The link between suggestibility, compliance, and false confessions: A review using experimental and field studies

Abstract

Expert witnesses and scholars sometimes disagree on whether suggestibility and compliance are related to people's tendency to falsely confess. Hence, the principal aim of this review was to amass the available evidence on the link between suggestibility and compliance and false confessions. We reviewed experimental data in which false confessions were experimentally evoked and suggestibility and compliance were measured. Furthermore, we reviewed field data of potential false confessions and their relationship with suggestibility and compliance. These diverse databases converge to the same conclusion. We unequivocally found that high levels of suggestibility (and to a lesser extent compliance) were associated with an increased vulnerability to falsely confess. Suggestibility measurements might be informative for expert witnesses who must evaluate the false confession potential in legal cases.

“What works?” Systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of the investigative interviewing research literature

“…Finally, scholars have long posited that certain individuals may be more susceptible to providing a false confession as a function of interrogative suggestibility or compliance (Gudjonsson, 2018). Otgaar et al (2021) offer the first meta-analysis of the available literature involving both experimental and field data on this topic. The authors find that interrogative suggestibility is a strong predictor of vulnerability, while measures of compliance served as a significant predictor only when field studies were considered.…”

“…First, authors of these reviews resoundingly called for important considerations for future research and data collection practices. For example, many of the reviews focused on relatively small literatures that could benefit from more experimental research and improved power in research designs (with cells sizes often too small to detect appropriate effect sizes; (Gabbert et al, 2021;Horry et al, 2021;Luke, 2021;Oleszkiewicz & Watson, 2021;Otgaar et al, 2021;Verschuere et al, 2021). In some instances, replication of findings was encouraged to extend beyond well-defined research groups (Luke, 2021;Verschuere et al, 2021).…”

“…A second set of recommendations related to the need to explore contextual moderators important to ecological validity (Gabbert et al, 2021;Horry et al, 2021;Mac Giolla & Luke, 2021;Oberlader et al, 2021;Otgaar et al, 2021;Verschuere et al, 2021). For example, many of the current experimental paradigms lack elements that are central to the experience of witnesses, victims, sources, or suspects, including the degree of perceived stress or arousal, the variety of motivations associated with providing information, or the complexity of the situations that are so often the purpose of an interview.…”

Language of Criminal Confessions

“…This difference could also be tied to the cognitive processes involved in the production of images rather than false memories when it comes to CPF. These cognitive processes are in turn tightly connected to the concept of suggestibility, which has been found to be a crucial factor in the production of false confessions (Otgaar, 2021). False memories involve the actual belief of having experienced the remembered event, while images are conceptualized as associated with the suggested event but not experienced as memories of the event (Lindsay et al, 2004;Desjardins & Scoboria, 2007;Hessen-Kayfitz & Scoboria, 2012).…”

Milestones and signposts in the science of investigative interviewing

“…Similarly, with the support of practitioners, it becomes possible to validate (or dispute) findings generated in laboratory settings. As a result, enterprising researchers are able to explore which positive outcomes achieved in the laboratory will dependably translate to field conditions where such elements as motivation and rewards/punishments are often very different (see Otgaar et al, 2021).…”