CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 370Deception detection and forensic psychologyTorture, Ethics, and LawPolicing Practices and Perceptions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.

Police interviewing and interrogation: A self-report survey of police practices and beliefs.

Open access
Kassin, Saul M., Leo, Richard A., Meissner, Christian A., Richman, Kimberly D., Colwell, Lori H., Leach, Amy-May, La Fon, Dana·2007·Law and Human Behavior
DOI 10.1007/s10979-006-9073-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

By questionnaire, 631 police investigators reported on their interrogation beliefs and practices-the first such survey ever conducted. Overall, participants estimated that they were 77% accurate at truth and lie detection, that 81% of suspects waive Miranda rights, that the mean length of interrogation is 1.6 hours, and that they elicit self-incriminating statements from 68% of suspects, 4.78% from innocents. Overall, 81% felt that interrogations should be recorded. As for self-reported usage of various interrogation tactics, the most common were to physically isolate suspects, identify contradictions in suspects' accounts, establish rapport, confront suspects with evidence of their guilt, and appeal to self-interests. Results were discussed for their consistency with prior research, policy implications, and methodological shortcomings.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10979-006-9073-5

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Policing agencies have increasingly moved toward requiring recordings of interrogations.

    “Policing agencies have increasingly shifted toward requiring recordings of interrogations (Int.Assoc.Chiefs Police 2013, Kassin et al. 2007).”

    From Wrongful Convictions (2020) · cites this paper as Kassin et al. 2007

Citations

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 74 · Cited by 370

Research works printed but not linked: 72

  1. Blagrove, M. (1996). Effects of length of sleep deprivation on interrogative suggestibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2, 48–59.
  2. Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 10, 214–234. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Buckley, D., & Jayne, B. (2005). Electronic Recording of Interrogations. Chicago: John E. Reid and Associates.
  4. Burton, S., & Blair, E. (1991). Task conditions, response formulation processes, and response accuracy for behavioral frequency questions in surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 50–79. · DOI
  5. Cassell, P. G., & Hayman, B. S. (1996). Police interrogation in the 1990s: An empirical study of the effects of Miranda. UCLA Law Review, 43, 839–931.
  6. Cloud, M., Shepherd, G. B., Barkoff, A. N., & Shur, J. V. (2002). Words without meaning: The constitution, confessions and mentally retarded suspects. University of Chicago Law Review, 69, 495–624. · DOI
  7. Clymer, S. D. (2002). Are police free to disregard Miranda ? Yale Law Journal, 112, 447–552. · DOI
  8. Corwin, M. (2003). Homicide Special: A Year with the LAPD's Elite Detective Unit. New York: Henry Holt & Company.
  9. DeMaio, T. J. (1984). Social desirability and survey measurement: A review. In C. F. Turner & E. Martin (Eds.), Surveying subjective phenomena (Vol. 2, pp. 257–281). New York: Russell Sage.
  10. Donovan, D., & Rhodes, J. (2000). Comes a time: The case for recording interrogations. Montana Law Review, 61, 223–249.
  11. Drizin, S. A., & Leo, R. A. (2004). The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. North Carolina Law Review, 82, 891–1007.
  12. Drizin, S. A., & Reich, M. J. (2004). Heeding the lessons of history: The need for mandatory recording of police interrogations to accurately assess the reliability and voluntariness of confessions. Drake Law Review, 52, 619–646
  13. Fulero, S. M., & Everington, C. (2004). Mental retardation, competency to waive Miranda rights and false confessions. In G. D. Lassiter (Ed.), Interrogations, Confessions, and Entrapment (pp. 247–263). New York: Kluwer Academic. · DOI
  14. Geller, W. A. (1992). Police Videotaping of Suspect Interrogations and Confessions: A Preliminary Examination of Issues and Practices. A Report to the National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
  15. Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (Eds.) (2004). The Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Grisso, T. (1981). Juveniles’ Waiver of Rights: Legal and Psychological Competence. New York: Plenum Press. · DOI
  17. Gross, S. R., Jacoby, K., Matheson, D. J., Montgomery, N., & Patel, S (2005). Exonerations in the United States, 1989 through 2003. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 95, 523–553.
  18. Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions. London: Wiley.
  19. Gudjonsson, G. H., & MacKeith, J. A. C. (1990). A proven case of false confession: Psychological aspects of the coerced-compliant type. Medicine, Science, and the Law, 30, 329–335. · DOI
  20. 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. · DOI
  21. Gudjonsson, G. H., Sigurdsson, J. F., Asgeirsdottir, B. B., & Sigfusdottir, I. D. (2006). Custodial interrogation, false confession and individual differences: A national study among Icelandic youth. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 49–59. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Harrison, Y., & Horne, J. A. (2000). The impact of sleep deprivation on decision making: A review. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6, 236–249.
  23. 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. · DOI
  24. Inbau, F. E., & Reid, J. E. (1962). Criminal Interrogation and Confessions. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
  25. Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne (2001). Criminal Interrogation and Confessions (4th. ed.). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
  26. Johnson, G. (1997). False confessions and fundamental fairness: The need for electronic recording of custodial interrogations. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal, 6, 719–751.
  27. Kassin, S. M. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence. American Psychologist, 52, 221–233. · DOI
  28. Kassin, S. M. (2005). On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence put innocents at risk? American Psychologist, 60, 215–228. · DOI
  29. Kassin, S. M., & Fong, C. T. (1999). “I’m innocent!” Effects of training on judgments of truth and deception in the interrogation room. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 499–516. · DOI
  30. 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. · DOI · Paper page
  31. Kassin, S. M., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2004). The psychology of confessions: A review of the literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 35–67. · DOI
  32. Kassin, S. M., & Kiechel, K. L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: Compliance, internalization, and confabulation. Psychological Science, 7, 125–128. · DOI
  33. Kassin, S. M., Meissner, C. A., & Norwick, R. J. (2005). “I’d know a false confession if I saw one”: A comparative study of college students and police investigators. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 211–227. · DOI
  34. Kassin, S. M., & Norwick, R. J. (2004). Why suspects waive their Miranda rights: The power of innocence. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 211–221. · DOI
  35. Lassiter, G. D. (Ed.). (2004). Interrogations, Confessions, and Entrapment. New York: Kluwer Academic. · DOI
  36. 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.
  37. Leo, R. A. (1996a). Inside the interrogation room. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 266–303. · DOI
  38. Leo, R. A. (1996b). The impact of Miranda revisited. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 621–692. · DOI
  39. Leo, R. A. (1996c). Miranda‘s revenge: Police interrogation as a confidence game. Law and Society Review, 30, 259–288. · DOI
  40. Leo, R. A. (2001a). Questioning the relevance of Miranda in the twenty-first century. University of Michigan Law Review, 99, 1000–1029. · DOI
  41. Leo, R. A. (2001b). False confessions: Causes, consequences, and solutions. In S. D. Westervelt & J. A. Humphrey. (Eds.), Wrongly Convicted: Perspectives on Failed Justice (pp. 36–54). Newark: Rutgers University Press.
  42. Leo, R. A. (2004). The third degree and the origins of psychological police interrogation in the United States. In G. D. Lassiter (Ed.), Interrogations, Confessions, and Entrapment (pp. 37–84). New York: Kluwer Academic. · DOI
  43. Leo, R. A., & Ofshe, R. J. (1998). The consequences of false confessions: Deprivations of liberty and miscarriages of justice in the age of psychological interrogation. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 429–296. · DOI
  44. Leo, R. A., & White, W. (1999). Adapting to Miranda: Modern interrogators’ strategies for dealing with the obstacles posed by Miranda. Minnesota Law Review, 84, 397–472.
  45. 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. · DOI
  46. Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2004). “You’re guilty, so just confess!” Cognitive and confirmational biases in the interrogation room. In G. D. Lassiter. (Ed.), Interrogations, Confessions, and Entrapment (pp. 85–106). New York: Kluwer Academic. · DOI
  47. Memon, A., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2003). Psychology and Law: Truthfulness, Accuracy and Credibility. London: Jossey Bass.
  48. Moston, S., Stephenson, G. M., & Williamson, T. M. (1992). The effects of case characteristics on suspect behavior during questioning. British Journal of Criminology, 32, 23–40. · DOI
  49. Neubauer, D. (1974). Confessions in Prairie City: Some Causes and Effects. Journal of Criminology and Criminal Law, 65, 103–112. · DOI
  50. Oberlander, L. B., & Goldstein, N. E. (2001). A review and update on the practice of evaluating Miranda comprehension. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 453–471.
  51. Ofshe, R. J. (1989). Coerced confessions: The logic of seemingly irrational action. Cultic Studies Journal, 6, 1–15.
  52. Ofshe, R. J., & Leo, R. A. (1997). The decision to confess falsely: Rational choice and irrational action. Denver University Law Review, 74, 979–1122.
  53. 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, 141–156. · DOI
  54. 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, 481–486. · DOI
  55. Schwarz, N., Groves, R. M., & Schuman, H. (1998). Survey methods. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey. (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, Fourth edition. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 143–179.
  56. Simon, D. (1991). Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets. New York: Ivy Books.
  57. Skolnick, J. H. (1966). Justice without Trial: Law Enforcement in a Democratic Society. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
  58. Sullivan, T. P. (2004). The police experience: Recording custodial interrogations. The Champion, 28, 24–27, 52.
  59. Thomas III, G. C. (1996). Plain talk about the Miranda empirical debate: A “steady- state” theory of confessions. UCLA Law Review, 43, 933–959.
  60. Thomas III, G. C., & Leo, R. A. (2002). The effects of Miranda v. Arizona: “Embedded” in our national culture? Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 29, 203–271. · DOI
  61. Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The Psychology of Survey Response. New York: Cambridge University Press. · DOI · Paper page
  62. Uviller, R. (1988). Tempered Zeal: A Columbia Law Professor's Year on the Streets with The New York City Police. Chicago: Contemporary Books.
  63. Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting Lies and Deceit: The Psychology of Lying and the Implications for Professional Practice. London: Wiley.
  64. Wald, M., Ayres, R., Hess, D. W., Schantz, M., & Whitebread, C. H. (1967). Interrogations in New Haven: The impact of Miranda. Yale Law Journal, 76, 1519–1648. · DOI
  65. Walters, S. (2003). Principles of Kinesic Interview and Interrogation (2nd Ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  66. Weisselberg, C. D. (1998). Saving Miranda. Cornell Law Review, 84, 109–192.
  67. White, W. S. (2001). Miranda‘s Waning Protections: Police Interrogation Practices after Dickerson. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. · DOI
  68. Wicklander, D. Z., & Zulawski, D. E. (2002). Practical Aspects of Interview and Interrogation (2nd Ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
  69. Witt, J. W. (1973). Non-coercive interrogation and the administration of criminal justice: The impact of Miranda on police effectuality. The Journal of Criminology and Criminal Law, 64, 320–332. · DOI
  70. Zalman, M. (2003). The coming paradigm shift on Miranda: The impact of Chavez v. Martinez. Criminal Law Bulletin, 39, 334–352.
  71. Zalman, M. (2004). Reading the tea leaves of Chavez v. Martinez: The future of Miranda. Criminal Law Bulletin, 40, 299–368.
  72. Zimbardo, P. (1971). Coercion and compliance: The psychology of police confessions. In C. Perruci and M. Pilisuk. (Ed.), The Triple Revolution (pp. 492–508). Boston: Little, Brown.

Metadata

Authors
Kassin, S. M., Leo, R. A., Meissner, C. A., Richman, K. D., Colwell, L. H., Leach, A.-M., & La Fon, D.
Affiliations
  • Williams College (US)
  • University of San Francisco (US)
  • The University of Texas at El Paso (US)
  • Sam Houston State University (US)
  • Queen's University (CA)
ORCID
Venue
Law and Human Behavior
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2007-08
Volume
31
Issue
4
Pages
381-400
ISSN
  • 0147-7307 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-661X
DOI
10.1007/s10979-006-9073-5
OpenAlex
W3124707924
Cited by
370
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 17
FWCI
25.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Law and Human Behavior (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Torture, Ethics, and Law
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
Keywords
police interrogation, police interviews, interrogation tactics, Miranda rights, rapport building
MeSH terms
Adult, Crime, Data Collection, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Disclosure, Truth Disclosure, United States, Police

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review