The importance of a laboratory science for improving the diagnostic value of confession evidence.

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

“…The PEACE model and some of its individual components (e.g., strategic disclosure of evidence, use of open-ended questions) have been studied in the field and in the laboratory (Bull and Soukara 2010;Meissner et al 2010b). Similarly, numerous experiments have been conducted on general (e.g., Russano et al 2005a) and more specific accusatorial methods (e.g., presenting false evidence; Redlich and Goodman 2003).…”

“…Countries such as the United Kingdom, Norway, New Zealand, and Australia, have amended their interrogation practices to employ information-gathering methods of interrogation (Bull and Soukara 2010). Systematic research examining these two approaches to interviewing and interrogation has been conducted over the past decade, with studies generally demonstrating that accusatorial methods increase the likelihood of false confession, while information-gathering methods protect the innocent yet preserve interrogators' ability to elicit confessions from guilty persons (see Meissner et al 2010b).…”

“…Only laboratory studies allow scientists to randomly assign participants to relevant conditions (e.g., guilt or innocence, accusatorial or information-gathering, etc.) and assess the causal mechanisms underlying various methods, though such studies may be limited in the degree of ecological validity and experimental realism (see Meissner et al 2010b). The current systematic review explores information-gathering and accusatorial methods as assessed within both types of studies.…”

Minimization and maximization techniques: assessing the perceived consequences of confessing and confession diagnosticity

“…Although research has focused on the problem of false confessions and the various factors that may lead a person to falsely implicate themselves (Gudjonsson, 2003;Kassin et al, 2010), more recent studies have begun to explore the diagnostic value of confessions (or the ratio of true to false confessions elicited) resulting from various police interrogation techniques (see Meissner, Russano, & Narchet, 2010;Narchet, Meissner, & Russano, in press). We believe it is of critical importance to identify those techniques that maximize the diagnostic value of confession evidence, not just those that produce false confessions Á particularly if we are to encourage the law enforcement community to seriously consider the results of social science research and adapt their procedures accordingly.…”

Police Strategies and Suspect Responses in Real-Life Serious Crime Interviews

“…Although the use of many elements advocated in the Reid Technique appears to be fairly widespread in the USA (Kassin, Leo, Meissner, Richman, Colwell, Leach & La Fon., 2007;Reppucci, Meyer, & Kostelnik, 2010), the model (and others like it) have been widely criticised by both academics and practitioners in the United Kingdom, as well as by those in North America (Zimbardo, 1967;Meissner, Russano, & Narchet, 2010;Yeschke, 2003). For example, Snook, Eastwood, Stinson, Tedeschini, and House (2010) summarised three key concerns with the Reid Technique: first, that police officers do not have the ability to detect deception at greater than chance levels and, in any case, tend to be more biased towards a judgement of guilt than non-police officers; second, they pointed out the lack of empirical research evidence to support claims of effectiveness; and, thirdly, many of the techniques advocated in the model are overly coercive in nature, and risk persuading people "both innocent and guilty, to provide information that they would not normally give freely" (p. 219).…”