"I'd Know a False Confession If I Saw One": A Comparative Study of College Students

and Police Investigators

Author(s): Saul M. Kassin, Christian A. Meissner and Rebecca J. Norwick
Source: Law and Human Behavior , Apr., 2005, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Apr., 2005), pp. 211-227
Published by: Springer on behalf of American Psychology-Law Society (AP-LS)

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4499417

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4499417?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Springer and are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Law and
Human Behavior

This content downloaded from

24.28.96.92 on Fri, 22 Nov 2024 03:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 29, No. 2, April 2005 ((,& 2005)
DOI: 10.1007/s10979-005-2416-9

"I'd Know a False Confession if I Saw One":

A Comparative Study of College Students
and Police Investigators

Saul M. Kassin,t4 Christian A. Meissner,2 and Rebecca J. Norwick3

College students and police investigators watched or listened to 10 prison inmates co

fessing to crimes. Half the confessions were true accounts; half were false- concocte
for the study. Consistent with much recent research, students were generally more
curate than police, and accuracy rates were higher among those presented with audio
taped than videotaped confessions. In addition, investigators were significantly more
confident in their judgments and also prone to judge confessors guilty. To determin
if police accuracy would increase if this guilty response bias were neutralized, partic
pants in a second experiment were specifically informed that half the confessions w
true and half were false. This manipulation eliminated the investigator response bias
but it did not increase accuracy or lower confidence. These findings are discussed fo
what they imply about the post-interrogation risks to innocent suspects who confes

KEY WORDS: confessions: deception: police.

In recent years, numerous high-profile DNA exonerations have surfaced, lead

ing social science researchers, legal scholars, policy makers, and the news me
to revisit the evidence upon which innocent people had been prosecuted, con-
victed, and imprisoned. As reported in Scheck, Neufeld, and Dwyer's (2000) Act
Innocence, and as confirmed by data that have accumulated since that time, 2
25% of DNA exoneration cases contained full or partial confessions in evidenc
(www.innocenceproject.org). The shocking exonerations in New York's Centra
Park jogger case illustrate the point. In 1989, a female jogger was raped, brutal
beaten, and left for dead in Central Park. Within 72 h, five juveniles, 14-16 ye
old, confessed to the assault in lurid detail. Four of the confessions were videotaped.
The boys immediately retracted their statements, claiming that they were coer

'Williams College.
2Florida International University.
3Harvard University.
4To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Psychology, Williams Coll
Williamstown, Massachusetts 01267: e-mail: skassin@williams.edu.

211

()147-73()7/()5/()4()()-0211/1 " 2(005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

This content downloaded from

24.28.96.92 on Fri, 22 Nov 2024 03:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 212 Kassin, Meissner, and Norwick

and false. Yet solely on the basis of

ries and sentenced to prison. Thir
serial rapist and murderer-confes
Reyes confession, unlike those of t
men found at the crime scene. Appar
news media, this one case containe
2002; Morgenthau, 2002).
The jogger case and others invol
problems. The first is that innocent
did not commit. Over the years, p
tion, decision-making, and social in
gation, and have used an array of
certain interrogation tactics lead s
Drizin & Leo, 2004; Gudjonsson, 19
1997; Kassin & Wrightsman, 1985;
Redlich & Goodman, 2003; Wrights
however, a second problem evident
district attorneys, judges, and jurie
that they cannot distinguish between
those that are false. One could argu
and that innocent people sometimes
detected by authorities and correct
commonsense assumption that "I'd
Is there a reason to believe that
tween true and false confessions? C
not proficient at judging truth and
chance levels (DePaulo, Lassiter, &
2000), that training programs prod
performance (Bull, 1989; Kassin &
Vrij, 1994; Zuckerman, Koestner, &
tion deception "professionals" typical
comparisons are made (Bull, 1989;
& O'Sullivan, 1991; Ekman, O'Sul
Garrido, Masip, & Herrero, 2004; K
the law enforcement community a
curate judges of truth and decept
there is little if any evidence to su
presumed cues to deception, see
view of deception detection issues i
2004).
To address this question in a criminal context, Kassin and Fong (1999) ex-
amined whether people can distinguish true and false denials-and whether police
training in the use of verbal and nonverbal deception cues would increase the accu-
racy of such judgments. In Phase 1, participants committed one of four mock crimes
and then denied their involvement in an interview. In Phase 2, observers were ei-
ther trained in the Reid technique approach to deception detection or not trained

