The False-Evidence Ploy in Interrogation: What Research Shows
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 11, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Ukrainian Psychological Hub | October 11, 2026 | Forensic & Legal Psychology
The false-evidence ploy is an interrogation tactic in which an interviewer falsely claims that incriminating evidence exists, or misrepresents the strength or meaning of purported evidence, to persuade a suspect to admit involvement. It can involve an invented eyewitness, nonexistent forensic results, a fabricated record, or a claim that a co-suspect has confessed. The psychological question is whether the tactic changes what a person says, believes, or remembers, including when the person is innocent.
The central research finding is that deceptive evidence claims can increase false admissions in controlled experiments. The magnitude of that effect in any particular police interview is not known from the laboratory result alone. A scientific evaluation must consider the precise claim, the person's understanding, other interrogation pressures, available corroboration, and how the statement was recorded. The American Psychological Association's 2022 resolution explicitly identifies presentation of false evidence as a false-confession risk; the 2024 Campbell systematic review and 2025 scientific review place the tactic within a broader evidence base on interrogation and confessions.
What is the false-evidence ploy?
In forensic psychology, the term refers to presenting an untrue assertion about evidence as if it were established investigative fact. A statement such as 'The laboratory found your fingerprints' is a false-evidence ploy when the claimed result does not exist or has not been obtained. So is a purported eyewitness identification that never occurred. The tactic relies on the apparent authority of evidence, especially when a suspect believes the interviewer has privileged access to investigative records.
The crucial distinction is between reporting actual evidence accurately, discussing hypotheses openly, and falsely representing evidence. An interviewer may legitimately explore inconsistencies or ask a person to explain independently verified facts. The psychological evidence on false-evidence ploys concerns deceptive presentation, including situations in which the interviewer knows that the supposedly decisive proof is false. Where an interviewer honestly makes a mistaken statement, the psychological effect may resemble an evidence ploy, although the legal evaluation of deliberate deception and error can differ.
Researchers also distinguish a direct false-evidence claim from the evidence bluff. In a bluff, the investigator implies that a test, recording, or witness may supply proof later without explicitly asserting that the proof already incriminates the suspect. Both can influence the suspect's expectations, and Perillo and Kassin's experiments showed that a bluff could elevate false-confession rates in laboratory settings.
Common forms of the tactic
False witness claims include saying that a bystander identified the person or that an accomplice has supplied a statement. False forensic claims include asserting that DNA, fingerprints, digital traces, blood evidence, or surveillance records have already identified the person when the asserted result is fictional. A false-document ploy introduces or describes a purported report, transcript, photograph, printout, or laboratory conclusion. A false-confession ploy claims that another person has admitted wrongdoing or implicated the suspect.
These examples are categories of evidence representations, not a validated ranking of effectiveness. An invented DNA result and a fictitious eyewitness may create different expectations depending on a person's scientific literacy, familiarity with policing, prior experiences, and the interview context. Contemporary audiovisual and synthetic media also make a manipulated recording psychologically plausible. The direct evidence base for emerging digital or AI-generated falsification in real police interrogations remains more limited than the classic laboratory literature.
What research actually shows
The classic false-evidence experiment
In a foundational study, Kassin and Kiechel (1996) had participants perform a computer task. All were innocent of the alleged rule violation. Under certain conditions, a confederate falsely claimed to have witnessed the participant press a forbidden key. Those exposed to false incriminating testimony, particularly under demanding task conditions, were more likely to sign an admission, accept personal responsibility, and generate accounts compatible with the suggestion. The experiment distinguished what participants publicly agreed to from what some came to believe.
Its evidentiary contribution is causal within the experimental arrangement: assignment to a false-witness manipulation altered behavior under specified conditions. The simulated offense was trivial, the participants were not facing prison, and the surrounding legal, emotional, and social consequences differed substantially from a custodial interrogation. The findings demonstrate a possible mechanism and establish why the tactic deserves scrutiny; they do not provide a ready-made probability that a named suspect will falsely confess.
Evidence bluffing can also produce false admissions
The three experiments reported by Perillo and Kassin (2011) tested a related bluff tactic. In two computer-crash experiments, a claim that evidence would be examined later increased false confessions compared with a control condition. A third experiment used a rule-breaking paradigm with guilty and innocent participants and again found increased false confessions among innocent people exposed to a bluff. Some innocent participants interpreted the prospect of future testing as a path to being cleared, making an immediate admission seem less consequential than it was.
This is an important psychological asymmetry. The factually innocent participant may expect proof of innocence to emerge, and therefore perceive less danger in agreeing now. The interviewer sees agreement as incriminating. The same sentence is evaluated through different expectations, which can turn apparent cooperation into a false statement. The experiments do not establish that every use of a bluff produces this effect or that every suspect will reason in the same way.
Fabricated video and belief change
In experiments using a computerized gambling task, Nash and Wade (2009) tested the influence of being told incriminating video existed and, for some participants, viewing doctored video. Participants who saw manipulated footage were more likely to confess without resistance and to internalize the alleged misconduct than participants who were only told about the recording. The study directly illustrates the potential for fabricated visual evidence to influence belief as well as outward compliance.
The video manipulation is not proof that altered footage will reliably create false autobiographical memories in a real criminal case. It shows that perceptually persuasive false information can affect participants' reports and subjective confidence under studied conditions. It also makes clear why the origin, integrity, chain of custody, and timing of any presented evidence matter when reviewing a subsequent statement.
What systematic reviews add
The 2024 systematic review by Catlin and colleagues synthesized 29 independent experimental studies reported in 27 articles, with data spanning 1996 through 2023. At the level of broad interviewing approaches, information-gathering methods produced more true confessions and fewer false confessions on average than accusatorial or direct-questioning comparisons. The review included laboratory evidence on false-evidence and bluff manipulations, while cautioning that more direct comparisons and finer analysis of individual tactics are needed.
That conclusion concerns families of interviewing methods rather than a single standardized version of the false-evidence ploy. Accusatorial interviews frequently combine evidence assertions with repetitive questioning, minimization, maximization, social pressure, or prolonged detention. It would be a methodological mistake to attribute every difference between interviewing models solely to deceptive evidence claims. Earlier meta-analytic work reached related conclusions about the value of information-gathering approaches Meissner et al., 2014.
The updated Kassin and colleagues (2025) scientific review integrates risk factors, interrogation practices, and safeguards using the accumulated false-confession literature. Its role is scientific synthesis and professional guidance rather than a statute or judicial ruling. The APA resolution likewise recommends that legal institutions recognize the risks associated with false-evidence presentations and advocates recording and special protections for vulnerable individuals.
How can false evidence change a person's response?
Authority, apparent certainty, and informational pressure
An interviewer occupies an institutional role and may imply access to information that the suspect cannot verify. A confident assertion that the investigation possesses decisive proof can make continued denial seem futile. Social-influence mechanisms—source credibility, pressure toward consistency, and deference to authority—can increase willingness to accept an imposed factual account. Their contribution depends on context and should be evaluated as hypotheses about the interview process, not as a diagnosis of the interviewee.
A short-term choice under unequal information
An admission may be made to end immediate discomfort, uncertainty, repeated accusation, or the perceived conflict with an authority figure. A person who believes exonerating evidence will soon appear may agree to a minor or conditional admission in the expectation that the mistake will later be corrected. A coerced-compliant statement is behavior shaped by circumstances; it does not necessarily mean that the person came to believe the accusation. The effects of evidence bluffs make this distinction especially important. For a broader account of why innocent people confess, see False Confessions: Why Innocent People Confess.
Internalization, source confusion, and reconstruction
When a person doubts an imperfect memory and repeatedly encounters purportedly independent evidence, the false information may become part of an explanation of what 'must have happened.' Internalization refers to a developing belief that one may actually have committed an event despite prior denial. Confabulated details may follow as the person tries to construct a coherent account. Kassin and Kiechel and Nash and Wade provide experimental examples of these processes, but a real interviewer's observation of changed language alone cannot establish a specific memory mechanism.
Contamination of confession content
A purported confession may contain accurate details that came from investigators, presented exhibits, leading questions, or previous media exposure. In an analysis of DNA-exoneration cases, Garrett (2010) documented the problem of confession contamination: some statements from innocent people incorporated strikingly specific crime details that appeared convincing to outsiders. That is a different evidentiary problem from whether the original admission was voluntary. Reviewers must reconstruct when the suspect first supplied a detail, who introduced it, and whether it was independently verifiable.
The timing of disclosure matters. If investigators announced an offense detail before an interviewee repeated it, the repetition is not independent corroboration. If a detail was first offered spontaneously before it became accessible to the interviewee, it may carry a different evidentiary significance. The factual record, including the full recording, must establish that sequence; rhetorical claims that a statement 'contains details only the perpetrator could know' do not replace the analysis.
Does the tactic produce true confessions?
Some people who committed an offense may confess after being confronted with purported evidence. The scientific question is diagnostic value: whether the method disproportionately increases accurate admissions relative to inaccurate admissions. A technique that raises both kinds of confession may increase total admissions while decreasing the reliability of any single admission as an indicator of guilt. This is why the denominator—the number of innocent and guilty persons exposed in a study—matters when interpreting experimental results.
In practice the ground truth of a criminal investigation is often unknown at the time of questioning, and controlled assignments to actual serious wrongdoing are ethically impossible. Studies therefore use mock crimes, induced rule breaking, computer tasks, retrospective case examinations, field observations, and experimental juror decisions. Each design illuminates part of the problem but carries selection and generalizability limits. No universal sensitivity, specificity, false-positive rate, or calibration statistic for 'the false-evidence ploy' can be responsibly applied across offenses, ages, legal systems, and interviewer practices.
A confession itself is a statement that must be evaluated against independent evidence. It is neither a psychometric test result nor an automatic legal finding. Even a seemingly detailed and confident admission can be inaccurate, and a denial can be either accurate or inaccurate. Case-specific corroboration, provenance of details, and procedural safeguards determine what investigators and courts can reliably infer.
Who may be especially vulnerable?
Adolescents require specific attention because age can affect suggestibility, appreciation of long-term consequences, understanding of rights, and willingness to comply with adults. In a controlled study including participants aged 12–13, 15–16, and young adults, Redlich and Goodman (2003) found that younger and more suggestible participants were more likely to accept responsibility for an act they did not commit, with false evidence included as an experimental manipulation. The study supports greater procedural care, not an assumption that every young person is unreliable.
Individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities, communication differences, impaired comprehension, substantial fatigue, acute distress, or certain mental-health-related difficulties may face additional barriers to understanding an interrogation's implications. The risk depends on functional abilities and situational pressures rather than the mere presence of a diagnostic label. APA's 2022 policy recommends particular protections and professional support for vulnerable groups.
The same person may be more or less susceptible at different times. Sleep loss, intoxication, withdrawal, language barriers, access to counsel, repeated questioning, and the presentation of purported physical proof can interact. Cultural and linguistic fairness also require attention: people differ in their assumptions about police authority, translation quality, and the meaning of agreement or deference. There is no validated personal profile that can guarantee an individual will resist—or succumb to—a false-evidence claim.
Researchers have called for additional study of disparities affecting marginalized communities. Established racial disparities in the criminal legal system warrant scrutiny of the conditions of interrogation and access to protections, but a person's race or identity cannot serve as an individual psychological score for confession vulnerability. Differences in investigative practices and structural exposure must be separated from hypothesized individual responses.
How does the ploy interact with other interrogation practices?
False-evidence statements frequently occur within larger accusatorial sequences. Repeated assertions of guilt can make the purported evidence sound more certain; minimizing the moral gravity of an act may imply leniency; maximization can highlight feared punishment or inevitable conviction. Those elements create partly overlapping pressures, but each tactic deserves its own empirical evaluation. For example, an experiment by Russano and colleagues (2005) found that minimization and explicit leniency offers increased both true and false confessions within a mock-rule-breaking paradigm. The related evidence on minimization and maximization in interrogation is examined in its own article.
The precise wording of a deceptive claim is relevant. 'We have your DNA,' 'The DNA is being tested,' and 'If you tell the truth, the evidence will clear you' convey different propositions and expectations. The effect of a false claim also depends on the order of questioning: a person may deny, qualify, agree, or begin supplying information after investigators have introduced facts. These differences cannot be collapsed into a simple binary label that the interview was 'deceptive.'
An information-gathering model instead emphasizes open questions, careful development of the person's own narrative, testing competing explanations, and disclosure or challenge based on actual investigative information. The Campbell review offers evidence favoring such approaches at the broad method level. It does not warrant claiming that any single interview technique is infallible, that deception never appears in a legitimate investigation, or that information-gathering always produces a confession.
False-evidence claims, legal admissibility, and constitutional limits
Psychological science asks whether a technique changes behavior or degrades the accuracy of an admission. The law asks questions such as whether a statement was voluntary, obtained in compliance with applicable procedural protections, and admissible in a particular proceeding. These inquiries overlap but are governed by different standards. An empirically risky practice is not automatically unlawful everywhere; a legally admissible statement is not automatically psychologically reliable.
The U.S. Supreme Court's Frazier v. Cupp decision
In Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969), the Supreme Court considered a police falsehood concerning a co-suspect's statement as one factor in a broader assessment of voluntariness. The decision is often cited when discussing deceptive interrogation in the United States. It should be understood in its procedural setting: it did not establish that every form of police deception is lawful or that an inaccurate evidentiary assertion is scientifically harmless.
U.S. admissibility disputes may additionally involve Miranda protections, custody, waiver, due-process voluntariness, state constitutions, evidentiary rules, and juvenile-specific safeguards. The legal significance of deception varies with the totality of circumstances and the governing jurisdiction. A forensic psychologist can explain empirically established risk mechanisms while the court resolves legal questions.
State reforms illustrate jurisdictional variation
Illinois provides a concrete example of narrower statutory restrictions. Under 725 ILCS 5/103-2.2, specified confessions by protected persons—including minors and individuals within the statute's intellectual-disability criteria—obtained in covered custodial settings through knowing deception are presumptively inadmissible, subject to the law's conditions and rebuttal provisions. The statute should be consulted for precise coverage, offense conditions, and effective dates; it is not a nationwide ban on all deceptive questioning.
Other U.S. states and countries use different rules, and statutes and case law can change. An English-language explanation of psychological findings does not convert one jurisdiction's evidentiary doctrine into universal law. Anyone addressing a live case needs the current law of that jurisdiction and a qualified attorney.
Should courts regard a resulting confession as reliable?
Admissibility, voluntariness, weight, and factual truth are different questions. A court may admit a statement under a legal standard while a jury still must consider its accuracy. Laboratory research indicates that confession evidence can be influential, but juror reactions depend on disclosure of methods, instructions, defense evidence, and case facts. In an experimental mock-juror study, Woody and colleagues found that the disclosure of false-evidence ploys affected judgments of deception, coercion, convictions, and recommended sentences in that particular stimulus set. Mock-juror studies illuminate decision mechanisms but are not calibrated predictions of actual verdicts.
How should a forensic expert analyze a disputed confession?
A forensic opinion should start with the referral question: What psychological features of the interview bear on the reliability of the statement, the person's comprehension, or the potential for contamination? The expert should distinguish empirical generalizations from observed facts about the individual and from the legal standard the court must apply. Statements about a tactic's group-level association with false confessions do not determine whether this defendant committed the offense.
A defensible review ordinarily reconstructs the complete sequence from first contact through every interview and post-interview statement. Relevant material may include contemporaneous audio/video, transcripts checked against recordings, disclosure logs, actual forensic results, interviewer notes, the timing of legal advice, interpreter records, and documented conditions such as sleep deprivation or lengthy questioning. The reviewer should note interruptions and missing portions of the record rather than treating a polished final confession as the whole interview.
The review can then separate observed features—what exactly the interviewer claimed, when the suspect first mentioned a fact, and whether a claim was demonstrably false—from psychological interpretations such as suggestibility, compliance, uncertainty, or internalization. An assessment interview or psychometric measure may inform functional comprehension but cannot retrospectively establish the truth of a confession with certainty. There is no validated false-evidence-ploy score that proves guilt, innocence, coercion, or criminal responsibility.
Expert reports should address alternative explanations. A false confession is one possibility when a deceptive technique was used; a true confession is another. A suspect may have known crime details through public reports, personal proximity, disclosure during questioning, or direct participation. The expert should describe evidence that supports and challenges each account, the quality of the record, and the limits imposed by uncertain ground truth.
Evidence preservation and safer investigative practice
The strongest practical safeguard is to preserve the entire pathway by which an account was formed. The APA resolution recommends audiovisual recording of felony custodial interviews and interrogations from beginning to end, using a neutral camera angle that represents both parties; it also urges attention to interview length, vulnerable people, and the risks of false evidence and implied leniency. Recording only the final confession leaves critical causal questions unanswered.
Interviewers can improve evidentiary quality by letting the person first provide a free narrative; asking questions that distinguish what the person independently recalls from what the interviewer has disclosed; making accurate records of evidence presentations; testing exculpatory as well as inculpatory explanations; and seeking corroboration from sources independent of the confession. These principles are consistent with an information-gathering approach and safeguard the provenance of details.
Safeguards also include meaningful access to legal advice, appropriate accommodations and qualified interpreters, careful limits on fatigue-producing procedures, training on false-confession science, and review processes that are alert to confirmation bias. Their specific implementation is governed by local law and operational conditions. Transparency and independent corroboration protect accurate investigations as well as people who have been mistakenly suspected.
What the research cannot tell us
The false-evidence-ploy literature supports a causal risk finding in experimental tasks and a coherent concern in case-based scholarship. It does not establish a fixed false-confession percentage for serious criminal investigations. Laboratory participants generally face limited stakes, while real suspects may face severe loss of liberty, public stigma, language problems, long detention, and complex social relationships. Field reports, meanwhile, often lack verified ground truth and randomized comparison groups.
Results also vary with the operational definition of confession. Signing a computer-crash admission, verbally agreeing to an accusation, endorsing a belief, and supplying a detailed narrative are different outcomes. Experimental studies may distinguish compliance, internalization, and confabulation; official records may combine them under the label 'confession.' The difference matters when interpreting effect sizes and the reliability of statements.
Population and cultural validation remain important. A sample of U.S. students cannot stand in for all juveniles, adults with disabilities, non-native speakers, or suspects interviewed in different legal systems. A study showing elevated false confessions under one manipulation does not calibrate an individual's probability. The scientific lesson is to evaluate risk and corroboration, not to convert a study outcome into a forensic verdict.
Common myths and misconceptions
Myth: An innocent person would never confess
Controlled studies with known-innocent participants directly contradict the categorical claim. The mechanisms differ: some people comply to escape pressure; some misunderstand an apparent future exoneration; others begin doubting or reconstructing their memory. The possibility of false admission is established, while any particular claim of innocence still requires examination of the full evidence. Kassin and Kiechel, 1996; Perillo and Kassin, 2011.
Myth: A sophisticated evidence bluff is harmless because it never states guilt directly
The controlled bluff experiments found elevated false-confession rates even without a direct assertion that incriminating evidence had been found. Expectations about future testing and exoneration can shape a person's immediate choices. Wording matters, and the conclusion remains tied to studied conditions. Perillo and Kassin, 2011.
Myth: A highly detailed confession must be independently true
Specificity can come from contamination. Investigators, images, reports, and leading questions may transmit details during an interview. A credible assessment asks whether the person revealed information independently and how that independence is documented. Garrett, 2010.
Myth: Frazier v. Cupp permits any fabricated evidence in every interrogation
The case evaluated a particular police falsehood in its broader circumstances; different facts, constitutional questions, state statutes, and suspect protections can yield different outcomes. Psychological risk and legal permissibility are distinct assessments. U.S. Reports; Illinois statute.
Myth: A technique that produces confessions must be a good truth-finding technique
Truth-finding requires distinguishing accurate from inaccurate admissions. Raising the total confession rate can also raise false admissions. Study design, known ground truth, and corroboration are essential to evaluating diagnostic value. Catlin et al., 2024.
Frequently asked questions
Is the false-evidence ploy the same as lying during an interrogation?
It is one defined form of interrogation deception: falsely asserting or misrepresenting evidentiary facts. Other lies concern motives, consequences, promises, or procedural matters. Each raises potentially different psychological and legal issues.
What is the difference between a false-evidence ploy and a bluff?
A direct ploy purports to establish incriminating evidence already in hand; a bluff implies that evidence may become available or be tested later. Experimental evidence shows that both may affect admissions, though the conversational details and underlying expectations differ. Perillo and Kassin, 2011.
Can false evidence make a person believe they committed an act?
Some laboratory participants came to endorse false responsibility or reconstruct details after exposure to misleading evidence. Internalization is a documented experimental outcome, not an inevitable response or a conclusion that can be assigned to a specific person without detailed evidence. Kassin and Kiechel, 1996; Nash and Wade, 2009.
Are police legally allowed to lie about evidence?
The answer depends on the jurisdiction, suspect protections, circumstances, and governing statute or precedent. The U.S. Supreme Court considered one deceptive statement in Frazier v. Cupp, while Illinois law provides specific statutory protections in defined circumstances. Legal advice about a particular interrogation must be jurisdiction-specific.
Does the ploy affect adolescents differently?
Young participants were more likely to accept false responsibility than adults in a laboratory study that manipulated false evidence and examined suggestibility. Developmental and contextual vulnerability warrants care without assuming every adolescent will respond the same way. Redlich and Goodman, 2003.
Can an expert determine from the confession alone whether it was false?
A final text or recording of an admission is insufficient to reconstruct all influences on its formation. Experts evaluate the full interview, independent evidence, disclosed details, and the limits of available research. They can identify risk processes and documentary inconsistencies but do not possess a perfectly accurate confession-veracity test.
Does videotaping prevent false confessions?
Recording from the beginning preserves the sequence of interview statements and can discourage misconduct, but it does not itself eliminate pressure, deception, or human error. Recording quality, camera framing, missing segments, and appropriate interpretation matter. The APA policy recommends complete audiovisual recording.
Does information-gathering interviewing still seek admissions?
Yes. It seeks accurate, testable accounts, including when a person admits wrongdoing, while reducing practices associated with false admissions. A 2024 systematic review found favorable average outcomes for information-gathering methods compared with broad accusatorial and direct-questioning approaches in the experimental literature. Catlin et al., 2024.
How should a court treat a confession obtained after a false-evidence claim?
The court applies its governing admissibility standards; factfinders assess the statement in relation to independent evidence and the demonstrated interview conditions. A psychological expert may explain mechanisms and limitations, while legal determinations remain with the relevant court. A scientifically cautious analysis never equates a tactic's risk with proof that a particular confession is false.
Related Articles
References
American Psychological Association. (2022). Resolution on interrogations of criminal suspects. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/interrogations.html.
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(4), e1441. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1441.
Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969). United States Reports, U.S. Government Publishing Office. https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USREPORTS-394/USREPORTS-394-731.
Garrett, B. L. (2010). The substance of false confessions. Stanford Law Review, 62, 1051–1118. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/3860/.
Illinois General Assembly. 725 ILCS 5/103-2.2, Confessions of protected persons obtained through deception. https://ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext?DocName=072500050K103-2.2.
Kassin, S. M., & Kiechel, K. L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: Compliance, internalization, and confabulation. Psychological Science, 7, 125–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00344.x.
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, 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6.
Meissner, C. A., Redlich, A. D., Michael, S. W., Evans, J. R., Camilletti, C. R., Bhatt, S., & Brandon, S. E. (2014). Accusatorial and information-gathering interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10, 459–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-014-9207-6.
Nash, R. A., & Wade, K. A. (2009). Innocent but proven guilty: Eliciting internalized false confessions using doctored-video evidence. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 624–637. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1500.
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.
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. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022543012851.
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01560.x.
Woody, W. D., & Forrest, K. D. (2009). Effects of false-evidence ploys and expert testimony on jurors' verdicts, recommended sentences, and perceptions of confession evidence. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27(3), 333–360. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.865.