explained the true purpose of the experiment and

the manipulations. He further explained that there was no angry

professor and no pending negative consequence. Participants in

the guilty condition were told that although their conduct was

portrayed as wrong during the experiment, helping another stu-

dent in need was an admirable, benevolent, and prosocial act.

Careful pains were taken to ensure that participants understood

the necessity for the deception used and that all their questions

were answered.

RESULTS

Given that we used six experimenters, we first sought to deter-

mine if there was a systematic variation in the confession rate

across experimenters. Results indicated no significant experi-

menter effects on the true-confession rate, w2(5, N 5 148) 5

2.59, p 5 .76, or the false-confession rate, w2(5, N 5 148) 5

0.63, p 5 .98. Across experimenters, the true-confession rate

ranged from 63.6% to 82.4%, and the false-confession rate

ranged from 16.7% to 25.0%.

Collapsing across experimenters, we conducted a 2 (guilt vs.

innocence)� 2 (minimization vs. no minimization)� 2 (deal vs.

no deal) hierarchical loglinear analysis on participants’ deci-

sion to confess. No interactions reached statistical significance,

w2(1, N5 296) � 0.51, ps � .48. A significant main effect was

found for guilt versus innocence, w2(1, N 5 296) 5 88.84, p <

.001, d 5 1.31, such that guilty persons were 3.53 times more

likely to confess (71.6%) than innocent persons (20.3%). There

was also a main effect of minimization, w2(1, N5 296)5 22.10,

p< .001, d5 0.57, such that participants were 1.66 times more

likely to confess when minimization was used (57.4%) than

when it was not used (34.5%). Finally, there was also a signif-

icant main effect of the deal condition, w2(1, N5 296)5 7.87,

p < .01, d 5 0.33, indicating that participants offered the deal

were 1.43 times more likely to confess (54.1%) than those not

offered the deal (37.8%).

As predicted, both the minimization tactics and the offer of a

deal led to increases in the rates of true and false confessions.

Although there were no significant interactions between inter-

rogation techniques and guilt/innocence, the combination of the

two interrogation techniques may have had a cumulative effect

on the likelihood of confession. As displayed in Table 1, both

the true- and the false-confession rates increased when either

minimization or the deal tactic was used. There was also a

dramatic increase in the confession rates when both techniques

were used in combination, compared with the use of neither

tactic. Given the goal of identifying techniques that might yield

a high rate of true confessions and a low rate of false confes-

sions, we felt it was also important to examine diagnosticity (i.e.,

the ratio of true confessions to false confessions) in each of the

four interrogation conditions. As displayed in Table 1, diagnos-

ticity was highest when neither of the techniques was used and

lowest when both were used. More specifically, diagnosticity

was reduced by nearly 40%with the use of a single interrogation

technique (when compared with the control condition), and by

74% when both techniques were used in combination.

A 2 (guilt vs. innocence) � 2 (minimization vs. no minimi-

zation)� 2 (deal vs. no deal) analysis of variance was conducted

on participants’ ratings of pressure to confess. Results indicated

a significant interaction between guilt/innocence and minimi-

zation, F(1, 284) 5 8.97, p 5 .003, d 5 0.36. Simple effects

tests revealed that innocent participants reported higher pres-

sure ratings when minimization was used (M 5 5.24, SD 5

3.14) than when it was not used (M 5 3.45, SD 5 3.14), F(1,

284)5 11.84, p5 .001, d5 0.41; however, pressure ratings of

guilty participants who experienced minimization (M 5 4.42,

SD 5 3.14) and those who did not experience minimization (M

5 4.83, SD5 3.14) did not differ, F(1, 284)5 0.63, p5 .43. No

other main effects or interactions reached statistical signifi-

cance, Fs(1, 284) � 3.52, ps � .06. Additionally, there was no

significant effect of experimenter on pressure ratings, F(5, 291)

5 1.92, p 5 .09.