This content downloaded from

24.28.96.92 on Fri, 22 Nov 2024 03:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Detecting True and False Confessions 213

before judging these taped interviews. As in o

indicated that observers could not significantl
deceptive suspects. In fact, those who under
rate and more confident than naive contro
Kassin (2002) showed these interviews to ex
though they were not more accurate than s
more likely to make false positive errors, il
perceiving deception. The pivotal decision of w
is thus based on prejudgments of guilt that
guilt and often in error.
Past research has examined the impact o
others in the criminal justice system. Mock
not adequately discount confession evidenc
to do so (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1980, 1985
pact than eyewitness and character testimo
(Kassin & Neumann, 1997), and they increas
jurors who see the statements as coerced an
by them (Kassin & Sukel, 1997). More gene
other information, including evidence of in
legal consequences-from arrest through pro
(Drizin & Leo, 2004; Leo & Ofshe, 1998). Thu
victions, it is important that confessions be ac
court proceedings. But can people in genera
particular, distinguish true from false confess
This research tested a common assumpti
know a false confession if I saw one." To e
two-phased experiment. First, we recruited
pair of videotaped interviews-one in which
for which they were incarcerated, the other i
sion to a crime described by the experimen
we showed civilian and police observers a s
each giving a true or false confession to on
participants judged whether the individual
confidence in that judgment.
In addition to developing this novel parad
fessions, this research was designed with thre
pare untrained lay observers and police inv
and confidence-and to assess, within the l
tions among training in deception detection
Second, we sought to elucidate the nature o
ously found. Research shows that police in
deception, which typically signals guilt (Ma
Meissner & Kassin, 2002). But what does thi
sessing confessions? In forensic settings, ly
innocent suspects state truthful alibis whereas
ing observers assess true and false confessi

This content downloaded from

24.28.96.92 on Fri, 22 Nov 2024 03:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
214 Kassin, Meissner, and Norwick

judgments indicate guilt and "fals

determine whether the disposition
believing confessions) or guilt (i.e.,
examine whether discrimination ac
the medium of their presentation.
to assess suspects by attending to b
in nature (Inbau et al., 2001). Yet s
more diagnostic of truth and decep
& Green, 1999; DePaulo et al., 1982).
the electronic recording of interroga
mance of lay participants and polic
videotape to those who merely list

EXPERIMENT 1

Method

This experiment was conducted in two phases. First, a group of prison inmate
provided true and false confessions that were recorded on audiotape and on vide
tape. Next, confessions were presented for judgment to college students and poli
investigators.

Participants

Male inmates from a Massachusetts state correctional facility were recruited

and paid to take part in a pair of videotaped interviews. The facility houses roughly
a thousand state and county offenders. In response to a call for research subjects, a
total of 20 inmates volunteered and were paid $20 for their participation. However,
one refused to discuss his crime, a second claimed he was innocent, and a third
refused to generate a false confession, so statements were obtained from 17 inmates.
One hundred eighteen participants, from two samples, served as judges in
Phase 2 of this study. Serving as a convenient sample of laypeople, one group con-
sisted of 61 male and female introductory psychology students who took part in
exchange for extra course credit. The second sample consisted of 57 federal, state,
and local investigators from Florida and Texas recruited through personal contacts
and direct solicitation to their departments. As a group, 47 investigators were male,
10 were female. They had an average of 10.94 years of law enforcement experi-
ence, and 58% had received special training in deception detection, interviewing,
and interrogation. Within both samples, participants in small group settings were
randomly assigned to the videotape or audiotape condition.

The Stimulus Tape

With assistance from prison staff, 20 inmates were recruited and escorted to
a special room to take part in the study. Upon arrival, each inmate was seated
at a table and introduced to a male interviewer and the female technical assistant
who operated the audiovisual equipment. After explaining the task, the interviewer

This content downloaded from

24.28.96.92 on Fri, 22 Nov 2024 03:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Detecting True and False Confessions 215

presented the participant with a written

aloud. This form stated that participants are
associated with the results in any way"), tha
dential ("to be shared only with others inv
will be paid $20, and that they may withd
time.

Inmates who signed the consent form were next asked to provide a full con-
fession to the crime for which they were in prison, statements that were verified by
their records, but not to talk about their arrest, conviction, or incarceration, or other
aspects of their recent lives. Specifically, they were instructed: "Tell me about what
you did, the crime you committed, that brought you here. Try to give me as much
detail as you can about what happened, when, where, who you were with, and so
on." To ensure that all stimulus confessions contained the same basic ingredients,
each free narrative was followed by a standardized set of 10 questions that probed
for who, what, when, where, how, why, and other details, such as: "Had you planned
to do it?" "Did anyone see you?" "Afterward, what did you do and where did you
go?" "Did you tell anyone about it?" "What did you do with the... ?" All sessions
were videotaped from a camcorder that was mounted on a tripod behind the in-
terviewer, five feet in front of the inmate. The sessions were also recorded by an
audiotape recorder placed on the table.
For a second videotaped interview, each inmate was instructed that, "I'm going
to tell you about a crime that you were not involved in. I'd like you to lie about it
and make up a confession as if you did it. Try to imagine the crime and imagine
yourself doing it. Then make up a story filled with details of what happened, what
you did, when, where, who you were with, and so on." Each inmate was then given
a skeletal, one- or two-sentence description of the true crime described by the pre-
ceding participant and offered a couple of minutes to concoct a false confession. As
with the true statements, each free narrative was followed by standardized interview
questions. Using this yoked design, the first inmate's true confession became the ba-
sis of the second inmate's false confession; the second's true confession became the
basis of the third's false confession, and so on. The order in which the participants
gave true and false confessions was counterbalanced across sessions.
Seventeen inmates provided true and false confessions. However, a number of
statements had to be discarded because the inmate, despite instruction, had talked
about his arrest, conviction, and incarceration, or strayed out of character (e.g., ask-
ing during the statement, "is it okay if I give a made-up name?"). In these instances,
the yoked companion confessions had to be discarded as well. Through this proce-
dure, and the elimination of "second" appearances by the same inmate, we created
a stimulus videotape and a corresponding audiotape that depicted 10 different in-
dividuals, once each, confessing to one of five crimes: aggravated assault, armed
robbery, burglary, breaking and entering, and automobile theft and reckless driv-
ing. As there is no forensic relevance to the question of whether people can choose
between competing confessions, the statements were not explicitly paired for pre-
sentation, but the tapes as a whole contained five true confessions and their yoked,
false confession counterparts. Except for the constraint that the true and false ver-
sions of the same crime not appear in sequence, the 10 confessions were randomized

