Accusatorial and information-gathering interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: a meta-analytic review

By Christian A. Meissner, A. Redlich, Stephen W. Michael, Jacqueline R. Evans, C. Camilletti, Sujeeta Bhatt, S. Brandon. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2014

181 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Cognitive Neuroscience, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d70638930279653b72e757ca20eadb1552bac356

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. H. Blank
3. Aldert Vrij
4. Maria Hartwig
5. Leanne ten Brinke
6. S. Porter
7. Sharon Leal
8. Siegfried L. Sporer

In Cognitive Neuroscience

1. Aldert Vrij
2. H. Blank
3. R. Fisher

In Social Psychology

1. R. Fisher
2. Aldert Vrij
3. H. Blank
4. Maria Hartwig
5. S. Porter
6. Leanne ten Brinke
7. Pär Anders Granhag
8. Leif A. Strömwall

Citations in the corpus

• A cognitive approach to lie detection: A meta‐analysis (2017, methodology): “…interview/interrogation method on confession outcomes revealed that informationgathering approaches significantly increased the likelihood of true confessions and significantly decreased the likelihood of false confessions compared to accusatory approaches (Meissner, 2011; Meissner et al., 2014).”