Because of the ethically sensitive nature of the paradigm, we

administered a follow-up questionnaire approximately 3 to 10

weeks after participation to a subset of participants (n 5 83) to

assess their reactions to the study. As displayed in Table 2,

participants reported that they had a somewhat positive and

educational experience, that they thought the use of deception

was justified, and that they felt moderately stressed during the

interrogation. Statistical tests of these ratings indicated that

they were not significantly influenced by the participant’s guilt/

innocence, ts(81) � 1.71, ps � .09; the use of minimization,

ts(81) � 1.27, ps � .20; the offer of a deal, ts(81) � 1.36, ps � .18; or the participant’s decision to confess, ts(81) � 1.49, ps

� .14. The only exception to this pattern was that participants

who confessed found the study to be more educational (M 5

4.89, SD5 1.65) than those who did not (M5 4.08, SD5 1.60),

t(81) 5 2.27, p 5 .03, d 5 0.51.

DISCUSSION

The primary goal of the current study was to develop an ethical

laboratory paradigm with which to study the effects of psycho-

logically based interrogation techniques on the likelihood of

TABLE 1

Rates of True and False Confessions and Diagnosticity by

Interrogation Condition

Condition True

confessions False

confessions Diagnosticity

No tactic 46% 6% 7.67

Deal 72% 14% 5.14

Minimization 81% 18% 4.50

Minimization 1 deal 87% 43% 2.02

484 Volume 16—Number 6

Investigating True and False Confessions

true and false confessions. This approach involved inducing

some participants to commit an intentional act of cheating, and

then interrogating participants in an attempt to yield confes-

sions from those who were factually guilty or innocent. In the

context of a university setting, this act of cheating carried se-

rious implications with it and appeared to be considered in such

a way by the participants. To our knowledge, the current study

provides the first experimental evidence that individuals can be

induced to give true and false confessions to an intentional act.

We sought to assess the effects of two conceptually related

interrogation techniques, namely, the pragmatic implication

of leniency via minimization tactics and an explicit offer of

leniency via a deal. Our results indicated that minimization,

a common and legal interrogation technique, provided an ef-

fective means of obtaining true confessions; however, this

technique also put innocent participants at risk for false con-

fessions. One of the primary reasons for the increased rate of

confessions may have been that the participants inferred leni-

ency upon confession on the basis of the experimenter’s com-

munication and amiable tone (Kassin & McNall, 1991). As

predicted, an explicit offer of leniency in the deal condition

showed effects quite similar to those of minimization, leading to

an increase in the likelihood of both true and false confessions.

Although the deal technique is generally considered an illegal

tactic (and it is not one advocated by interrogation manuals),

courts have both allowed and suppressed confessions elicited

via its use (see White, 2003, for a review), and it is therefore

important to understand its effect. Our results indicate that

offering deals to suspects in the real world may lead innocent

persons to confess simply because they believe that they are

better off accepting the known consequences of the deal than

taking their chances of winning at trial. Although such explicit

offers of leniency are generally prohibited in the interrogation

room, it appears (rather unfortunately) that the use of pragmatic

implication, as suggested by popular interrogation manuals (In-

bau et al., 2001), will yield the same results.

It is interesting to note that although the use of the minimi-

zation and deal techniques clearly influenced the behavior of

both guilty and innocent participants, they may have been un-

aware of this influence. With the exception of innocents who

experienced minimization, participants did not report feeling

more pressure to confess when the techniques were used than

when they were not used.

The novel experimental paradigm introduced in the present

study appears to have successfully transposed into the labora-

tory several real-world interrogation elements, including use of

an intentional ‘‘crime’’ that could involve rather serious con-

sequences (i.e., when cheating is considered in the context of a

university setting). In addition, this paradigm provided the first

opportunity to assess the effects of various interrogation tech-

niques in eliciting both true and false confessions. Ultimately,

the goal of interrogation should be to maximize the likelihood of

a true confession, while simultaneously minimizing the likeli-

hood of a false confession. In the current study, diagnosticity

was reduced by nearly 40%, relative to the no-tactic condition,

when either minimization or the deal technique was used.

