False Confessions: Why Innocent People Confess
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 11, 2026 · Editorial Policy
A false confession occurs when someone admits to a crime they did not commit. Confirmed wrongful convictions and subsequent exonerations establish that it happens, while psychological science explains how an apparently self-defeating admission can emerge during questioning. The central issue is the relationship between what the suspect knows, what the interviewer communicates, the pressures of the situation, and the eventual evidentiary interpretation of the statement.
An innocent person may recognize that an admission is false yet see agreement as the quickest route to relief. Another person may misunderstand the consequences of cooperation or become uncertain about memory after suggestive questioning. False confessions therefore require a complete examination of questioning methods, individual circumstances, statement construction, and independent corroboration. The American Psychological Association's 2022 interrogation resolution and the 2025 American Psychology–Law Society scientific review summarize the central evidence and recommended safeguards.
What Is a False Confession?
A false confession is a self-incriminating admission about an offense the speaker did not commit. In a legal investigation, this may involve accepting responsibility for a complete offense or asserting essential facts that imply responsibility. A false confession must be distinguished from an inaccurate detail in an otherwise truthful statement, a confession later retracted, a disputed confession whose truth has not been resolved, and a false guilty plea. Retraction does not establish falsity; a signed or recorded confession does not establish truth.
Some exonerations provide independent evidence that an admission was false. In many other investigations, guilt or innocence is not known with comparable certainty. Researchers can identify conditions that increase the likelihood of unreliable statements, while courts and fact-finders evaluate the evidence under their jurisdiction's standards. The psychological conclusion that a process contained recognized risk factors differs from a factual finding that the suspect was innocent.
Why Would an Innocent Person Confess?
A confession decision occurs in a social and institutional situation. The person answering questions may have incomplete information about the investigation, feel vulnerable to authority, misunderstand the implications of particular words, or focus on ending an exhausting encounter. Investigators may present their theory as established fact, suggest that agreement is advantageous, or repeatedly reject denials. When immediate relief becomes more salient than distant legal consequences, admission can seem preferable even to a person who knows the accusation is false.
Researchers also describe the phenomenology of innocence: people who know they did nothing wrong may expect truth to become obvious, cooperate extensively, waive protections, and underestimate the significance of incriminating statements. The 2010 scientific review by Kassin and colleagues discussed this alongside developmental vulnerabilities and interrogation methods. It is one possible pathway rather than a universal explanation of every admission.
Immediate Relief and Short-Term Incentives
A person who has denied an accusation repeatedly may come to believe that continued resistance will extend questioning, cause further conflict, or forfeit the possibility of going home. Agreeing with an allegation can appear to end the present ordeal. The long-term significance of a recorded admission, prosecution, or imprisonment may be poorly appreciated in the moment.
This mechanism can operate without intellectual disability, psychiatric illness, or physical force. Situational compliance is a feature of decision-making under pressure; its strength depends on the perceived incentives and the individual's actual circumstances. A forensic examiner should establish what the person was told, how the person responded, and whether the record supports an inference about perceived rewards or threats.
The Belief That Evidence Will Eventually Prove Innocence
An innocent suspect may be unusually willing to cooperate because they expect independent forensic evidence to vindicate them. Laboratory research on interrogation bluffs has found that some innocent participants interpreted proposed future evidence testing as a promise of eventual exoneration. That expectation could make an admission psychologically easier despite its risks. Perillo and Kassin's 2011 experiments documented this pattern in controlled tasks.
The relevant difference is between what the speaker thinks a statement means and the institutional consequences assigned to it. A suspect may view agreement as temporary accommodation or a means of speeding up an investigation, while investigators or jurors interpret the same words as decisive evidence of guilt.
Three Main Types of False Confessions
Researchers conventionally distinguish voluntary, compliant, and internalized false confessions. These are psychological classifications rather than DSM or ICD diagnoses, and they do not automatically determine a confession's admissibility. They can overlap, and identifying an underlying process in a real case requires more than reading the final statement.
A voluntary false confession is offered without an immediate coercive custodial interrogation. Potential motives discussed in scholarship include a desire for attention, a wish to protect someone else, identification with a publicized event, or other personal reasons. These motives should be investigated rather than assumed. Public knowledge of a case can also shape what a voluntary confessor says.
A compliant false confession occurs when someone knowingly makes a false admission to gain an expected benefit or avoid an anticipated cost. The individual may continue to believe in their own innocence throughout. The perceived advantage may be an end to questioning, a promised improvement in treatment, or avoidance of an apparently greater consequence.
