are less likely to invoke these rights, and are more
likely to confess when under pressure to do so.
Mental retardation is also a substantial risk factor,
as it is associated with increases in compliance and
suggestibility. Research has shown that people with
intellectual impairments do not comprehend their
Mirandarights and are prone to answer “Yes” to a
range of questions, particularly from those in posi-
tions of authority, indicating an acquiescence response
bias. They are also highly influenced by misinforma-
tion, a suggestibility effect that increases the risk of
internalized false confessions.
Mental illness can also increase the tendency for
false confessions. Distorted perceptions and memo-
ries, a breakdown in reality monitoring, anxiety, mood
disturbance, and lack of self-control are common
symptoms of many categories of mental illness. These
symptoms may lead people to offer misleading infor-
mation, including false confessions, to the police dur-
ing interviews and interrogations. Moreover, disorders
that lead people to be more anxious can increase the
likelihood of their making a false confession as a
means of escape from interrogation.IInntteerrrrooggaattiioonn RRiisskk FFaaccttoorrss
Although there are subtle variations among
approaches,the typical police interrogation is a multi-
step event that involves an interplay of three processes:
(1) isolation, (2) confrontation, and (3) minimization.
First, interrogators are trained to remove suspects
from their familiar surroundings and question them in
the police station, often in a specially constructed
interrogation room. To some extent, interrogation time
is a risk factor. Although most police interrogations
last for less than 2 hours, a study of documented false
confession cases in which time was recorded revealed
that the mean of interrogation exceeded 16 hours.
Second, interrogators confront suspects with strong
assertions of guilt that are designed to communicate
that resistance is futile. As part of this process, inter-
rogators are trained to block the suspect from issuing
denials, to refute alibis, and even to present suppos-
edly incontrovertible evidence of the suspect’s guilt—
even if such evidence does not exist. Historically, the
polygraph has played a key role in this false evidence
ploy. In numerous false confession cases, compliant
and internalized false confessions have been extracted
by police examiners who told suspects that they
had failed a lie detector test—even when they had not(as in the Peter Reilly and Michael Crowe cases
described earlier).
The third step is to minimize the crime by provid-
ing suspects, who are feeling trapped by confronta-
tion, with moral justification or face-saving excuses,
making confession seem like a cost-effective means of
escape. At this stage, interrogators are trained to sug-
gest to suspects that their alleged actions were sponta-
neous, accidental, provoked, peer pressured, drug
induced, or otherwise justifiable by external factors,
as a way to encourage confession. Indeed, research
shows that minimization tactics lead people to infer
that leniency will follow from confession, even in the
absence of an explicit promise.Empirical Research
on False Confessions
In recent years, researchers have sought to examine
various aspects of false confessions using an array of
methods—including aggregated case studies, natural-
istic observations of live and videotaped interroga-
tions, self-reports from the police and suspects, and
laboratory and field experiments designed for hypoth-
esis-testing purposes.
Saul Kassin and Katherine Kiechel developed the
first laboratory paradigm to systematically examine
the factors that elicit false confessions. In this experi-
ment, participants working on a computer were
accused of hitting the ALT key they had been
instructed to avoid. In the original study, participants
were rendered more or less vulnerable to manipulation
by being paced to work at a fast or slow pace. In a
manipulation of the false evidence ploy, some partici-
pants, but not others, were then exposed to a confeder-
ate who claimed to have seen them hit the forbidden
key. Results showed that this false evidence ploy sig-
nificantly increased the false confession rate, as well as
the tendency of participants to internalize the belief in
their own guilt—particularly among participants ren-
dered vulnerable to manipulation. Follow-up studies
using this computer-crash paradigm have replicated
and extended this false evidence effect.
A second laboratory paradigm was developed by
Melissa Russano and colleagues to investigate the
effects of promises and minimization on both true and
false confession rates. In their study, participants were
paired with a confederate for a problem-solving study
and instructed to work alone on some trials and jointly
on others. In a guilty condition, the confederate askedFalse Confessions——— 309F-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:42 PM Page 309