Accusatorial and information-gathering interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: a meta-analytic review

Abstract

Objectives We completed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available empirical literature assessing the influence of accusatorial and information-gathering methods of interrogation in eliciting true and false confessions. Methods We conducted two separate meta-analyses. The first meta-analysis focused on observational field studies that assessed the association between certain interrogation methods and elicitation of a confession statement. The second meta-analysis focused on experimental, laboratory-based studies in which ground truth was known (i.e., a confession is factually true or false). We located 5 field studies and 12 experimental studies eligible for the meta-analyses. We coded outcomes from both study types and report mean effect sizes with 95 % confidence intervals. A random effects model was used for analysis of effect sizes. Moderator analyses were conducted when appropriate.Results Field studies revealed that both information-gathering and accusatorial approaches were more likely to elicit a confession when compared with direct questioning methods. However, experimental studies revealed that the information-gathering approach preserved, and in some cases increased, the likelihood of true confessions, while simultaneously reducing the likelihood of false confessions. In contrast, the accusatorial approach increased both true and false confessions when compared with a direct questioning method. Conclusions The available data support the effectiveness of an information-gathering style of interviewing suspects. Caution is warranted, however, due to the small number of independent samples available for the analysis of both field and experimental studies. Additional research, including the use of quasi-experimental field studies, appears warranted.

Problems in expert deception detection and the risk of false confessions: no proof to the contrary in Levine et al. (2014)

“…In analysing the problem, researchers have implicated both individual difference characteristics that increase a suspect's vulnerability (such as youth, intellectual disability, and mental illness) and the persuasive influence of certain police interrogation tactics (such as accusatorial methods that include the use of guilt-presumptive questions, the presentation of false evidence, and minimization tactics that imply leniency; for reviews, see Gudjonsson, 2003;Kassin & Gudjonsson, 2004;Lassiter & Meissner, 2010;Meissner, Redlich, Michael, Evans, Camilletti, Bhatt, & Brandon, 2014;Warden & Drizin, 2009; for an official White Paper, see Kassin, Drizin, Grisso, Gudjonsson, Leo, & Redlich, 2010). aim to contribute to this vast body of lie detection and false confessions literature by reporting two studies purportedly showing that expert interviewerswhen they are permitted to question intervieweescan achieve almost perfect accuracy without ever eliciting a false confession.…”

Increasing pressure does not benefit lie detection: a reply to Ten Brinke et al. (2015)

“…The deception literature provides little evidence for this hypothesis, nor do the data presented by these authors. The accusatory interrogation technique employed in Studies 2 and 3 resulted in the typical poor accuracy rates, which is not surprising given that, compared to information-gathering interview styles, accusatory techniques lead to less information including less accurate information (Meissner et al, 2014). In other words, harsh interrogations are ineffective (Fallon, 2015).…”

“…We further argue that in the absence of convincing data, exposing interviewees to additional pressure should be avoided because it hampers the elicitation of valuable information and cues to deceit (Meissner, Redlich, Michael, Evans, Camiletti, Bhatt, & Brandon, 2014) and can lead to false confessions (Kassin, 2005;Kassin et al, 2010).…”

“…In fact, cognitive lie detection has strong links with so called information-gathering interviewing in which efforts are made to encourage suspects to tell their side of the story without being criticized or interrupted (Meissner et al, 2014;Vrij, Hope, & Fisher, 2014).…”

“…Therefore, in information-gathering interview protocols, the amount of detail becomes a diagnostic cue to deceit. A meta-analysis in which information-gathering interviewing was compared with an accusatory style of interviewing revealed that information-gathering interviewing leads to the most cues to deceit (Meissner et al, 2014). By using questions such as "Did you steal the money from this office?"…”