Interview and interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions
Authors: Meissner Christian A. , Redlich Allison D. , Bhatt Sujeeta , Brandon Susan 
Published: October 2012

We conducted a systematic review of the published and unpublished literatures on the interview and interrogation of suspects. Our focus was to examine the impact of accusatorial versus information gathering approaches on the elicitation of confessions.Two meta‐analytic reviews were conducted: one that focused on observational and quasi‐experimental field studies of actual suspects in which ground truth (i.e., veracity of the confession statement) was unknown, and another that assessed experimental, laboratory based studies in which ground truth was known. To be eligible, field studies must have included 1) at least one coded and quantified interviewing/interrogation method and 2) data on confession outcomes tied to the questioning style. Experimental studies must have included 1) at least two distinct interviewing or interrogation styles (e.g., direct questioning and accusatorial approach) and 2) sufficient data on true and/or false confession outcomes.Following an exhaustive search, 5 field studies and 12 experimental studies were deemed eligible for inclusion in the analyses. Results revealed that while both information‐gathering and accusatory methods were similarly associated with the production of confessions in field studies, experimental data indicated that the information‐gathering method increased the likelihood of true confessions, while reducing the likelihood of false confessions. Given the small number of independent samples, the current findings are considered preliminary, yet suggestive of the benefits of information‐gathering methods in the interrogative context.AbstractBACKGROUNDThe interviewing and interrogation of suspects can be particularly important to securing convictions against the guilty and freeing the wrongly accused. There are two general methods of questioning suspects: information‐gathering and accusatorial. The information‐gathering approach, used in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, and elsewhere, as more generally in Western Europe, is characterized by rapport‐building, truth‐seeking, and active listening. The accusatorial approach, used primarily in the United States and Canada, is characterized by accusation, confrontation, psychological manipulation, and the disallowing of denials. Which method is more effective has become a hotly debated topic as the number of false confessions identified continues to rise.OBJECTIVESOur objective was to systematically and comprehensively review published and non‐published, experimental and observational studies on the effectiveness of interviewing and interrogation methods. We focus on the questioning of suspects using information‐gathering and accusatorial methods seeking to elicit confessions.SELECTION CRITERIAWe conducted two separate meta‐analyses. The first meta‐analysis focused on observational or quasi‐experimental field studies that assess the association between certain interrogation methods and elicitation of a confession statement. Field studies must have included: 1) at least one coded and quantified interviewing/interrogation method; and 2) data on confession outcomes tied to the questioning style. The second meta‐analysis focused on experimental, laboratory‐based studies in which ground truth is known (i.e., whether the confession is factually true or false). Experimental studies must have included: 1) a comparison of at least two distinct interviewing or interrogation styles (e.g., control method and accusatorial); and 2) sufficient data on either true and/or false confession outcomes. Both meta‐analyses focus on the interrogation of “criminal” suspects. We note that whereas the aim of the accusatorial methods is to obtain confessions, the primary aim of information‐gathering methods is to obtain information. Nevertheless, because of the importance placed on confessions in the extant literature and given the current focus on confessions in the analyses reviewed, our primary outcome measure was confession rather than the amount of information gained.SEARCH STRATEGYSeveral strategies were utilized to locate eligible studies: 1) keyword searches of more than 20 databases; 2) reviewing bibliographies of several relevant books and compendiums; 3) reviewing abstracts from recent conferences; and 4) requests of researchers and practitioners, individually and via listservs.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISWe located 5 studies eligible for the field study meta‐analysis and 12 studies eligible for the experimental study meta‐analysis. We coded outcomes from both study types and report mean effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals. A random effects model was used for analysis of effect sizes. Moderator analyses were conducted when appropriate.MAIN RESULTSWe located 5 studies eligible for the field study meta‐analysis and 12 studies eligible for the experimental study meta‐analysis. We coded outcomes from both study types and report mean effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals. A random effects model was used for analysis of effect sizes. Moderator analyses were conducted when appropriate.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONSThe available data support the effectiveness of an information‐gathering style of interviewing suspects. Caution is warranted, however, due to the small number of independent samples available for the analysis of both field and experimental studies. Additional research, including the use of quasi‐experimental field studies, appears warranted.SummaryWe conducted a systematic review of the published and unpublished literatures on the interview and interrogation of suspects. Our focus was to examine the impact of accusatorial versus information‐gathering approaches on the elicitation of confessions. Two meta‐analytic reviews were conducted: one that focused on observational and quasi‐experimental field studies of actual suspects in which ground truth (i.e., veracity of the confession statement) was unknown, and another that assessed experimental, laboratory‐based studies in which ground truth was known. To be eligible, field studies must have included 1) at least one coded and quantified interviewing/interrogation method and 2) data on confession outcomes tied to the questioning style. Experimental studies must have included 1) at least two distinct interviewing or interrogation styles (e.g., direct questioning and accusatorial approach) and 2) sufficient data on true and/or false confession outcomes. Following an exhaustive search, 5 field studies and 12 experimental studies were deemed eligible for inclusion in the analyses. Results revealed that while both information‐gathering and accusatory methods were similarly associated with the production of confessions in field studies, experimental data indicated that the information‐gathering method increased the likelihood of true confessions, while reducing the likelihood of false confessions. Given the small number of independent samples, the current findings are considered preliminary, yet suggestive of the benefits of information‐gathering methods in the interrogative context.