Investigating True and False Confessions Within a Novel Experimental Paradigm

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 paradigm, we explored the influence of two common police interrogation 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 of minimization 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 reduce the diagnostic value of any confession that is elicited.

Does video recording alter the behavior of police during interrogation? A mock crime-and-investigation study.

“…Inbau et al (2001) expressed concern that police will be inhibited from the kinds of interrogation tactics they are trained to use, implying that they may be less effective at eliciting confessions. Yet proponents of investigative interviewing, who advocate a less confrontational approach (e.g., Milne & Bull, 1999; Williamson, 2006), and researchers who have found that minimization and maximization tactics can increase the risk of false confession (e.g., Kassin & McNall, 1991; Leo & Ofshe, 1998; Russano et al, 2005; for an overview, see Kassin et al, 2010), would argue that inhibiting the most aggressive tactics constitutes a desirable outcome. Setting aside differences in the values attached to false positive and negative errors, we would argue that the answer hinges on the strictly empirical but yet untested outcome question of whether the practice of recording in any way alters the diagnosticity of the statements that police produce from guilty and innocent suspects (for a test and discussion of diagnosticity, see Russano, Meissner, Narchet, & Kassin, 2005).…”

“…Yet proponents of investigative interviewing, who advocate a less confrontational approach (e.g., Milne & Bull, 1999; Williamson, 2006), and researchers who have found that minimization and maximization tactics can increase the risk of false confession (e.g., Kassin & McNall, 1991; Leo & Ofshe, 1998; Russano et al, 2005; for an overview, see Kassin et al, 2010), would argue that inhibiting the most aggressive tactics constitutes a desirable outcome. Setting aside differences in the values attached to false positive and negative errors, we would argue that the answer hinges on the strictly empirical but yet untested outcome question of whether the practice of recording in any way alters the diagnosticity of the statements that police produce from guilty and innocent suspects (for a test and discussion of diagnosticity, see Russano, Meissner, Narchet, & Kassin, 2005). The paradigm we created (i.e., the mock crime was a minor theft, suspects were incentivized to maintain their innocence, and a 20-min time limit was set for interrogation) did not elicit enough confessions to assess diagnosticity (only 8.33% of all suspects confessed).…”

The detrimental impact of alcohol intoxication on facets of Miranda comprehension.

“…To provide readers with context, we only briefly describe measures and procedures that were not relevant to the present research objectives. These additional measures and procedures, all of which were implemented before MRCI administration, included the following: Brief Self-Control Scale (Tangney et al, 2004); consideration of future consequences scale (Strathman et al, 1994); a vignette task designed to measure aggressive tendencies; the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (Gudjonsson, 1984; note that our findings from this scale are published elsewhere; Mindthoff et al, 2021); the Russano et al (2005) cheating paradigm; and a post cheating paradigm questionnaire. Of note, the cheating paradigm involved deception (i.e., a confederate either prompted or did not prompt participants to cheat; a research assistant later accused all participants of cheating and then questioned them), for which participants were fully debriefed before being administered the MRCI.…”

Likelihood ratios in psychological expert opinion, and their reception by professional judges

“…As is true for nonidentifications in a line-up, denials by suspects during police interrogations have exonerating value. Even though denials might easily be dismissed as strategic behavior, data by Russano et al (2005) indicate that denying during interrogation when confronted with promises and minimisation is four times more likely (57%) in case of innocence than in case of guilt (13%), yielding a likelihood ratio of 0.23.…”

“…The expert witness referred to laboratory studies on false confessions. Particularly, he discussed Russano et al (2005), who conducted a study in which participants were encouraged/pressed to confess to a transgression (i.e. having cheated on a pen-and-paper task) that either took place (guilty) or not (innocent).…”