"You're Guilty, So Just Confess!" Cognitive and Behavioral Confirmation Biases in the Interrogation Room.

99 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Accusatorial and information-gathering interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: a meta-analytic review (2014, background): “…to lead to the use of longer interrogations that involve more psychologically manipulative tactics—ultimately leading to the elicitation of both true and false confessions that confirm the beliefs of the interrogator (see Kassin et al. 2003; Meissner and Kassin 2002, 2004; Narchet et al. 2011).”
Eliciting cues to deception and truth: What matters are the questions asked (2012, unknown): “…and accuracy levels were compared show an interesting trend: professional lie catchers were more confident in their veracity judgements than laypersons, but were no more accurate (DePaulo & Pfeifer, 1986; Garrido, Masip, & Herrero, 2004; Kassin, Meissner, & Norwick, 2005; Meissner & Kassin, 2004).”
Criminal versus HUMINT Interrogations: The Importance of Psychological Science to Improving Interrogative Practice (2010, unknown): “Here, the role of informational or perceptual bias (often referred to as “investigative biases”; see Meissner & Kassin, 2004) is critical to consider, both for its influence on initial assessments of credibility (Kassin, Meissner, & Norwick, 2005; Meissner & Kassin, 2002) and eventually the conduct…”