So What’s a Concerned Psychologist to Do?

Translating the Research on Interrogations, Confessions, and Entrapment into Policy
Part of the Perspectives in Law & Psychology book series (PILP, volume 20)


Psychologists studying the psychological issues inherent in police interrogation techniques have much to learn from the road traveled by psychologists who generated and helped integrate into policy the research on eyewitness evidence. As nearly all readers of this volume are likely to know, research on eyewitness evidence began in the mid-1970s and captured the intrigue of many legal research psychologists into the 1980s and 1990s. During this time, psychologists conducted numerous studies about the ability of people to accurately recall and report details about a witnessed event and to identify a witnessed perpetrator from a lineup. This research helped identify factors affecting eyewitness reliability over which the justice system has no control (so-called estimator variables such as length of exposure), as well as factors over which the justice system does have control (e.g., system variables such as lineup procedures) (Wells, 1978). The studies—many relying on sophisticated experimental methods and materials—were able to examine the effect of these factors on the accuracy of eyewitness memory and identification (Cutler & Penrod; Wells et al., 2000). Wells and his colleagues (2000) detailed the journey of psychologists in helping to translate this body of research on eyewitness identification into policy, and it is wisdom from that experience on which much of the current chapter is premised.


American Psychological Association General Counsel Expert Testimony Interrogation Technique Mock Juror 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ad Hoc Committee on Legal Issues, American Psychological Association. (June, 1983). Factors affecting APA involvement in litigation. (Available from the Office of General Counsel, American Psychological Association, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 200024242).Google Scholar
  2. American Psychological Association. (December 1996, amended June 2003 ). Procedures for submission of amicus curiae briefs. ( Available from the Office of General Counsel, American Psychological Association, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20002–4242 ).Google Scholar
  3. Burger, J.M., & Cooper, H.M. (1979). The desirability of control. Motivation and Emotion, 3, 381–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carver, C. S., & Scheir, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory approach to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carver, C. S., & Scheir, M. F. (1983). Two sides of the self: One for you and one for me. In J. Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 2, 123–157 ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Connors, E., Lundregan, T., Miller, N., & McEwen, T. (1996). Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  7. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).Google Scholar
  9. DePaulo, B. M., & Friedman, H. S. (1998). Nonverbal communication. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 3–40 ). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  10. Diener, E. (1979). Deindividuation, self-awareness, and disinhibition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1160–1171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diener, E. (1980). Deindividuation: The absence of self-awareness, and self regulation in group members. In D. Paulus (Ed.), The psychology of group influence ( 209–242 ). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Ekman, P., & O’Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a liar? American Psychologist, 46, 913–920.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gudjonsson, G.H. (1984). A new scale of interrogative suggestibility. Personality and individual differences, 5, 303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gudjonsson, G.H. (1991). Suggestibility and compliance among alleged false confessors and resistors in criminal trials. Medicine, Science, and the Law, 31, 147–151.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook. West Sussex, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Grisso, T. (1981). Juvenile’s waiver of rights: Legal and psychological competence. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. C. (2001). Criminal interrogations and confessions ( 4th ed. ). Gaithersberg, MD: Aspen.Google Scholar
  18. Jones, E. E. (1990). Interpersonal perception. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. Kassin, S. M. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence. American Psychologist, 52, 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kassin, S. M., & Kiechel, K. L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: Compliance, internalization, and confabulation. Psychological Science, 7, 125–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kassin, S. M., & McNall, K. (1991). Police interrogations and confessions: Communicating promises and threats by pragmatic implication. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 233–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kassin, S. M., & Sukel, H. (1997). Coerced confession and the jury: An experimental test of the “harmless error” rule. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kassin, S. M., & Wrightman, L. S. (1980). Prior confessions and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kassin, S. M., & Wrightman, L. S. (1981). Coerced confessions, judicial instruction, and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 489–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Konecni, V.J., & Ebbson, E.B., (1986). Courtroom testimony by psychologists on eyewitness identification issues. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McCloskey, M. E., & Egeth, H. E. (1983). Eyewitness identification: What can a psychologist tell a jury? American Psychologist, 38, 550–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Muaysterberg, H. (1908). On the witness stand: Essays on psychology and crime. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  30. Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  31. Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., Sr Gibbons, F. X. (1979). Self-directed attention, awareness of bodily states, and suggestibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1576–1588.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Snyder, M. (1979). Self-monitoring processes. ht L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 85–128 ). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  33. Wells, G. L. (1978). Applied eyewitness-testimony research: System-variables and estimator variables. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1546–1557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wells, G. L., Small, M., Penrod, S. Malpass, R. S., Fulero, S. M., & Brimacombe, C.A.E. (1998). Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wells, G. L., Malpass, R. S., Lindsay, R. C. L., Fisher, R. P., Turtle, J. W., & Fulero, S. M. (2000). From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist, 55, 581–598.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Wicklund, R. A. (1980). Group contact and self-focused attention. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), The psychology of group influence ( 189–208 ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. Williams, K. D., Loftus, E. F., & Deffenbacher, K. A. (1992). Eyewitness evidence and testimony. In D.K. Kagehiro & W.S. Laufer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology and law (pp. 141–166 ). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wood, J. M., Billings, J. Taylor, R. Corey, D. Burns, J., & Garven, S. (2000, June). Guilty knowledge and false confessions regarding a staged theft: Effects of reinforcement on children’s admissions. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Miami, Florida.Google Scholar
  39. Wrightsman, L. S., & Kassin, S. M. (1993). Confessions in the courtroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Zanna, M. P., & Olson, J. M. (1982). Individual differences in attitudinal relations. In M. Zanna, E.T. Higgins, & C.P. Herman (Eds.), Consistency in social behavior: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 2, pp. 75–103 ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Zuckerman, M., DePaulo, B. M., & Rosenthal, R. (1981). Verbal and nonverbal communication of deception. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 1–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zuckerman, M., Koestner, R., & Alton, A. O. (1984). Learning to detect deception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 519–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Federal Judicial CenterUSA

Personalised recommendations