This content downloaded from

24.28.96.92 on Fri, 22 Nov 2024 03:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 216 Kassin, Meissner, and Norwick

and presented in a constant order.

(confessions averaged 4 min, 40 s).
Procedure

Both student and police observers were scheduled and run in small group ses-
sions, and groups were randomly assigned to participate in the videotape or au-
diotape condition. Before exposure to the taped confessions, all participants were
instructed that they would be presented with a number of statements, some that
were true others that were false. They were asked not to react publicly or comment
on the statements in order to ensure the independence of all responses. They were
then handed a 10-page questionnaire, with the pages labeled "Statement 1" through
"Statement 10." On each page, one per confession, participants were asked to circle
their judgment: "In your opinion, is this individual guilty of the crime to which he
has confessed, or is he innocent of it and telling a false story?" They then rated their
confidence in that judgment on a 1-10 point Likert-type scale (1: "not at all con-
fident," 10: "very confident"). At the conclusion of each session, the groups were
debriefed and thanked for their participation.

Results

In global judgment accuracy, the results of this study paralleled those obtained
for judgments of true and false denials (Meissner & Kassin, 2002). Across partici-
pants, conditions, and items, the overall accuracy rate was 53.9%-a level of per-
formance that is both unimpressive and nonsignificant relative to chance perfor-
mance (z-test for proportions = 0.87). In signal detection terms, the hit rate (the
percentage of inmates whose true confessions were correctly identified as true) was
63.6% and the false alarm rate (the percentage of inmates whose false confessions
were incorrectly identified as true) was 56.1%. On a 1-10 point scale, the overall
mean confidence level was 6.76. Interestingly, judgment accuracy and confidence
were negatively correlated (point biserial r = -.23, p < .02).
All performance measures were analyzed within a 2 (students, investigators) x
2 (videotape, audiotape) between-subject analysis of variance (ANOVA). On the
all-important measure of global accuracy, significant main effects were found for
both participant sample and for medium of presentation. Specifically, students were
more accurate than investigators (Ms = 58.8 and 48.3%, respectively), F(1, 114) =
15.49, p < .001, r2 = .12; and accuracy was greater in the audio than video condition
(Ms = 59.3 and 47.8%, respectively), F(1, 114) = 18.71, p < .001, r# = .14. Among
the four groups, students in the audiotape condition were the most accurate, exceed-
ing chance level performance (M = 64.1%, z-test for proportions = 1.65, p < .05);
police investigators in the videotape condition were the least accurate (M = 42.1%,
z-test for proportions = .86). The full results within each cell are presented in
Table 1.

Students may have been more accurate in their judgments, but police in-
vestigators were significantly more confident (Ms = 7.35 and 6.21, respectively),
F(1, 114) = 39.28, p < .001, 2 = .26. Overall levels of confidence were not affected
by medium of presentation (Ms = 6.66 and 6.91 in the audio and video conditions,

This content downloaded from

24.28.96.92 on Fri, 22 Nov 2024 03:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Detecting True and False Confessions 217

Table 1. Key Performance Measures Among S

in the Videotape and Audiotape Conditions

Students Investigators
Video Audio Video Audio

N 29 32 28 29

Judgment accuracy (%) 53.4 64.1 42.1 54.5

Hit rates (%) 55.9 70.0 57.9 69.7
False alarnms (%) 50.3 41.9 73.6 60.7
(onfidence 6.18 6.25 7.65 7.06
A' 0.57 0.68 0.39 0.58

B -0.1) -0.21 -0.56 -0.52

respectively), F(1, 114) = 2.0, p < .20.