Furthermore, the use of the two techniques in combination re-

duced diagnosticity by 74%. Given that field research indicates

police rarely use only one technique during an interrogation

(Leo, 1996), and that interrogation manuals frequently advocate

the use of multiple techniques (e.g., Inbau et al., 2001), it would

seem that such a dramatic reduction in diagnosticity is worth

further consideration. Moreover, we encourage police investi-

gators to carefully consider the use of interrogation techniques

that imply or directly promise leniency, as they appear to reduce

the diagnostic value of an elicited confession.

TABLE 2

Descriptive Statistics for Responses to the Postexperimental Reaction Questionnaire

Question and anchors

Rating distribution

M SD1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Overall experience 9% 5% 10% 20% 23% 16% 17% 4.57 1.80

1 5 very negative

7 5 very positive

Educational value 5% 11% 8% 22% 26% 15% 13% 4.51 1.66

1 5 not at all educational

7 5 very educational

Deception justified 1% 7% 6% 15% 22% 20% 29% 5.26 1.60

1 5 not at all justified

7 5 very justified

Experiment’s contribution to psychology 2% 2% 2% 13% 33% 27% 21% 5.33 1.35

1 5 very little contribution

7 5 very big contribution

Stress experienced 15% 13% 2% 17% 23% 14% 16% 4.27 2.01

1 5 very little stress

7 5 extreme stress

Volume 16—Number 6 485

M.B. Russano et al.

The current study represents a necessary first step toward

developing a more generalizable interrogation paradigm and

understanding the influence of certain interrogation tactics on

both true and false confessions. We believe that the current

paradigm can be used to examine the influence of a variety of

other interrogation techniques (e.g., maximization) and indi-

vidual difference factors (e.g., IQ, psychological state). It is

important, however, to have an appreciation for the limitations

of the paradigm. Because suspects in the real world are accused

of criminal acts that are more severe both in nature and in

consequence than the act featured in this paradigm, one could

imagine that the confession rates overall would be lower in the

real world than in the laboratory. Nevertheless, although the

absolute confession rates may differ and further research may

be warranted, we believe that the underlying interrogative and

psychological processes that occur in the laboratory similarly

occur in the real world. It is the understanding of these under-

lying processes, and the effects of various interrogation factors,

that we aim to generalize.

Acknowledgments—The current study reflects the first au-

thor’s dissertation research conducted at Florida International

University. We would like to thank Marc Bargetze, Freddy

Campana, Victor Capo, David Fuentes, Alex Garcia, and Or-

lando Martinez for their assistance with data collection.

REFERENCES

Abboud, B., Wadkins, T.A., Forrest, K.D., Lange, J., & Alavi, S. (2002,

March). False confessions: Is the gender of the interrogator a de- termining factor? Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the

American Psychology-Law Society, Austin, TX.

Bedau, H.A., & Radelet, M.L. (1987). Miscarriages of justice in po-

tentially capital cases. Stanford Law Review, 40, 21–179. Costanzo, M. (2004). Psychology applied to law. Belmont, CA: Thom-

son/Wadsworth Learning.

Forrest, K.D., Wadkins, T.A., & Miller, R.L. (2002). The role of pre-ex-

isting stress on false confessions: An empirical study. The Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology, 3, 23–45.

Gudjonsson, G.H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and con- fessions: A handbook. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.

Horselenberg, R., Merckelbach, H., & Josephs, S. (2003). Individual

differences and false confessions: A conceptual replication of

Kassin and Kiechel (1996). Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 1–8. Inbau, F.E., Reid, J.E., Buckley, J.P., & Jayne, B.C. (2001). Criminal

interrogation and confessions (4th ed.). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.

Joseph, A.J. (1995).We get confessions. Rochester, NY: PrintingMethods.

Kassin, S.M. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence. American Psychologist, 52, 221–233.

Kassin, S.M., & Kiechel, K.L. (1996). The social psychology of false

confessions: Compliance, internalization, and confabulation. Psy- chological Science, 7, 125–128.

Kassin, S.M., & McNall, K. (1991). Police interrogations and confes-

sions: Communicating promises and threats by pragmatic impli-

cation. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 233–251. Kassin, S.M., & Neumann, K. (1997). On the power of confession

evidence: An experimental test of the fundamental difference

hypothesis. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 469–484. Klaver, J., Rose, V.G., & Lee, Z. (2003, July). Effect of different inter-

rogation techniques and the role of plausibility in a false confession paradigm. Paper presented at the 2003 International Psychology

& Law Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland.

Lassiter, G.D. (2004). Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.

Leo, R.A. (1996). Inside the interrogation room. The Journal of Crim- inal Law and Criminology, 86, 266–303.

Meissner, C.A., & Russano, M.B. (2003). The psychology of interro-

gations and false confessions: Research and recommendations.

Canadian Journal of Police & Security Services, 1, 53–64. Redlich, A.D., & Goodman, G.S. (2003). Taking responsibility for an

act not committed: The influence of age and suggestibility. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 141–156.

Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2001). Actual innocence: When justice goes wrong and how to make it right. New York: Signet.

White, W. (2003). Miranda’s waning protections: Police interrogation practices after Dickerson. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan

Press.

Wrightsman, L.S., & Kassin, S.M. (1993). Confessions in the courtroom. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Younge, G. (2003, April 3). ‘‘How the hell did I survive?’’ Guardian Un- limited. Retrieved August 12, 2003, from http://www.guardian.

co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,928351,00.html

(RECEIVED 6/2/04; REVISION ACCEPTED 8/5/04)

486 Volume 16—Number 6

Investigating True and False Confessions

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.4 /CompressObjects /Tags /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.0000 /ColorConversionStrategy /CMYK /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments true /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 300 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Average /ColorImageResolution 150 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Average /GrayImageResolution 150 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Average /MonoImageResolution 300 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /CreateJDFFile false /Description << /CHS <FEFF4f7f75288fd94e9b8bbe5b9a521b5efa7684002000410064006f006200650020005000440046002065876863900275284e8e9ad88d2891cf76845370524d53705237300260a853ef4ee54f7f75280020004100630072006f0062006100740020548c002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e003000204ee553ca66f49ad87248672c676562535f00521b5efa768400200050004400460020658768633002> /CHT <FEFF4f7f752890194e9b8a2d7f6e5efa7acb7684002000410064006f006200650020005000440046002065874ef69069752865bc9ad854c18cea76845370524d5370523786557406300260a853ef4ee54f7f75280020004100630072006f0062006100740020548c002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e003000204ee553ca66f49ad87248672c4f86958b555f5df25efa7acb76840020005000440046002065874ef63002> /DAN <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> /DEU <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> /ESP <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> /FRA <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> /ITA <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> /JPN <FEFF9ad854c18cea306a30d730ea30d730ec30b951fa529b7528002000410064006f0062006500200050004400460020658766f8306e4f5c6210306b4f7f75283057307e305930023053306e8a2d5b9a30674f5c62103055308c305f0020005000440046002030d530a130a430eb306f3001004100630072006f0062006100740020304a30883073002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e003000204ee5964d3067958b304f30533068304c3067304d307e305930023053306e8a2d5b9a306b306f30d530a930f330c8306e57cb30818fbc307f304c5fc59808306730593002> /KOR <FEFFc7740020c124c815c7440020c0acc6a9d558c5ec0020ace0d488c9c80020c2dcd5d80020c778c1c4c5d00020ac00c7a50020c801d569d55c002000410064006f0062006500200050004400460020bb38c11cb97c0020c791c131d569b2c8b2e4002e0020c774b807ac8c0020c791c131b41c00200050004400460020bb38c11cb2940020004100630072006f0062006100740020bc0f002000410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e00300020c774c0c1c5d0c11c0020c5f40020c2180020c788c2b5b2c8b2e4002e> /NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten te maken die zijn geoptimaliseerd voor prepress-afdrukken van hoge kwaliteit. De gemaakte PDF-documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe Reader 5.0 en hoger.) /NOR <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> /PTB <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> /SUO <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> /SVE <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> /ENU (Use these settings to create Adobe PDF documents best suited for high-quality prepress printing. Created PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Adobe Reader 5.0 and later.) >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /ConvertColors /ConvertToCMYK /DestinationProfileName () /DestinationProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /PresetSelector /MediumResolution >> /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [1200 1200] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice