Content uploaded by Christian A. Meissner
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Christian A. Meissner on Jun 02, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
!
Interrogation and Investigative Interviewing in the United States: Research and Practice
Christopher E. Kelly, Ph.D.
St. Joseph’s University
Christian A. Meissner, Ph.D.
Iowa State University
!
In!press!at!D.!Walsh!et!al.!(Eds.),!Contemporary+developments+and+practices+in+investigative+
interviewing+and+interrogation:+Volume+II+(suspects).!Routledge.+
!
Abstract:)
In!this!chapter,!the!authors!frame!their!review!of!American!interrogation!practices!with!a!brief
history of how control-based, accusatorial methods became the hallmark of law enforcement
interrogation in the United States. The most popular training manuals and courses, such as the
Kinesic Interview, the Reid Technique, and Wicklander-Zulawski and Associates, tend to focus
on the psychological manipulation of suspects in order to elicit confessions. The research
conducted on American interrogation practices reviewed in this chapter supports the notion that
police investigators regularly do, in fact, employ these techniques (though not exclusively).
These practices are then examined in light of the growing body of experimental research that has
found such an accusatorial approach to interrogation to be less effective at eliciting true
confessions from criminal suspects when compared with other rapport-based elicitation models.
The authors conclude the chapter with a look to a future of American interrogation, across law
enforcement, military, and human intelligence (HUMINT) contexts, that is based on scientific
validation and assessment.
!
2
!
In a country as large and diverse as the United States and one with a decentralized
criminal justice system, it would be nearly impossible to have an accurate census of investigative
interviewing and interrogation practices of all – or even most – American law enforcement
agencies. Interrogators across the nearly 18,000 local and state agencies (Reaves, 2011) who
conduct the vast majority of criminal investigations operate through some combination of formal
and on-the-job training. The formal training that interrogators receive can range from a few
hours of in-house training to popular third party, multi-day courses such as the Kinesic Interview
(Walters, 2003), the Reid Technique (Inbau, Reid, Buckley, & Jayne, 2013), or Wicklander-
Zulawski & Associates (Zulawski, Wicklander, Sturman, & Hoover, 2001). Even at the federal
level, there exists a modicum of standardization across agencies, with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation hosting its own training operations at Quantico, Virginia, while other agencies
participate in the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
(FLETC) in Glynco, Georgia.
1
Unlike other countries that have standardized training and
practices in investigative interviewing and interrogation, a uniform American system of
interrogation is difficult, at best, to identify.
As problematic as it is to be precise (and concise) about American investigative
interviewing and interrogation, however, the adversarial nature of the criminal justice system is
the common thread running through the various law enforcement agencies in the United States.
This adversarial model of criminal justice naturally leads to an accusatory model of interrogation
(Leo, 2008), in which extracting confessions is given primacy and a presumption of guilt
determines the onset of an interrogation (Meissner, Redlich, Michael, Evans, Camilletti, Bhatt,
Brandon, in press). It is by no means universal among American police, but the accusatory model
of interrogation is based on psychological manipulation that replaced physical coercion or the so-
called “third degree” (Kassin, Drizin, Grisso, Gudjonsson, Leo, & Redlich, 2010; Leo, 2008).
Other hallmarks of the accusatorial model include establishing control over the suspect, using
closed-ended questions that confirm what the interrogator already believes to be true, and
judging deceit based upon the suspect’s level of anxiety (Meissner et al., in press).
The earliest codification of the psychologically manipulative methods of the accusatorial
model was in W. R. Kidd’s (1940) Police Interrogation manual, though many of the tactics
continue to be taught and practiced in contemporary American interrogation. In generic terms,
interrogation can be seen as the successive use of three tactics that are geared toward inducing
the suspect to confess: isolation, confrontation / maximization, and minimization (Kassin &
Gudjonsson, 2004). First, the suspect is left alone prior to questioning in a small room to
contemplate the impending interrogation. Next, interrogators present evidence implicating the
suspect in the crime, not allowing him to deny the accusations, and foretelling the consequences
of non-cooperation. The goal here is to overwhelm the suspect and to maximize his perception of
his culpability and the likely consequences therein. In the final step, the interrogator takes a
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1
This is to say nothing of the country’s human intelligence (HUMINT) apparatus, though an Executive Order
commanding all federal-level interrogators to conform to the standards of the Army Field Manual 2-22.3 was issued
by President Obama in January 2009.
3
!
softer approach, offers explanations for the crime that are more favorable to the suspect and that
may minimize both the perception of his culpability and the likely consequences that would
follow. Together, the methods described here create conditions favorable to the police
interrogator to achieve the goal of obtaining a confession; however, the methods also leave the
suspect vulnerable to being coerced into giving a false confession (Kassin et al., 2010; Meissner
et al., in press).
A related – but no less critical – factor in the shift from physically abusive to
psychologically manipulative methods in American interrogation was the landmark Miranda v.
Arizona (1966) decision (Leo, 1992). In Miranda, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the rights of
custodial suspects against self-incrimination and imposed upon the police the well-known
requirement of reminding suspects of said rights prior to questioning. In the years following the
decision, the law enforcement community (and adherents to more conservative crime control
measures generally) argued that the new rules would hamstring police investigations. These fears
have proven unfounded, as research has consistently demonstrated that suspects overwhelmingly
waive their Miranda rights and offer admissions and confessions (Cassell & Hayman, 1996;
Feld, 2012; Kassin, Leo, Meissner, Richman, Colwell, Leach, & La Fon, 2007; Leo, 1996a). A
compelling reason for this is that police quickly became adept at delivering the warning and
convincing suspects that it is in their best interests to waive their rights (White, 2001).
The American model of accusatorial interrogation is sharply contrasted with the
information gathering approach most associated with police in the United Kingdom. Whereas
American police interrogations are guilt presumptive, confrontational, and rely heavily on
psychological manipulation (including the disallowing of denials), systems in the United
Kingdom and elsewhere rely on information gathering techniques that do not presume guilt, that
establish rapport and use principles of investigative interviewing that allow the suspect to freely
offer his or her account, and that present evidence in a strategic manner (Meissner et al., in
press). The information gathering interviewing strategy, also known as the PEACE model
(Planning and preparation; Engage and explain; Account; Closure; Evaluation; Clarke & Milne,
2001), was developed in an attempt to curtail miscarriages of justice brought on by coercive and
accusatorial methods (see AUTHOR, this volume, for much more information on PEACE).
The current chapter on American interrogation begins with a focus on the descriptive and
observational research of contemporary interrogation in the United States. We then analyze these
practices in light of what is known to be the most effect methods of investigative interviewing
and interrogation. In the final portion of the chapter we examine training practices in the United
States, with a focus on accusatorial methods, and then look to the future of American
interrogation. We conclude with an observation that American interrogation is at a crossroads
with regard to the practice of interrogation and the nascent, but perhaps increasing, influence of
evidence-based practices.
4
!
American Interrogation in Practice: Descriptive Research
In this section we focus on several major studies that have systematically catalogued
interrogation practices in the United States through one of two methodologies: self-reported
surveys and observational / content analyses. These studies paint a picture of American
interrogation which, when compared with most other countries’ practices, highlight the
differences between accusatorial and information gathering models. As discussed below,
observational studies of American interrogation are relatively rare; however, several recent
projects (e.g., Cleary, 2013; Kelly, Redlich, & Miller, 2013; Russano, Narchet, Kleinman, &
Meissner, in press) are contributing to a contemporary perspective on interviewing and
interrogation in the United States.
The preeminent survey of police interrogators was conducted by Kassin et al. (2007)
wherein 631 police interrogators
2
were asked to report their usage of 16 techniques, most of
which were drawn directly or adapted from common interrogation manuals. The most common
techniques reported by investigators included isolating the suspect from family and friends,
conducting the interrogation in a small room, identifying contradictions in the suspect’s story,
and building rapport. Those techniques considered to be the most coercive or manipulative were
reported to be employed very infrequently: using physical intimidation or threats of
consequences for non-compliance, lying to the suspect about having failed a polygraph, or
expressing frustration or anger. Interestingly, despite the interrogators’ rare use of lying about a
polygraph, Kassin et al. reported that their sample was more willing to use deception about
having other types of evidence of the suspect’s guilt (mean of 3.11 on a 5-point scale). The 16
techniques were further reduced to four factors (isolation, rapport, and minimization;
confrontation; threatening the suspect; and presentation of evidence). Analyses suggested that
“investigator characteristics associated with a tendency to presume guilt are predictive of more
frequent use of psychologically manipulative and confrontational techniques…” (Kassin et al.,
2007, p. 395).
More recently, Redlich, Kelly, and Miller (in press) developed a survey consisting of a
large number of specific techniques used by interrogators in the United States and other
countries. Their sample included a wider variety of interrogators than Kassin et al. (2007), such
as federal agents (e.g., FBI, Department of Homeland Security) and military interrogators, in
addition to state/local police interrogators. Redlich et al. based their survey on an interrogation
taxonomy (Kelly, Miller, Redlich, & Kleinman, 2013) that identified approximately 70 unique
and specific techniques that were sorted into six “meso-level” domains: rapport and relationship
building, context manipulation, emotion provocation, confrontation/competition, collaboration,
and presentation of evidence. Whereas Kassin et al. asked participants to rate how often they
would build rapport with suspects, Redlich et al. included nine different indicators of rapport
building, four of which were the most frequently employed techniques (meet the suspect’s basic
needs; show kindness; build a bond with the suspect; be patient). Redlich et al. found that
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2
Although this chapter is concerned with American practices, it should be noted that the Kassin et al. (2007) sample
included a small proportion (< 10% of the total) of Canadian police investigators.
5
!
rapport and relationship building and emotion provocation were the two most frequently used
domains, while confrontation/competition and context manipulation were the least frequently
employed domains. Furthermore, Redlich et al. demonstrated that while the interrogation
methods favored by participants varied across interrogation contexts, the rapport and
relationship building domain served as a primary tactic regardless of context.
In a survey of police interrogators from 10 jurisdictions around the United States,
Reppucci and colleagues focused on several of the more coercive interrogation methods of the
accusatorial model, including ineffective methods for detecting deceit, and examined how the
use of them varied depending upon the age of the suspect (Meyer & Reppucci, 2007; Reppucci,
Meyer, & Kostelnik, 2010). Techniques such as observing body language or speech patterns to
detect deception, asking questions repeatedly, and minimizing the seriousness of the crime were
reportedly used by a majority of interrogators and at a remarkably stable rate across age
groupings of suspects. Although using deceit and presenting false evidence were comparatively
less favored in these studies, approximately 30% of respondents stated that they used these
techniques.
Survey research can be quite useful for understanding interrogators’ perceptions of the
techniques they utilize; however, this methodology comes with the caveat that the results may be
biased due to social desirability or other such influences. This is particularly true of behaviors
that can be considered coercive or especially manipulative as some interrogation techniques can
be. Accordingly, observational research (e.g., content analysis of live interrogations, recordings,
transcripts, or case files) is necessary and has been conducted to a limited degree in order to
triangulate the actual practices of American interrogators.
Unlike the United Kingdom, for instance, where the recording of police interviews is
mandated, American police have historically operated under no such uniform requirement. Like
nearly all other law enforcement and criminal justice policies in the United States, the recording
of police interrogations varies across states and practices within many states vary by jurisdiction.
Fewer than 10 states require custodial interrogations to be recorded, though others strongly
encourage the practice (Kassin et al., 2010; Sullivan, 2010). Although there has been an increase
in the number of jurisdictions requiring video recording of interrogation, including such federal
agencies as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of Defense, the vast
majority of police interrogations conducted in the United States involve no audio or video record
of the event. This lack of recordings has resulted in a relative dearth of observational studies
from which to draw strong conclusions about American interrogation practices. As a point of
comparison, it is perhaps because of the United Kingdom’s law requiring police to record their
interviews there is a comparatively larger body of similar British observational research.
One of the earliest observational studies of interrogation, however, was Leo’s (1996)
seminal work from two U.S. police departments.!This landmark study demonstrated the value of
systematically observing, cataloging and analyzing actual interrogations for scientific purposes.
In general, Leo found that fewer than six of the 25 interrogation tactics he identified were
employed in an average interrogation session. The most commonly occurring approaches
6
!
included appealing to the suspect’s self-interest and confronting the suspecting with evidence,
two very prominent tactics found in accusatorial interrogations. Moreover, Leo reported that four
tactics were significantly associated with providing incriminating information: appealing to the
suspect’s conscience, identifying contradictory information, the use of praise or flattery, and the
use of moral justifications.
Focusing on suspects aged 16 and 17, Feld (2012) similarly coded 307 interrogations
conducted in Minnesota. He grouped interrogation techniques into the dichotomous categories of
minimization and maximization and reported that the most commonly employed technique (or
strategy or question) was confronting the suspect with evidence, accusing the suspect of lying,
urging the suspect to tell the truth, and using Reid Behavioral Analysis Interview (BAI)
questions. Feld categorized these as maximization techniques (i.e., those designed to increase the
suspect’s fears or anxiety), and noted that tactics from the minimization category were relatively
less frequent in his sample (e.g., neutralization, appealing to the suspect’s self-interest, and
showing empathy). Although differences between the Feld (2012) and Leo (1996) studies may be
attributed to police perceptions of effective techniques for juvenile versus adult suspects, other
research has demonstrated that, by and large, a suspect’s age is irrelevant with respect to
interrogation methods (Meyer & Reppucci 2007, Reppucci et al., 2010; Redlich, Silverman,
Chen, & Steiner, 2004).
In sum, whether it is through survey or observational research, American interrogation
methods are largely – but not exclusively – associated with an accusatorial and psychologically
manipulative approach. In the next section, we examine the effectiveness of these methods in
light of existing laboratory research in order to draw conclusions of interrogation practices in the
United States.
Assessing the Effectiveness of American Interrogation Practices
More than 50 years ago, the publication of a landmark manual on Criminal Interrogation
and Confessions (Inbau & Reid, 1963) marked a significant point in the history of American
interrogation practices. For better or worse, the accusatorial model embodied within this manual
became the benchmark for law enforcement practices widely used within the United States. In
the following paragraphs, we review the state of the literature with respect to the accusatorial
model of interrogation, and compare its effectiveness with that of alternative methods emerging
from the practices of other countries. One antecedent to change in other countries has been the
role of accusatorial methods in eliciting high profile false confessions from innocent suspects
(Bull & Milne, 2004).
In the United States, social scientists and legal scholars have documented hundreds of
cases involving wrongful conviction over the past several decades (Scheck, Neufeld, & Dwyer,
2000). In 25-30% of these cases, innocent suspects were induced to provide a false confession or
admission that ultimately led to conviction (Drizin & Leo, 2004; Garrett, 2011). Given a
growing awareness of the false confession phenomenon, social scientists began systematically
7
!
assessing what factors may lead an innocent person to provide a false statement, including
unique characteristics of the individual that may render them more vulnerable to police
questioning and the powerful influence of certain interrogation techniques that could produce
false confessions. Detailed reviews of this literature are available to the interested reader (see
Kassin et al., 2010; Kassin & Gudjonsson, 2004; Lassiter & Meissner, 2010); however, a brief
discussion of the role of accusatorial interrogation methods is provided below, given its
relevance to assessing the efficacy of police interrogation techniques.
A significant body of research stemming from both experimental paradigms in a
laboratory setting (Kassin & Kiechel, 1996; Russano, Meissner, Narchet, & Kassin, 2005) and
archival analyses of known false confessions (Drizin & Leo, 2004; Garrett, 2011; Ofshe & Leo,
1997a, 1997b) suggest that accusatorial methods of interrogation can significantly increase the
likelihood of a false confession (Kassin et al., 2010). For example, techniques designed to
maximize a suspect’s perception of the evidence against him (such as presenting false evidence
or bluffing about the potential for incriminating evidence; see Horselenberg, Merkelbach, &
Josephs, 2003; Nash & Wade, 200; Perillo & Kassin, 2010; Redlich & Goodman, 2003) and
those that attempt to minimize a suspect’s perceptions of his culpability or the likely
consequences if he were to confess (by implying leniency or offering face-saving excuses; see
Horgan, Russano, Meissner, & Evans, 2012; Klaver, Lee, & Rose, 2008; Russano et al., 2005)
have both been shown to increase false confessions by innocent suspects. A strong belief in the
suspect’s guilt on the part of the investigator has also been shown to exacerbate the use of
accusatorial methods (Kassin, Goldstein, & Savitsky, 2003), promote beliefs in deceptive
behaviors (Meissner & Kassin, 2002; 2004), and ultimately increase the likelihood of inducing a
false confession (Narchet, Meissner, & Russano, 2011). Indeed, the psychological factors leading
an innocent person to provide a false confession have been shown to involve both perceived
social pressure to confess aroused by the interrogator and the potential consequences associated
with confessing (vs. not) (see Houston, Meissner, & Evans, 2014; Yang, Madon, & Guyll, in
press).
While documenting techniques that may produce a false confession represents an
important contribution to both theory and practice, recent research has also begun to identify
those psychological processes associated with true confessions (Houston et al., 2014) and to
identify those methods of interrogation that might produce diagnostic confessions statements
from guilty suspects (Meissner et al., in press). For example, Horgan and colleagues (2012)
distinguished between minimization and maximization techniques that influenced suspects’
perception of the likely consequences associated with confession, observing that approaches
devoid of “manipulating consequences” produced more diagnostic outcomes (i.e., an increased
likelihood of true confession and a reduced likelihood of false confession). True confessions
were largely a product of participants’ feelings of guilt or remorse and their beliefs of the
evidence against them – a finding that is quite consistent with a host of laboratory studies
(Houston et al., 2014), as well as surveys of false confessors (Gudjonsson & Sigurdsson, 1996;
Redlich, Kulish, & Steadman, 2011).
8
!
More recently, a growing number of empirical studies have begun to assess the diagnostic
utility of information gathering approaches to interrogation, such as the PEACE model used in
the UK and other countries (Meissner et al., in press; see AUTHOR, this volume). Both
experimental research (Evans, Meissner, Ross, Houston, Russano, & Horgan, 2013; Narchet et
al., 2011) and field studies in the UK (Soukara, Bull, Vrij, Turner, & Cherryman, 2009; Walsh &
Bull, 2010) have demonstrated that information gathering methods of interrogation – which
involve the development of rapport, good elicitation strategies, positive confrontation, and
strategic evidence presentation methods – produce more diagnostic outcomes by – increasing the
likelihood of eliciting true confessions while reducing the likelihood of eliciting false
confessions. Additional studies have demonstrated the importance of developing rapport, or a
“working alliance”, between the interrogator and the subject, particularly given its importance in
facilitating suspect disclosures (Alison, Alison, Noone, Elntib, & Christinsen, 2013; Evans,
Houston, Meissner, Ross, LaBianca, Woestehoff, & Kleinman, in press; Goodman-Delahunty &
Howes, in press; Martschuk, Goodman-Delahunty, & Dhami, in press; Redlich et al., in press;
Vanderhallen & Vervaeke, 2014; Walsh & Bull, 2012a; 2012b). Finally, strategic evidence
presentation strategies have also been developed to facilitate disclosure by guilty subjects,
demonstrating that late (or gradual strategic) disclosure of evidence is more likely to produce
admissions that distinguish innocent from guilty suspects (Hartwig, Granhag, & Luke, 2014;
Smith & Bull, in press).
Taken together, the above research is consistent with a meta-analysis of the available
literature by Meissner and colleagues (in press) that compared the diagnostic utility of
accusatorial and information gathering methods of interrogation. While both methods were rather
effective in producing “confessions” in observational studies of real interrogations (when
compared with a set of control techniques that were common to both), experimental studies that
manipulated guilt and innocence showed that information gathering approaches yielded a higher
rate of true confessions while reducing the risk of false confessions.
American Interrogation at a Crossroads: Future Directions for Research and Training
Interrogation in the United States is currently at a crossroads – the methods used by law
enforcement, military, and intelligence communities over the past 50 years were developed
through prior experience and perceptions of effectiveness that are largely devoid of scientific
validation or assessment. Recent studies, however, have called the relative efficacy of these
approaches into question, with data suggesting that the use of accusatorial methods of
interrogation can compel false confessions from innocent persons. This research has also begun
to assess the role of alternative approaches to interrogation that appear to improve the diagnostic
value of information elicited from suspects – methods that improve the development of rapport,
encourage cooperation and communication, use positive confrontation and strategic presentation
of evidence, and rely upon more reliable cues to deception.
The United States government via its High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), a
multi-agency group with components from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Defense
9
!
Intelligence Agency, and the Central Intelligence Agency, has recently invested in a five-year
research program aimed at developing a scientific understanding of interrogation that might
leverage theory, methods, and metrics drawn from the cognitive, behavioral, and social sciences.
To date, more than 60 research studies have been supported through this effort, with many of the
findings reflected in the current chapter. While investigators began this research in their
laboratories, the HIG facilitated further assessments of the methods with federal law enforcement
and military training facilities in the U.S., leading many of these facilities to begin integrating the
more effective, science-based methods into their curriculum. The HIG has also developed
“research-to-practice” training packages that are being made available to other federal, state, and
local entities as they work to disseminate the research findings and improve practice in this area.
Our own interactions with military, law enforcement, and intelligence personnel in the
U.S. suggest that practitioners are eager to identify ethical, evidence-based methods of
interrogation that will improve their ability to collect information from non-cooperative
individuals. While further research and development will be vital to creating a robust
understanding of the influence of key facets of an interrogation (see Evans, Meissner, Brandon,
Russano, & Kleinman, 2010) – including the role of language and culture (Kelly, Abdel-Salam,
Miller, & Redlich, in press), the influence of contextual or environmental factors, and an
understanding of factors that might lessen resistance and improve rapport development – a
monumental paradigm shift is perhaps in the offing. Rooted in cutting-edge research and
increasing cooperation between research and practitioners, the treatment of non-cooperative
suspects in the United States appears to be incrementally moving toward a new model of
interrogation and away from the psychologically manipulative methods of the past half-century.
References
Alison, L. J., Alison, E., Noone, G., Elntib, S., & Christiansen, P. (2013). Why tough tactics fail
and rapport gets results: Observing Rapport-Based Interpersonal Techniques (ORBIT) to
generate useful information from terrorists. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19, 411-
431.
Bull, R., & Milne, B. (2004). Attempts to improve the police interviewing of suspects. In G. D.
Lassiter’s (Ed.), Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment (pp. 181-196). New York:
Springer.
Cassell, P. G., & Hayman, B. S. (1996). Police interrogation in the 1990s: An empirical study of
the effects of Miranda. UCLA Law Review, 43, 839.
Clarke, C., & Milne, B. (2001). National evaluation of the PEACE investigative interviewing
course. Police Research Award Scheme. London: Home Office.
Cleary, H. M. D. (2013). Police interviewing and interrogation of juvenile suspects: A
descriptive examination of actual cases. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 271-282.
Drizin, S. A., & Leo, R. A. (2004). The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA
world. North Carolina Law Review, 82, 894-1007.
10
!
Evans, J. R., Houston, K. A., Meissner, C. A., Ross, A. B., LaBianca, J. R., Woestehoff, S. A.,
& Kleinman, S. M. (in press). An empirical evaluation of intelligence-gathering
interrogation techniques from the United States Army Field Manual. Applied Cognitive
Psychology.
Evans, J. R., Meissner, C. A., Brandon, S. E., Russano, M. B., & Kleinman, S. M. (2010).
Criminal versus HUMINT interrogations!: The importance of psychological science to
improving interrogative practice. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 38, 215-249.
Evans, J. R., Meissner, C. A., Ross, A. B., Houston, K. A., Russano, M. B., & Horgan, A. J.
(2013). Obtaining guilty knowledge in human intelligence interrogations: Comparing
accusatorial and information gathering approaches with a novel experimental paradigm.
Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2, 83-88.
Feld, B. (2013). Kids, Cops, and Interrogation: Inside the Interrogation Room. New York: New
York University Press.
Garrett, B. L. (2011). Convicting the innocent: Where criminal prosecutions go wrong. Harvard
University Press.
Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Howes, L. M. (in press). Social persuasion to develop rapport in high
stakes interviews: Qualitative analyses of Asian-Pacific practices. Policing and Society. !
Gudjonsson, G. H., & Sigurdsson, J. F. (1999). The Gudjonsson confession questionnaire-
revised (GCQ-R): Factor structure and its relationship with personality. Personality and
Individual Differences, 27, 953-968.
Hartwig, M., Granhag, P.A., & Luke, T.J. (2014). Strategic use of evidence during investigative
interviews: The state of the science. In D.C. Raskin, C.R. Honts, & J.C. Kircher (Eds.),
Credibility assessment: Scientific research and applications (pp. 1-36). Waltham, MA:
Academic Press.
Houston, K. A., Meissner, C. A., & Evans, J. R. (2014). Psychological processes that distinguish
true and false confessions. In R. Bull’s (Ed.), Investigative interviewing (pp. 19-34). New
York: Springer.
Horgan, A. J., Russano, M. B., Meissner, C. A., & Evans, J. R. (2012). Minimization and
maximization techniques!: Assessing the perceived consequences of confessing and
confession diagnosticity. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18(1).
Horselenberg, R., Merckelbach, H., & Josephs, S. (2003). Individual differences and false
confessions: A conceptual replication of Kassin and Kiechel (1996). Psychology, Crime
and Law, 9, 1-18.
Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. C. (2013). Criminal interrogation and
confessions (5th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning.
Inbau, F. E., & Reid, J. E. (1963). Criminal interrogation and confession. Baltimore, MD:
Williams & Wilkins Company.
Jayne, B. C., & Buckley, J. P. (1999). Investigator anthology: A compilation of articles and
essays about the Reid Technique of interviewing and interrogation. John E. Reid and
Associates.
11
!
Kassin, S.M., Drizin, S.A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G.H., Leo, R.A., & Redlich, A.D. (2010).
Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human
Behavior, 34, 3-38.
Kassin, S. M., Goldstein, C. J., & Savitsky, K. (2003). Behavioral confirmation in the
interrogation room: On the dangers of presuming guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 27,
187-203.
Kassin, S. M., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2004). The psychology of confession evidence: A review of
the literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 35-69.
Kassin, S. M., & Kiechel, K. L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: Compliance,
internalization, and confabulation. Psychological Science, 7, 125-128.
Kassin, S. M., Leo, R. A., Meissner, C. A., Richman, K. D., Colwell, L. H., Leach, A. M.,
& La Fon, D. (2007). Police interviewing and interrogation: A self-report survey of
police practices and beliefs. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 381-400.
Kelly, C. E., Abdel-Salam, S., Miller, J. C., & Redlich, A. D. (in press). Social identity and the
perception of effective interrogation methods. Investigative Interviewing: Research and
Practice.
Kelly, C. E., Miller, J. C., Redlich, A. D., & Kleinman, S. M. (2013). A taxonomy of
interrogation methods. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19, 165-178.
Kelly, C. E., Redlich, A. D., & Miller, J. C. (2013). The dynamic process of interrogation. Final
report to the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group: Washington, D. C.
Klaver, J., Lee, Z., & Rose, V. G. (2008). Effects of personality, interrogation techniques and
plausibility in an experimental false confession paradigm. Legal and Criminological
Psychology, 13, 71-88.
Lassiter, G. D., & Meissner, C. A. (2010). Police interrogations and false confessions: Current
research, practice, and policy recommendations. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Leo, R. A. (1992). From coercion to deception: The changing nature of police interrogation in
America. Crime, Law, and Social Change: An International Journal, 18, 35-59.
Leo, R. A. (1996). Inside the interrogation room. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86,
266–303.
Leo, R. A. (2008). Police interrogation and American justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Martschuk, N. Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Dhami, M. (in press). Interviewing high-value
detainees: Security cooperation and reliable disclosures. Applied Cognitive Psychology.
Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2002). “He’s guilty!”: Investigator bias in judgments of truth
and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 469-480.
Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2004). “You’re guilty, so just confess!”: Cognitive and
behavioral confirmation biases in the interrogation room. In G. D. Lassiter’s (Ed.),
Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment (pp. 85-106). New York: Kluwer Academic.
12
!
Meissner, C. A., Redlich, A. D., Michael, S. W., Evans, J. R., Camilletti, C. R., Bhatt, S., &
Brandon, S. (in press). Accusatorial and information-gathering interrogation methods and
their effects on true and false confessions: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
Experimental Criminology.
Meyer, J. R., & Reppucci, N. D. (2007). Police practices and perceptions regarding juvenile
interrogation and interrogative suggestibility. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25, 757-
780.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Narchet, F. M., Meissner, C. A., & Russano, M. B. (2011). Modeling the influence of
investigator bias on the elicitation of true and false confessions. Law and Human
Behavior, 35, 452-465.
Nash, R. A., & Wade, K. A. (2009). Innocent but proven guilty: Using false video evidence to
elicit false confessions and create false beliefs. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23,
624-637.
Ofshe, R. J., & Leo, R. A. (1997). The decision to confess falsely: Rational choice and irrational
action. Denver University Law Review, 74, 1-130.
Ofshe, R. J., & Leo, R. A. (1997a). The social psychology of police interrogation: The theory
and classification of true and false confessions. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, 16,
189-251.
Ofshe, R. J., & Leo, R. A. (1997b). The decision to confess falsely: Rational choice and
irrational action. Denver University Law Review, 74, 979-1122.
Perillo, J. T., & Kassin, S. M. (2011). Inside interrogation: The lie, the bluff, and false
confessions. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 327-337.
Reaves, B. A. (2011). Census of state and local law enforcement agencies, 2008. U. S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Redlich, A. D., & Goodman, G. S. (2003). Taking responsibility for an act not committed: The
influence of age and suggestibility. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 141-56.
Redlich, A. D., Kelly, C. E., & Miller, J. C. (2014). The who, what, and why of human
intelligence gathering: Self-reported measures of interrogation methods. Applied
Cognitive Psychology. doi: 10.1002/acp.3040
Redlich, A. D. Kulish, R., & Steadman, H. J. (2011). Comparing true and false confessions
among persons with serious mental illness. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17,
394-418.
Redlich, A. D., Silverman, M., Chen, J., & Steiner, H. (2004). The police interrogation of
children and adolescents. In G. D. Lassiter (Ed.), Interrogations, confessions, and
entrapment (pp. 107-126). New York: Kluwer Academic.
Reppucci, N. D., Meyer, J., & Kostelnik, J. (2010). Police interrogation of juveniles: Results
from a national survey of police. In G. D. Lassiter & C. Meissner (Eds.), Interrogations
and Confessions: Current Research, Practices, and Policy. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
13
!
Russano, M. B., Meissner, C. A., Narchet, F. M., & Kassin, S. M. (2005). Investigating true and
false confessions within a novel experimental paradigm. Psychological Science, 16(6),
481-486.
Russano, M. B., Narchet, F. M., Kleinman, S. M., & Meissner, C. A. (in press). Structured
interviews of experienced HUMINT interrogators. Applied Cognitive Psychology.
Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual innocence. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Smith, L. L., & Bull, R. (in press). Exploring the disclosure of forensic evidence in police
interviews with suspects. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology.
Soukara, S., Bull, R., Vrij, A., Turner, M., & Cherryman, C. (2009). What really happens in
police interviews of suspects? Tactics and confessions. Psychology, Crime and Law, 15,
493-506.
Sullivan, T. P. (2010). The wisdom of custodial recording. In G. D. Lassiter & C. Meissner’s
(Eds.), Police interrogations and false confessions: Current research, practice, and
policy recommendations (pp. 127-142). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Vanderhallen, M., & Vervaeke, G. (2014). Between investigator and suspect: The role of the
working alliance in investigative interviewing. In R. Bull’s (Ed.), Investigative interviewing
(pp. 63-90). New York: Spring.
Walsh, D., & Bull, R. (2010). What really is effective in interviews with suspects? A study
comparing interviewing skills against interviewing outcomes. Legal and Criminological
Psychology, 15(2), 305-321.
Walsh, D., & Bull, R. (2012a). Examining rapport in investigative interviews with suspects:
Does its building and maintenance work? Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 27,
73-84.
Walsh, D., & Bull, R. (2012b). How do interviewers attempt to overcome suspects’ denials?
Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 19, 151-168.
Walters, S. B. (2003). Principles of kinesic interview and interrogation. Boca Raton, FL: CRC
Press.
White, W. S. (2001). Miranda’s waning protections: Police interrogation practices after
Dickerson. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Yang, Y., Madon, S., & Guyll, M. (in press). Short-sighted confession decisions: The role of
uncertain and delayed consequences. Law and Human Behavior.
Zulawski, D. E., Wicklander, D. E., Sturman, S. G., & Hoover, L. W. (2001). Practical aspects
of interview and interrogation, second edition. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