samples was somewhat larger in the v
gators and students, respectively) than
investigators and students), the two-way
F(1, 114) = 3.38, p < .07, if, .03.
Using a signal detection framework
of "hits" (the proportion of inmates
tified as true) and "false alarms" (the
sions were incorrectly identified as t
although participant samples did not d
for police and students, respectively),
icantly more false alarms (M = 67.1 a
p < .001, i = .20. Significant main eff
sentation. The hit rate was higher in
the video condition), F(1, 114) - 11.50
was higher in the video condition (
F(1, 114) - 7.41, p < .01, [ -.06. There
sample and medium of presentation
were combined into aggregate measu
sponse bias (B"D), the results replicated
ously described. Specifically, students
accuracy (M = .62 vs. .48), F(1, I 114)
exhibited a greater response bias tow
-.16), F(l, 114) - 17.0)1,1) < .00)), 1if =
tion, participants exhibited greater di
tion than in the videotape condition,
r = .10, but they showed no differ
F(1, 114) = .12, ns.
Comparing students and police inves
law enforcement training and experie
and untrained investigators. Within
tions between prior training and expe
Overall, 33 out of 57 investigators sai
tion detection, interviewing, and inte

This content downloaded from

24.28.96.92 on Fri, 22 Nov 2024 03:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
218 Kassin, Meissner, and Norwick

training did not significantly correlat

(rs = -.13, .19, and .06, respectively), b
mit false alarms (r = .27, p < .05). H
show less discrimination accuracy (
bias toward judging confessions as
rience, our investigators reported
Measured in this way, experience d
rates (rs = .04 and -.05, respectively, n
overall accuracy (r = -.26, p < .05
those with more rather than less ex
racy (r = -.35, p < .01) and a greate

Discussion

In deciding whether to interrogate a suspect, police detectives conduct pre

interrogation interviews in which they make preliminary judgments of truth and de
ception. Meissner and Kassin (2002) found that while investigators have confiden
in their ability to make these judgments, they are no more accurate than laypeop
Moreover, they exhibit a signal detection response bias, tending to judge suspec
denials as deceptive. By eliciting judgments of true and false confessions, this study
extended previous results in important ways. Once again, investigators were n
more accurate than students, only more confident and more biased. Importantly
the response bias currently exhibited reveals that investigators are not disposed
seeing deception per se (which, in this study, would mean disbelieving the conf
sions) but, rather, they are biased toward inferring guilt (an inference that involves
accepting the confessions as true).
This overall pattern of results concerning judgment accuracy, confidence, an
bias has serious implications for the interrogation of innocent suspects and sub
quent assessment of their confessions. There are two possible explanations for w
police did not distinguish true and false confessions in this study and why they were
generally less accurate than naive college students. One possibility is that law en
forcement training and experience introduce systematic bias that reduces overa
judgment accuracy (see Meissner & Kassin, 2004). This interpretation is consisten
with our internal analyses. It is also not terribly surprising in light of the kinds of de
ception cues that form the basis for law enforcement training. For example, Inb
et al. (2001) advocate the use of many visual cues-such as gaze aversion, nonfront
posture, slouching, and grooming gestures-that are not empirically diagnostic o
truth or deception (DePaulo et al., 2003). Furthermore, past research has shown th
people are more accurate at deception detection when they rely more on such a
ditory cues as response latency, speech rate, and voice pitch (Anderson et al., 199
DePaulo et al., 1982). Our results clearly replicated this pattern, with discriminat
accuracy significantly higher in the audio than video condition without a significant
influence on response bias. In short, it is conceivable that police training in the u
of visual cues would impair performance, not improve it.
A second possibility is that investigators' judgment accuracy was compromis
by our use of a paradigm in which half of the stimulus confessions were false,

This content downloaded from

24.28.96.92 on Fri, 22 Nov 2024 03:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Detecting True and False Confessions 219

percentage that is likely far higher than the

To the extent that law enforcement train
presume guilt, and to presume most conf
imported from the police station to the la
a study in which they were told merely th
false. So instructed, investigators judged 65 %
to only 55% among student participants,
t(116) = 3.89, p < .001. Hence, it is possibl
because of a gross mismatch between the
false confessions.

EXPERIMENT 2

To test the hypothesis that judgment accuracy was depressed amon

tors relative to students because of differences in base rate expectat
ducted a second study specifically designed to neutralize the respons
experiment, all participants were shown the 10 videotaped confession
periment 1, but they were instructed this time that half of the statemen
and half were false. We predicted that this manipulation would neut
positional response bias of investigators relative to students-and perh
judgment accuracy in the process.

Method

Forty-one participants recruited from two samples judged the confession video-
tapes in this study. Twenty-one were introductory psychology students (9 male, 12
female), and 20 were state and local police investigators from the state of Florida
(15 male, 5 female). Recruited through personal contacts and direct solicitation, the
investigators as a group had an average of 11.25 years of law enforcement experi-
ence, and 9 (45%) had received special training in deception detection, interviewing
and interrogation.
As in the first experiment, all participants took part in small group sessions and
judged the same 10 confessions. Prior to watching the tapes, they were admonished
not to react overtly and provided with a 10)-page questionnaire, with the pages la-
beled "Statement 1" througih "Statement 10." As before, participants were asked
after each statement to determine whether the individual was guilty or innocent o
the crime for which he had confessed and to rate their confidence in that judgment
on a 1-10 point scale. In this experiment, however, they were explicitly told within
the instruction that "'You will see ten statements. Half are true and half are false."

Results

We sought to eliminate the response bias characteristic of investigators in order

to reassess their performance relative to students. In Experiment 1, investigators
judged 65.4% of the confessions to be true, compared to 54.6% among students,
a difference that was significant, (l116) 3.89, p < .001()(). In this experiment,

This content downloaded from

24.28.96.92 on Fri, 22 Nov 2024 03:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 220 Kassin, Meissner, and Norwick

however, investigators judged only

49.5% among students-a differen
The manipulation designed to ne
successful.
Across participant samples and items, the overall accuracy rate was 51.2%, a
level of performance that did not exceed chance level expectations (z-test for pro-
portions = .26). In signal detection terms, the hit rate was 51.7% and the false alarm
rate was 49.3%. On a 1-10 point scale, the overall mean level of confidence was 6.37.
As in the first study, there was only a modest, and negative, correlation between
judgment accuracy and confidence (r = -.27, p < .10).
On the measure of global accuracy, students slightly outperformed investiga-
tors, but in this study the difference was not significant (Ms = 53.8 and 48.5%,
respectively), t(39) = 1.01, p < .50, and neither group exceeded chance level per-
formance (z-test for proportions = .37 and .09 for students and investigators, re-
spectively, ns). Similarly, students and investigators did not differ in their rate of
hits (Ms = 53.3 and 50.0%, respectively), t(39) = .61, p > .50, or false alarms (Ms =
45.7 and 53.0%, respectively), t(39) = -1.36, p < .20. On the key signal detection
measures, the students and investigators did not differ in discrimination accuracy,
or A' (Ms = .54 and .46, respectively), t(39) = 1.06, p < .30, and the previously pro-
nounced response bias (B"D) was no longer significant (Ms = .02 and -.07, respec-
tively), t(39) = 1.78, p < .10. Yet despite the low and equivalent accuracy rates,
and consistent with Experiment 1, investigators were significantly more confident
than students in their judgments (Ms = 7.03 and 5.74, respectively), t(39) = -4.61,
p < .001, S = .35.
In order to assess the statistical impact of the 50-50 instruction, overall and in
interaction with participant sample, we conducted two-way ANOVAs to compare
students and investigators from the videotape conditions of Experiments 1 and 2. On
global accuracy, a significant main effect indicated that students outperformed in-

vestigators (Ms = 53.6 and 45.3%, respectively), F(1, 94) = 6.53, p < .01, r/ = .07.
Although there were no significant main effects or interaction on hit responses,
false alarms were significantly higher in the first Experiment than in the second
(Ms = 62.0 and 49.4%, respectively), F(1, 94) = 9.25,p < .001, j = .09, and among
investigators than students (Ms = 63.3 and 48.0%, respectively), F(1, 94) = 13.55,
p < .001, rj = .13. There was also a marginally significant interaction, which showed
that the reduction in false alarms from the first experiment to the second was sig-
nificant among investigators (Ms = 73.6 and 53.0%, respectively) but not among
the students (Ms = 50.3 and 45.7%, respectively), F(1, 94) = 3.70, p < .06, jr = .04.
Finally, confidence levels were higher in the first experiment than in the second

(Ms = 6.91 and 6.34, respectively), F(1, 94) = 6.79, p < .01, r7 = .07, and among
investigators than students (Ms = 7.34 and 5.74, respectively), F(1, 94) = 46.46,
p < .001, 2 = .33.

Discussion

The primary aim of Experiment 2 was to neutralize the investigator re-

sponse bias through a pre-task instruction that set the base rate for true and false

This content downloaded from

24.28.96.92 on Fri, 22 Nov 2024 03:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Detecting True and False Confessions 221

confessions at 50-50. This manipulation wa

number of "true" judgments that had pro
ing the differences between participant s
was whether eliminating the response bi
larly within our sample of investigators. T
mixed. Compared to their counterparts i
investigators in the video condition of Ex
but a lower false alarm rate, making them
ments. The problem is that while investig
rate than students or chance performance
judgments.

General Discussion

Analyses of recent DNA exonerations suggest that false confessions are impli
cated in more than 20% of all wrongful convictions. This problem occurs for tw
reasons: (1) people sometimes confess to crimes they did not commit, either vol
untarily or through a process of interrogation, and (2) police investigators, distr
attorneys, judges, and juries seem unable to distinguish among true and false co
fessions, too often accepting the latter at face value. Archival and case studies i
lustrate the point. Looking at sixty proven and probable false confession cases, L
and Ofshe (1998) discovered that 73% of defendants who were tried on the basis
these confessions were convicted.
Human beings and the criminal justice systems they create are imperfect. De-
fendants, police investigators, and witnesses make mistakes and lie, voluntarily or
under pressure. Thankfully, there are safeguards in place to regulate the problems
through adversarial mechanisms that press for corroboration, proof beyond a rea-
sonable doubt, and post-conviction appellate review. In the case of confessions, the
protection for people falsely accused rests on the commonsense assumption, held
from the police station into the courtroom, that "I'd know a false confession if I
saw one." This research challenges that assumption. In Experiment 1, police were
not only less accurate than laypeople at judging whether confessions were true or
false, they were also biased toward perceiving true confessions and overconfident
despite a lack of accuracy. This pattern of results closely parallels studies of investi-
gators asked to judge true and false denials (Meissner & Kassin, 2002; Garrido et al.,
2004).
In addition to suggesting the fallacy of the belief that people can readily dis-
tinguish true and false confessions in the absence of other evidence, this research
makes three new and important contributions. First, the results clarify the nature
of the investigator response bias. Reanalyzing past studies from a signal detection
framework, Meissner and Kassin (2002) discovered and then replicated a significant
investigator response bias, a tendency for police to see deception in suspects. Us-
ing a standardized self-report instrument, Masip et al. (in press) found that police
harbor a "generalized communicative suspicion" compared to others. But does this
response disposition indicate a tendency to see deception or guilt? In forensic set-
tings, lying and guilt are naturally conflated: innocent suspects state truthful alibis;

