False Confessions in Criminal Justice: A Literature Review
This paper presents a literature review of seven academic articles examining false confessions in the criminal justice system. Drawing on cognitive dissonance as a conceptual lens, the review explores the prevalence of false confessions, the psychological mechanisms behind them, and the interrogation techniques — particularly the Reid Technique — that contribute to their occurrence. The paper also addresses how jury members perceive confessions, why jurors tend to accept false confessions despite contrary evidence, and what reforms, such as electronic recording of interrogations and expert witness testimony, might reduce wrongful convictions. Each article is evaluated for relevance, limitations, and potential for informing professional recommendations.
- Introduction to False Confessions: Overview of false confessions and cognitive dissonance framing
- Interrogation Techniques and Confession Contamination: How modern techniques produce contaminated false confessions
- The Reid Technique vs. the PEACE Model: Comparing coercive Reid method with the UK PEACE model
- Prevalence Rates and DNA Exonerations: Statistics on false confessions uncovered through DNA evidence
- Juror Perceptions and Expert Testimony: Why jurors accept confessions and the role of expert witnesses
- Investigator Bias and Cognitive Processes: How investigator bias drives coercive interrogation tactics
- Conclusions and Recommendations: Reform strategies including recording and expert testimony
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper systematically narrows its focus across seven sources — a clear "funnel" structure that moves from broad awareness of false confessions to specific interrogation mechanisms, juror behavior, and investigator bias.
- Each article review includes not only a summary of findings but also an honest evaluation of limitations (lack of participants, outdated publication dates, absence of quantitative data), demonstrating critical thinking rather than uncritical acceptance.
- The use of cognitive dissonance as a framing concept in the introduction gives the review a unifying theoretical thread that connects otherwise disparate studies.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates annotated literature synthesis — the practice of evaluating each source not merely for what it says, but for how well it supports a specific professional recommendation. The author consistently distinguishes between a source being relevant to the topic and being strong enough to anchor a recommendation, which reflects graduate-level critical appraisal of evidence.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a theoretical framing (cognitive dissonance) and a statement of purpose. The body then moves through seven articles in sequence, each section covering the research question, hypothesis, findings, relevance, and limitations of that source. The conclusion synthesizes across all articles to produce a unified professional recommendation, including practical reforms such as electronic recording and expert witness use.
Introduction to False Confessions
False confessions are an unfortunate feature of the criminal justice system. They are often extracted in order to secure a quick conviction without careful consideration of the facts of a case. This can create serious problems for defendants and for the courts, as defendants attempt to convince juries that their confessions were unethically obtained. While many within the criminal justice system regard false confessions as rare occurrences, research suggests they are a far more pervasive problem than commonly imagined.
Viewed through the lens of cognitive dissonance, certain entrenched perceptions may lead investigators to maintain their beliefs regardless of contradicting evidence. This can prompt actions aimed at "catching the culprit" without considering the full picture of evidence and testimony. The professional recommendation emerging from this review is to raise awareness of false confessions by examining the reasons behind them, their rate of occurrence, and the aftermath that follows their extraction. The following analysis of seven articles aims to demonstrate that false confessions exist and occur far more often than is widely believed.
References
Chojnacki, D. E., Cicchini, M. D., & White, L. T. (2008). An empirical basis for the admission of expert testimony on false confessions. Arizona State Law Journal, 40(1), 1–45.
Garrett, B. L. (2010). The substance of false confessions. Stanford Law Review, 62(4), 1051–1118.
Gudjonsson, G. H., & Pearse, J. (2011). Suspect interviews and false confessions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1), 33–37. doi:10.1177/0963721410396824
Kassin, S. M. (2008). False confessions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(4), 249–253. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00584.x
Kassin, S. M. (2012). Why confessions trump innocence. American Psychologist, 67(6), 431–445. doi:10.1037/a0028212
Leo, R. A., & Liu, B. (2009). What do potential jurors know about police interrogation techniques and false confessions? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27(3), 381–399. doi:10.1002/bsl.872
Narchet, F. M., Meissner, C. A., & Russano, M. B. (2011). Modeling the influence of investigator bias on the elicitation of true and false confessions. Law and Human Behavior, 35(6), 452–465. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9257-x
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.