An internalized false confession involves some change in the person's expressed belief about having committed the act. False evidence, memory uncertainty, and repeated suggestion may lead someone to doubt their recollection. In Kassin and Kiechel's 1996 experimental study, accusations supported by misleading witness information sometimes produced signed admissions, expressions of guilt, and invented explanatory details. The study demonstrates possibilities under laboratory conditions; it cannot establish that serious criminal suspects routinely develop false memories under similar circumstances.
How Interrogation Methods Affect False-Confession Risk
Investigative interviewing and accusatorial interrogation differ in their emphasis. Information-gathering methods generally seek detailed, independently testable accounts and allow alternative explanations. Accusatorial approaches are more likely to proceed from a presumption of guilt and to use confrontation or confession-oriented techniques. Actual practice is varied, so classification should be based on recorded tactics and their context rather than labels.
The 2024 Campbell systematic review by Catlin and colleagues analyzed studies that experimentally manipulated questioning methods when ground truth was known. Certain accusatorial approaches produced more false admissions than direct questioning and information-gathering comparisons. Information-gathering had advantages for eliciting true confessions in some comparisons. Several estimates were uncertain and network consistency tests raised concerns. The review supports a comparative research conclusion within studied conditions, not a numerical forecast for an individual criminal case.
False Evidence and Bluffing
Presenting false evidence can change a suspect's assessment of whether denial will be believed. Even a bluff stating that evidence may soon be tested can alter decisions. Researchers have examined how an apparently authoritative assertion of incriminating proof, or a suggestion that future testing will vindicate the speaker, can affect admissions.
In Perillo and Kassin's experimental work, bluffing increased false admissions in mock-offense settings. The broader 2024 systematic review similarly identified elevated false-confession outcomes in some accusatorial evidence-ploy comparisons. A single tactic does not have a fixed effect on all people, and lawful use of a tactic in a particular jurisdiction is separate from its psychological reliability implications.
Minimization and Implied Leniency
Minimization can make alleged conduct appear understandable or less serious and may suggest that confession will bring more favorable treatment. A statement that sounds reassuring to the interviewer may be heard by the suspect as an implicit promise. Explicit offers of leniency create related incentives.
Russano and colleagues' 2005 experiment found that minimization and explicit offers of leniency increased both true and false confessions. This is important for evaluating diagnostic value. A technique can increase the total number of admissions while also reducing confidence that an admission distinguishes guilty from innocent people.
Lengthy Questioning, Fatigue, and Isolation
Questioning duration can interact with emotional stress, fatigue, isolation, lack of sleep, repeated accusation, and diminished access to independent advice. The immediate pressure to end an interaction may become more important as questioning proceeds. An hour count alone cannot establish coercion or falsity, because susceptibility varies and the surrounding conditions matter.
The APA resolution recommends considering duration limits and full video recording of custodial felony-suspect questioning. A sound review records the beginning and end of interviews, breaks, physical conditions, prior questioning, significant changes in the interviewer's approach, and the suspect's requests for assistance.
Suggestion, Memory Uncertainty, and Source Confusion
A question can introduce information that the suspect did not previously know. Repetition, corrections, crime-scene photographs, implied agreement, and summaries of the investigator's theory may shape later answers. In some situations the suspect may confuse what they remember directly with what was supplied during questioning.
These processes concern memory and social influence, not necessarily a clinical memory disorder. There is no dependable way to infer someone's private memory experience merely from a polished confession. The sequence of questions and responses is needed to determine which details originated independently with the person being interviewed.
Why Crime Details Do Not Automatically Prove a Confession
An apparently detailed admission can be compelling, especially when it mentions facts that match a scene or an investigative theory. Forensic evaluation asks whether those facts were genuinely nonpublic, whether the suspect independently volunteered them before investigative disclosure, and whether the details correspond to independently established evidence.
A confession may acquire accurate information through contamination. Investigators may unintentionally disclose facts, present multiple-choice alternatives, correct the suspect, or encourage adoption of their narrative. Later observers may mistake interviewer-supplied details for spontaneous insider knowledge. The investigative record must identify when each material fact first appeared and who introduced it.
The concern extends to other evidence. In an archival analysis of DNA-exoneration case files, Kassin, Bogart, and Kerner found that false-confession cases frequently involved other evidentiary errors and that confessions often preceded those errors. This pattern is consistent with a risk of evidentiary contamination, although archival associations cannot by themselves establish causality in every case.
Who May Be More Vulnerable?
Susceptibility is specific to individuals and circumstances. Adolescence, intellectual or developmental disabilities, language and communication barriers, acute distress, fatigue, suggestibility, and limited comprehension of legal rights may contribute to risk. None is a test of innocence, and no diagnostic label automatically makes a statement false. Cultural background and access to appropriate interpretation also matter.
Youth and Developmental Maturity
Children and adolescents may differ from adults in their capacity to understand procedural protections, evaluate future consequences, and resist authority. Development is heterogeneous, and age should be understood as a relevant variable rather than a categorical determination. A young person's comprehension of a warning, actual communication, degree of support, and interview environment should be examined directly.
The 2025 American Psychology–Law Society scientific review urges safeguards for young suspects, including legal assistance and suitable adult involvement where required. The U.S. Supreme Court in J. D. B. v. North Carolina recognized that a child's age can be relevant when deciding whether the person was in custody for Miranda purposes. That is a specific American legal holding, not a universal psychological or legal standard.
Intellectual Disability and Communication Needs
Some people with intellectual disabilities may have difficulty interpreting complex questions, identifying implied meanings, or understanding the consequences of agreement. Others communicate effectively with appropriate accommodations. Functional abilities and the actual interview circumstances are more informative than diagnostic categories in isolation.
Forensic evaluation should address comprehension, the use of interpreters or support persons, the form of questions asked, and whether the suspect could correct misunderstandings. A person's tendency to agree under certain testing conditions is not a scientifically validated probability that a specific criminal confession was false.
Mental Health, Stress, and Substance-Related Impairment
Acute symptoms, severe distress, intoxication, withdrawal, sleep deprivation, and certain medication effects can influence concentration, memory, and decision-making. Their significance depends on severity, timing, and documented behavior. Mental illness is neither synonymous with criminality nor evidence that a confession is inaccurate. Most people with mental disorders can provide meaningful and accurate information.
An examiner must separate clinical diagnoses, observed functioning, and the legal standard for capacity or voluntariness. Different legal questions require different evidence. Remote diagnosis based on a transcript or media description is insufficient for a comprehensive forensic conclusion.
Cultural and Language Fairness
Cultural variation can affect expressions of agreement, politeness, deference, and interpretation of authority. Language barriers may alter the perceived meaning of questions or procedural warnings. Researchers and clinicians must avoid interpreting a culturally unfamiliar response style as a symptom or an admission of guilt. Professional interpretation, accommodations, and accurate preservation of the original language may be essential to evaluation.
What Does Scientific Evidence Actually Establish?
Research on false confessions includes controlled laboratory studies, observational field studies, surveys, psychological theory, and documented wrongful-conviction cases. They serve different evidentiary purposes. Laboratory experiments can distinguish guilty and innocent participants in mock-offense paradigms, which allows study of causal differences between questioning methods. Field studies reflect realistic settings but frequently lack independent evidence of every suspect's guilt or innocence. Exonerations establish that particular serious failures occurred but represent a highly selected group.
A key distinction is between an experimental odds ratio, the probability that an individual in a particular setting will confess falsely, and the prevalence of false confessions across real police investigations. These numbers are not interchangeable. Even when a study reliably finds that one technique produces more admissions than another, it does not follow that a specific defendant faced the same magnitude of risk.
What the 2024 Systematic Review Found
The Catlin et al. Campbell review updated and extended previous comparative evidence. Its analysis found greater false-confession odds for some accusatorial techniques than for information-gathering or direct questioning, and favorable true-confession outcomes for certain information-gathering comparisons. Interpretation requires attention to heterogeneous methods, mock-suspect tasks, uncertainty around estimates, and inconsistency in parts of the network analysis.
These findings support examining interview practices as potential contributors to reliability, but they do not validate a test that retrospectively determines whether an individual admission was true. Nor can field yields of confessions be classified as true-confession rates unless guilt was determined independently.
The Important 2026 Laboratory Calibration Critique
In September 2026, Mourtgos and Adams published a calibration meta-analysis examining 99 experimental conditions from 41 studies. They identified high and highly variable admission rates in laboratory paradigms, including substantial false admissions with minimal interrogation manipulation. Their interpretation is that some dominant tasks may primarily capture low-stakes compliance rather than processes equivalent to high-stakes criminal self-incrimination.
The paper raises questions about construct validity and ecological validity. It does not dispute the existence of documented false confessions, and it does not establish that all interrogation methods are equally safe or effective. Rather, it challenges whether laboratory admission percentages can be quantitatively calibrated to real-world confession risk. This methodological debate warrants explicit treatment: controlled experiments illuminate possible mechanisms and relative effects, while their absolute rates should not be presented as population estimates or individualized forecasts.
How Common Are False Confessions in Real Cases?
An accurate population-level prevalence estimate is difficult because most police interviews have no independently established ground truth, and known exonerations are a selected subset of cases. Some false admissions never lead to charges, some defendants plead guilty, and some wrongful convictions are never overturned. There is consequently no justified single percentage for all suspects, interrogations, or jurisdictions.
The National Registry of Exonerations documents cases in which wrongful convictions have been identified and tracks contributing factors. These records establish that false confessions are a serious justice-system problem. The proportion of exonerations involving a confession is not the same as the proportion of police interviews producing false confessions. Historical percentages based on DNA exonerations likewise cannot be generalized to all criminal cases.
How a Disputed Confession Is Evaluated Forensically
A forensic psychological assessment addresses the interview process, relevant functional vulnerabilities, the interpretation of research, and the reliability limits of available evidence. It is distinct from a clinical diagnosis, a screening result, a legal finding, and an ultimate determination of guilt. The examiner should articulate which conclusions arise from direct observation and which are interpretations based on established research.
A competent evaluation examines the entire available audio or video record, rather than relying on a summary of the final admission. The sequence of denials, disclosures, assertions of evidence, suggested motives, corrections, and changes of account should be reconstructed. Records of interrogation length, breaks, counsel access, language assistance, health, sleep, and other contemporaneous circumstances may be material. Investigative knowledge acquired after the confession must not be retroactively attributed to the speaker.
The examiner also considers competing hypotheses. A confession may be accurate, partly accurate, deliberately false, shaped by a misunderstanding, induced through compliance, or influenced by memory uncertainty. The evidentiary assessment should compare each hypothesis with independently generated facts.
Assessment Instruments, Scores, and Prediction Limits
Measures of suggestibility, compliance, cognitive functioning, or symptom validity can sometimes inform a narrowly defined question. Such instruments do not diagnose a false confession or prove innocence. For a claimed numerical prediction, investigators would need evidence of validity, sensitivity, specificity, false-positive and false-negative rates, population fit, subgroup fairness, and calibration for the particular intended use. An instrument's score cannot replace the record of what happened during the interview.
The base rate of a target event affects the interpretation of prediction, even if a test has apparently useful sensitivity and specificity. Because population prevalence of false criminal confessions is uncertain, an individualized probability calculated from generic scores would be especially fragile. A responsible expert provides the relevant limits instead of projecting unwarranted statistical certainty.
Corroboration and Independent Information
Independent corroboration is information supported by a source genuinely separate from the confession. Its independence must be documented. A witness or forensic examiner who already knows a suspect confessed may have been influenced by that knowledge, so chronological separation of evidence streams matters. Nonpublic details have stronger diagnostic value when demonstrably provided before the suspect could have learned them from investigators or media.
Apparent inconsistencies also need contextual interpretation. A person who has been questioned repeatedly may change wording for many reasons. Inconsistency alone is neither proof of deception nor proof of contamination. The question is whether each change is explained by new evidence, the interviewer, memory processes, or another identifiable influence.
What Is the Legal Meaning of Coercion?
Psychology and law address different questions. Psychologists examine social influence, communication, decision-making, and statement reliability. Courts apply jurisdiction-specific rules governing warnings, custody, voluntariness, exclusion, and admissibility. A psychological risk factor does not automatically establish a constitutional violation; a legally admissible statement is not necessarily reliable.
In the United States, Miranda v. Arizona established procedural safeguards associated with custodial interrogation. Colorado v. Connelly addresses the role of coercive police activity in federal due-process voluntariness analysis. J. D. B. v. North Carolina concerns how age can bear on the custody inquiry for a child. Each holding has a specific legal scope.
U.S. states and other countries differ in their interrogation procedures, treatment of deception, recording requirements, rights of minors, and admissibility standards. Scientific generalizations should not be presented as universal legal rules. Case-specific advice belongs to a qualified legal professional familiar with the governing jurisdiction.
Do Miranda Warnings Eliminate False-Confession Risk?
Warnings can convey important rights, but comprehension, appreciation of consequences, and practical ability to exercise them vary. Some innocent suspects may waive protections in the belief that cooperation will demonstrate innocence. The 2025 scientific review discusses why Miranda protections alone cannot eliminate the risk and recommends additional safeguards.
Whether a specific warning was legally required, given properly, and validly waived is a legal matter. Whether a statement is reliable remains an evidentiary and psychological inquiry. These conclusions can diverge.
Why False Confessions Can Influence Courts and Other Evidence
Confessions are persuasive partly because observers assume people would avoid self-incrimination unless they were responsible. This assumption can persist even when the recorded circumstances reveal strong pressure. The presence of detailed narrative and apparent confidence can amplify credibility, though both can result from repetition, suggestion, or prior exposure to case facts.
A confession can also change investigative behavior. After hearing an admission, investigators may neglect alternative leads, witnesses may be exposed to incriminating narratives, and forensic evaluators may interpret ambiguous results differently. The 2012 archival analysis by Kassin, Bogart, and Kerner is consistent with concerns about these downstream effects, without proving that every associated error was caused by a prior confession.
Courts must also address questions of expert evidence, defendant rights, evidence preservation, and the possibility that a confession led to a guilty plea. A plea and a confession are legally distinct events even if both involve admissions of responsibility. Research about false-confession mechanisms should inform legal scrutiny without being treated as a substitute for judicial fact-finding.
Evidence-Based Safeguards and Better Interview Practice
The APA's 2022 resolution recommends video recording entire custodial interviews and interrogations of felony suspects from a neutral camera perspective, examining questioning duration, and strengthening protections for vulnerable individuals. Full recording matters because the final confession alone cannot show how the account developed or which details were introduced by the investigator.
The 2025 scientific review goes further, recommending evidence-based suspicion before interrogation, restrictions on confrontational tactics, science-based investigative interviewing, stronger counsel-related protections for youthful suspects and vulnerable adults, and safeguards against exposure of independent evidence evaluators to confession narratives.
A practical quality-control system records the full process, preserves early denials, documents breaks and substantive disclosures, uses appropriately trained interviewers and interpreters, and subjects major incriminating details to independent verification. Investigators should maintain alternative hypotheses and evaluate interview quality by information accuracy and investigative value rather than the number of confessions obtained.
Why Full Recording Matters
An edited clip showing a final admission may omit hours of questioning, repeated denials, suggested details, promises or implied benefits, and interruptions. Continuous recording helps courts, investigators, defense counsel, and independent experts review the sequence of influence. A neutral visual perspective also helps reduce the chance that presentation choices distort the observer's assessment of interaction dynamics.
Recording is a procedural safeguard rather than a guarantee of reliable evidence. Its value depends on whether the full interaction is preserved, accessible, and meaningfully examined.
Ethical Consequences of False Confessions
When a false confession leads to prosecution or wrongful conviction, consequences can include imprisonment, financial losses, family disruption, damaged reputation, and lasting stigma even after exoneration. The 2025 review also identifies downstream effects on plea decisions and the evaluation of other evidence.
Forensic psychologists should clearly separate recognized general risk mechanisms from case-specific evidence. Clinicians should avoid turning mental health labels into claims about criminality or dishonesty. Investigators should protect the integrity of information sources, while attorneys and courts should test the origins and corroboration of disputed admissions. Public discussion should examine evidence and procedure before treating an emotionally compelling confession as definitive.
Myths and Misconceptions
“Innocent people never confess.”
Documented exonerations establish the contrary. Psychological research identifies several pathways, including situational compliance, misleading evidence, and distorted expectations about immediate and future consequences. This finding does not imply that all confessions are false or that all suspects are equally vulnerable.
“Only people with psychiatric diagnoses falsely confess.”
A mental disorder is neither necessary nor sufficient for a false confession. Cognitive, developmental, interpersonal, and situational influences may operate without a diagnosis. When symptoms are relevant, their effects should be established through the person's functioning during the interview.
“A detailed confession proves the speaker committed the crime.”
Details have value only when their origin is established. A suspect can acquire accurate facts from public reporting, another person, or the interview itself. Independent, previously undisclosed information and a complete questioning record provide a stronger basis for evaluation.
“The lab false-confession rate is the rate in police stations.”
Experimental mock-offense tasks and custodial criminal investigations have different stakes, populations, incentives, and legal protections. Their percentages cannot be treated as interchangeable. The 2026 calibration research highlights this methodological limitation.
“Psychological pressure automatically makes a confession inadmissible.”
Psychological mechanisms and legal standards are distinct. Courts apply applicable statutes, precedents, and procedural requirements. A statement can raise serious reliability concerns without meeting a specific exclusion rule, and a statement can be excluded without a judicial finding of factual falsity.
Frequently Asked Questions
What causes an innocent person to confess?
There is no single cause. Research examines the interaction of questioning tactics, expected consequences, pressure to end an encounter, misunderstanding, suggestibility, and potential changes in memory confidence. A documented risk factor does not automatically establish why a particular person confessed.
Can people falsely confess without physical threats?
Yes. Social pressure, misleading evidence, implied leniency, prolonged questioning, and authority dynamics have been implicated in research and documented cases. Whether any tactic violated the law must be determined under the applicable legal framework.
Can a person actually believe a false confession?
Laboratory work has demonstrated changes in expressed belief or recollection under misleading conditions. Inferring the internal belief of someone in an actual criminal case is more difficult and requires careful evidence. Internalization is a proposed psychological pathway, not a diagnosis.
Are minors at higher risk?
Youth can involve developmental challenges in rights comprehension and evaluation of future consequences. Individual abilities, interview conditions, supports, and safeguards vary, and age alone cannot predict the truth of a statement.
How common are false confessions?
The population-wide rate among real police interrogations is unknown. Exoneration records show that false confessions occur and sometimes contribute to wrongful convictions, but they cannot establish the prevalence across all interrogations.
Does a recanted confession prove innocence?
No. A recantation signals a dispute requiring investigation. The original statement, circumstances of questioning, independent evidence, later explanations, and any available exonerating material must be evaluated together.
Can a psychological test identify a false confession?
There is no universal validated score that establishes whether an individual criminal confession is false. Assessments can sometimes inform comprehension, suggestibility, or functional vulnerabilities, but their population limits and error rates must be respected.
What can make a confession more reliable?
A complete recorded interview, accurate preservation of the question-and-answer sequence, demonstrably independent nonpublic details, and corroborating evidence obtained separately from the confession support a more trustworthy evaluation. No single feature guarantees truth.
What should someone do when a confession is disputed in a criminal case?
Preserve the complete available record, including communications and recordings, and seek qualified legal advice in the relevant jurisdiction. A forensic specialist may assess the interview process and the scope of recognized psychological risk factors without claiming to decide guilt.
Conclusion
A confession has evidentiary meaning only within the circumstances in which it was obtained. The science of false confessions explains how innocent people can sometimes make self-incriminating admissions, how questioning methods affect the reliability of statements, and why downstream evidence can become contaminated. Strong practice relies on full records, independent corroboration, safeguards for vulnerable suspects, and careful separation of psychological research from legal findings. Current methodological debates reinforce the need to preserve that precision rather than substituting laboratory percentages for conclusions about individual cases.
For broader context, see Investigative Interviewing vs. Interrogation: What Is the Difference?.
Related Articles
References
American Psychological Association. (2022). Resolution on interrogations of criminal suspects. Policy statement.
Catlin, M., Wilson, D. B., Redlich, A. D., Bettens, T., Meissner, C. A., Bhatt, S., & Brandon, S. E. (2024). Interview and interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: A systematic review update and extension. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 20, e1441. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1441.
Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986). United States Reports.
J. D. B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011). United States Reports.
Kassin, S. M. (2005). On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence put innocents at risk? American Psychologist, 60(3), 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.3.215.
Kassin, S. M. (2008). False confessions: Causes, consequences, and implications for reform. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(4), 249–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00584.x.
Kassin, S. M., & Kiechel, K. L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: Compliance, internalization, and confabulation. Psychological Science, 7(3), 125–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00344.x.
Kassin, S. M., Bogart, D., & Kerner, J. (2012). Confessions that corrupt: Evidence from the DNA exoneration case files. Psychological Science, 23(1), 41–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611422918.
Kassin, S. M., Cleary, H. M. D., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., Meissner, C. A., Redlich, A. D., & Scherr, K. C. (2025). Police-induced confessions, 2.0: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 49(1), 7–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000593.
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(1), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). United States Reports.
Mourtgos, S. M., & Adams, I. T. (2026). What do laboratory false confession paradigms measure? A calibration meta-analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-026-09687-1.
National Registry of Exonerations. (2026). Publications and annual reports. Official archive.
Perillo, J. T., & Kassin, S. M. (2011). Inside interrogation: The lie, the bluff, and false confessions. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9244-2.
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01560.x.