This content downloaded from

24.28.96.92 on Fri, 22 Nov 2024 03:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
222 Kassin, Meissner, and Norwick

criminals lie in their denials. With co

indicate guilt and "false" judgment
competing explanations. The results
erred by accepting false confession
bias is not to see lies per se, but to
other finding-that real life interview
conducted when they elicited conf
2004).
A second important contribution is in the finding that investigators continued
to exhibit a performance pattern of low accuracy and high confidence even when
this guilt bias was neutralized. Although this is the first study ever to assess judg-
ments of true and false confessions, the results replicate a consistent finding that
experience and training do not typically improve deception detection (Bull, 1989;
Kassin & Fong, 1999; Porter et al., 2000; Vrij, 2000; Zuckerman et al., 1984) and
that professionals perform only slightly better than civilians, if at all (DePaulo,
1994; DePaulo & Pfeifer, 1986; Ekman & O'Sullivan, 1991; Ekman et al., 1999;
Garrido et al., 2004; Koehnken, 1987; Porter et al., 2000). We speculated that this
poor performance was a by-product of the response bias we had previously dis-
covered (Meissner & Kassin, 2002, 2004). Yet even when this bias was neutral-
ized and the false alarm rate reduced in Experiment 2, this pattern persisted. In
short, it appears that the performance problem among police stems from the use
of nondiagnostic behavioral cues, such as gaze aversion (DePaulo et al., 2003) or a
tendency to selectively focus on deception cues to the neglect of truth-telling cues
(Garrido et al., 2004).
Third, this research showed that people are better judges of confessions when
they listen to audiotapes of the statements than when they see complete audiovisual
presentations. In Experiment 1, participants on average were 11.5% more accurate
in the audiotape condition than in the videotape condition, and the change ben-
efited both students (64.1% vs. 53.4%) and investigators (54.5% vs. 42.1%). This
result is consistent with prior research indicating that people are better lie detectors
when focused on content and auditory cues than on less diagnostic but distracting
visual information (e.g., Anderson et al., 1999; DePaulo et al., 1982; Zuckerman, De-
Paulo, & Rosenthal, 1981). This finding raises an interesting policy question. In re-
cent years, triggered in large part by DNA exonerations and concomitant discovery
of false confessions, there has been discussion and movement in many states toward
requiring the full electronic recording of all custodial interviews and interrogations
(Drizin & Colgan, 2001; Kassin, 2004; Slobogin, 2003). This debate brings to light
important logistical considerations, as suggested by the work of Lassiter and his col-
leagues on the impact of camera perspective on judges and juries (Lassiter, Geers,
Munhall, Handley, & Beers, 2001; Lassiter, Geers, Handley, Weiland, & Munhall,
2002).
Based on the present finding that judgment accuracy was greater in the audio-
tape condition of Experiment 1 than the videotape condition, one might be tempted
to draw from our results the recommendation that electronic recording be opera-
tionalized via audiotape recorders. However, any such conclusion would rest on the
narrow view that the sole function of electronic recording is to improve the accuracy

This content downloaded from

24.28.96.92 on Fri, 22 Nov 2024 03:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Detecting True and False Confessions 223

of those who later assess the confessions. In

vated by other important goals as well, such
events that preceded the confession (e.g., wh
tered and waived, whether threats or promi
physically threatened, where the details con
deter police coercion and misconduct, to det
to increase plea agreements, and to build trust
forensic settings indicates that people becom
to nondiagnostic visual cues if instructed to
channels of communication (DePaulo et al.,
point is needed, it may be possible using ap
the benefits of a full videotaping requirem
racy among police investigators, juries, and
These studies are limited in ways that mi
One limitation concerns our use of prison i
to be judged. We sought this population pre
true confessions to serious crimes actually
gressions or mock crimes. Clearly, however
at lying, exhibiting little difficulty at the t
detection purposes, then, prison inmates may
assess, which may be the reason they demon
deception (Hartwig, Granhag, Str6mwall, &
is that although we checked with participati
ever committed the crime we had assigned for
the possibility that they inserted autobiograph
thus increasing the difficulty of the task.
the origins of their everyday lies, most said t
riences, altering critical details (Malone, A
1997). Still another limitation concerns the
prison inmates and suspects who stand accu
sequence. Although our participants saw the ta
and false stories in a relatively low-stakes situation, and did so in a matter of min-
utes, which can weaken deception cues and make the statements more difficult to
judge (DePaulo et al., 2003).
The foregoing limitations suggest that the task confronting our participant ob-
servers was difficult, perhaps more so than in the interrogation room. It is important
to note, however, that the accuracy rates observed in these studies are highly consis-
tent with most past research, that the difficulty of the task does not account for the
performance differences between students and investigators, and, from a metacog-
nitive perspective, that investigators did not adjust their confidence levels downward
in light of these paradigmatic limitations. One might argue that police investigators
are trained to detect forensic high-stakes lies, but research has produced mixed re-
sults. Vrij and Mann (2001) found that police officers did not exceed chance level
performance at judging the videotaped press conferences involving family mem-
bers who pled for help in finding missing relatives that they had killed. Mann,
Vrij, and Bull (2)004) found that police did distinguish high-stakes truths and lies in

This content downloaded from

24.28.96.92 on Fri, 22 Nov 2024 03:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
224 Kassin, Meissner, and Norwick

videotaped interviews, but these res

basis rather than assess global judg
independently vary the stakes or te
elevated accuracy rates, relative to t
about the task used than about the
police officers.
One might also argue that investiga
observe the confessions, not actively
ments of truth and deception may
when made by observers than by c
& Hunsaker, 1991; Hartwig, Granh
is instructive that despite the possi
only completed the task but were hig
though we have raised possible conc
ments, these concerns do not account
tigators and students (who, after al
closely parallel results from other
dence, and response bias. Indeed, s
iment 1 exhibited a 64% accuracy
O'Sullivan (1991) obtained from secret
professionals.
One could reasonably argue that
monly elicited through a process of
those produced in this research. In
Central Park jogger case, the statem
scripted by investigators' theory of
hours of interrogation; and they o
scene, and the victim that became
(Kassin, 2002). Yet in this research,
fessions immediately, spontaneously
tance. This contrast raises an interest
cerning the extent to which the inter
confessions also increase the perceptio
guilt or innocence.
The present results are provocative,
dressing the problem that false con
additional research is needed to add
of the equation, an important next
confessions for which "ground trut
the question of whether interrogati
to assess than those spontaneously
ments of actual confessions that ar
the full interrogation process. It is
adept at truth and lie detection fro
not mean that the task is impossibl
ent in the eliciting situation, perfo

This content downloaded from

24.28.96.92 on Fri, 22 Nov 2024 03:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Detecting True and False Confessions 225

not only the confession but the conditions u

the respondent side, future research should
tors and laypeople, but judges, prosecutors,
within the legal system who would approach th
motives.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This research was supported by the Williams College Bronfman S

through funds awarded to the first author. We also want to thank admi
staff members at Essex County Correctional Facility for their invalu
in the recruitment and scheduling of the inmates who participated in th

REFERENCES

Anderson, D. E., DePaulo, B. M., Anstield, M. E., Tickle, J. J., & Green, E. (1999). Beli
deception: Mindless stereotypes or untapped wisdom? Journal of Nonverbal Behavi
Bull, R. (1989). Can training enhance the detection of deception? In J. C. Yuille (Ed.), Cre
ment (pp. 83-99). London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bull, R., & Milne, R. (2004). Attempts to improve the police interviewing of suspects.
(Ed.), Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment (pp. 182-196). New York: Kluwer
lishers.
Buller, D. B., Strzyzewski, K. D., & Hunsaker, F. G. (1991). Interpersonal deception. II.
of conversational participants as deception detectors. Communication Monographs,
Davis, D., & O'Donohue, W. (2003). The road to perdition: "Extreme influence" tact
rogation room. In W. O'Donohue, P. Laws, & C. Hollin (Eds.), Handbook of forensi
New York: Basic Books.
DePaulo, B. M. (1994). Spotting lies: Can humans learn to do better? Current Directions in Psycholog
Science, 3, 83-86.
DePaulo, B. M., Lassiter, G. D., & Stone, J. I. (1982). Attentional determinants of success at detecting
deception and truth. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 273-279.
DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H. (2003). Cues
to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74-112.
DePaulo, B. M., & Pfeifer, R. L. (1986). On-the-job experience and skill at detecting deception. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 249-267.
Drizin, S. A., & Colgan, B. A. (2(001). Let the cameras roll: Mandatory videotaping of interrogations is
the solution to Illinois' problem of false confessions. Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 32,
337-424.
Drizin, S. A., & Leo, R. A. (2004). The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. North
Carolina Law Review, 82, 891-1007.
Ekman, P., & O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46, 913-920.
Ekman, P., O'Sullivan, M., & Frank. M. G. (1999). A few can catch a liar. Psychological Science, 10,
263-266.
Garrido, E., & Masip, J. (1999). How good are police officers at spotting lies? Forensic Update, 58, 14-21.
Garrido, E., Masip, J., & Herrero. ('. (2004). Police officers' credibility judgments: Accuracy and esti-
mated ability. International Journal of Psychology, 39, 254-275.
Granhag, P.-A., & Str6mwall, L. (Eds.) (2004). The detection of deception in forensic contexts. Cambridge
Cambridge University Press.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (1992). The psychology of interrogations, confessions, and testimony. London: Wiley.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook. West Sussex
UK: Wilev.
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Stromwall, L. A., & Andersson, L. 0. (2004). Suspicious minds: Criminals'
ability to detect deception. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 10, 83-95.

This content downloaded from

24.28.96.92 on Fri, 22 Nov 2024 03:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 226 Kassin, Meissner, and Norwick

Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Str6mwall, L. A

Interrogating freely vs. observing video. Po
Hilgendorf, E. L., & Irving, M. (1981). A dec
(Ed.), Psychology in legal contexts: Applica
Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Ja
(4th ed.). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
Kassin, S. M. (1997). The psychology of confe
Kassin, S. M. (2002). False confessions and th
p. A-31.
Kassin, S. M. (2004). Videotape police interrogations. The Boston Globe, OP-ED, April 26, 2004, p. A-13.
Kassin, S. M., & Fong, C. T. (1999). "I'm Innocent!": Effects of training on judgments of truth and
deception in the interrogation room. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 499-516.
Kassin, S. M., & Neumann, K. (1997). On the power of confession evidence: An experimental test of the
"fundamental difference" hypothesis. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 469-484.
Kassin, S. M., & Sukel, H. (1997). Coerced confessions and the jury: An experimental test of the
"harmless error" rule. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 27-46.
Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1980). Prior confessions and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 10, 133-146.
Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1985). Confession evidence. In S. M. Kassin & L. S. Wrightsman
(Eds.), The psychology of evidence and trial procedure (pp. 67-94). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Koehnken, G. (1987). Training police officers to detect deceptive eyewitness statements: Does it work?
Social Behavior, 2, 1-17.
Lassiter, G. D. (Ed.) (2004). Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment. New York: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Lassiter, G. D., Geers, A., Handley, I., Weiland, P., & Munhall, P. (2002). Videotaped confessions and
interrogations: A simple change in camera perspective alters verdicts in simulated trials. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 867-874.
Lassiter, G. D., Geers, A. L., Munhall, P. J., Handley, I. M., & Beers, M. J. (2001). Videotaped confes-
sions: Is guilt in the eye of the camera? Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 189-254.
Leo, R. A. (1996). Inside the interrogation room. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86,
266-303.
Leo, R. A., & Ofshe, R. J. (1998). The consequences of false confessions: Deprivations of liberty and
miscarriages of justice in the age of psychological interrogation. Journal of Criminal Law and Crim-
inology, 88, 429-496.
Malone, B. E., Adams, R. B., Anderson, D. E., Ansfield, M., & DePaulo, B. M. (1997). Strategies of
deception and their correlates over the course of friendship. Poster presented at the annual meeting
of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC.
Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: Police officers' ability to detect suspects' lies.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 137-149.
Masip, J., Alonso, H., Garrido, E., & Anton, C. (in press). Generalized Communicative Suspicion
(GCS) among police officers: Accounting for the investigator bias effect. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology.
Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2002). "He's guilty!": Investigator bias in judgments of truth and
deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 469-480.
Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2004). "You're guilty, so just confess!" Cognitive and behavioral con-
firmation biases in the interrogation room. In D. Lassiter (Ed.), Interrogations, confessions, and
entrapment. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.
Memon, A., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2003). Psychology and law: Truthfulness, accuracy and credibility.
London: Jossey-Bass.
Morgenthau, R. (2002). New York v. Wise, Richardson, McCray, Salaam, & Santana: Affirmation in
Response to Motion to Vacate Judgment of Conviction. Indictment No. 4762/89.
Porter, S., Woodworth, M., & Birt, A. R. (2000). Truth, lies, and videotape: An investigation of the ability
of federal parole officers to detect deception. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 643-658.
Redlich, A. D., & Goodman, G. S. (2003). Taking responsibility for an act not committed: The influence
of age and suggestibility. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 141-156.
Saulny, S. (2002). Why confess to what you didn't do? The New York Times, December 8, 2002, Section
4.
Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence. New York: Doubleday.
Slobogin, C. (2003). Toward taping. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 1, 309-322.
Vrij, A. (1994). The impact of information and setting on detection of deception by police detectives.
Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18, 117-132.

This content downloaded from

24.28.96.92 on Fri, 22 Nov 2024 03:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Detecting True and False Confessions 227

Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and decei:. The psychology

practice. London: Wiley.
Vrij, A., & Mann. S. (2001). Who killed my relative? Polic
lies. Psychology, Crime, and Lao. 7. 119-132.
Wrightsman, L. S., & Kassin, S. M. (1993). Confessions in
Zimbardo, P. G. (1967, June). The psychology of police
Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of
deception. Advances in Experinentlal .Social IPsyc-hology, 14, 1-59.
Zuckerman, M., Koestner. R.. & Alton. A. (. (1984). Learning to detect deception. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psvchology, 46, 519-5218.

This content downloaded from

24.28.96.92 on Fri, 22 Nov 2024 03:57:32 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms