The roles of interrogation, perception, and individual differences in producing compliant false confessions

Abstract

This study utilized an experimental design to examine the amount of variance in false confessions that was explained by three types of variables. These variable sets were interrogation tactics, perceptions, and individual differences. The results indicated that interrogation tactics alone explained only a trivial amount of variance; whereas perceptions and individual differences each explained significant amounts of the variance in false confessions. The individual difference measure called interrogative compliance was found to be particularly important in explaining false confessions. Implications for theory are discussed.

Keywords:

• Interrogation
• false confession
• false evidence
• min/max statements

Notes

1. Twenty-three participants indicated during the debriefing that they thought the computer was rigged to crash and that the crash was a part of the experimental design. These subjects were excluded from the analysis because they were not fooled, and, therefore, their responses could not be considered valid.

2. It should be noted that data collection occurred in two runs because not enough subjects completed the first run to provide the desired power. Because it was possible that the participants in the second run could have been contaminated by talking to the subjects who participated in the first run, all of the participants were asked during the debriefing if they had heard about the experiment from other participants. Only one subject indicated that they had. This subject was excluded from the analysis. To check for other differences in the two runs, t-tests were preformed on the variables of interest. Only the perception of the unavoidability of consequences was significantly different from run 1 to run 2, with participants in run 1 indicating that they felt that consequences were more unavoidable. This single significant difference was not more than would be expected by chance. Because of this and because no greater pattern of contamination or other systematic differences were observed, the results of the two runs were combined during analysis.