Interview and interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions

By Christian A. Meissner, A. Redlich, Sujeeta Bhatt, S. Brandon. 2012

107 citations recorded by the source corpus.

6 Background 6 Objectives 6 Selection criteria 6 Search strategy 7 Data collection and analysis 7 Main results 7 Authors’ conclusions 7

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Cognitive Neuroscience, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a8cbcb6629beee39bc4af74062763a32d70e9bc0

How researchers see this paper

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

In Clinical Psychology

1. R. Fisher
2. Aldert Vrij
3. Steven M. Kleinman
4. Lorraine Hope
5. A. Redlich
6. Maria Hartwig
7. Leanne ten Brinke
8. S. Porter

In Cognitive Neuroscience

1. Aldert Vrij
2. R. Fisher
3. Lorraine Hope
4. Steven M. Kleinman
5. A. Redlich

In Social Psychology

1. R. Fisher
2. Aldert Vrij
3. Steven M. Kleinman
4. Lorraine Hope
5. A. Redlich
6. Maria Hartwig
7. S. Porter
8. Leanne ten Brinke

Citations in the corpus

• A Taxonomy of Interrogation Methods (2013, methodology): “Another difference between this method and the information-gathering approach is that the accusatorial method permits the use of deception and lying (Meissner et al., 2012).”
• Eliciting Reliable Information in Investigative Interviews (2014, methodology): “Investigators are encouraged to use open-ended questions and are not allowed to lie to suspects (e.g., presenting false evidence; Meissner et al., 2012; Williamson, 1993).”