Police Interrogation Techniques and False Confessions
This annotated bibliography examines two key sources that investigate when and why police interrogation techniques lead to false confessions. The first annotation reviews an empirical study by Forrest, Wadkins, and Larson (2006) exploring how individual personality traits—particularly suggestibility and a concept called "yield"—increase a suspect's vulnerability to falsely confessing. The second annotation reviews a foundational work by Ofshe and Leo (1997) that traces the historical evolution of interrogation methods and applies a social-psychological framework to explain how both innocent and guilty suspects are moved toward confession. Together, these sources illuminate the psychological and procedural dimensions of false confessions and their implications for law enforcement policy and reform.
- Introduction and Research Question: Poses the guiding research question on false confessions
- Annotation 1: Personality Traits and False Confessions: Reviews study linking suggestibility traits to false confessions
- Annotation 2: Social Psychology of Police Interrogation: Reviews historical and social-psychological analysis of interrogation
- Implications for Law Enforcement Policy: Connects both sources to policy and prevention
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Each annotation clearly identifies the source's methodology, key findings, and direct relevance to the guiding research question, demonstrating purposeful source selection.
- The student distinguishes between subject-level variables (personality traits) and police-level variables (interrogation methods), showing analytical awareness of the field's different theoretical angles.
- The annotations connect the two sources to each other — for example, citing Forrest et al. to validate the continued relevance of the older Ofshe & Leo work — creating a coherent, dialogue-driven bibliography rather than two isolated summaries.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates how to write evaluative annotations rather than purely descriptive ones. Instead of simply summarizing what each source says, the student assesses methodological strengths and limitations (e.g., noting the age of the 1997 study while defending its ongoing relevance), identifies what type of false confession each source addresses, and explicitly maps each source back to the original research question.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a clearly stated research question, which anchors both annotations. Each annotation follows a consistent two-part structure: a summary of the source's methodology and findings, followed by an evaluative paragraph explaining how the source contributes to the broader research question. This parallel structure makes the bibliography easy to follow and models effective academic annotation practice at the undergraduate level.
Introduction and Research Question
Research Question: When do police interrogation techniques lead to false confessions or false witness testimony, and how can false confessions be prevented?
Annotation 1: Personality Traits and False Confessions
Reference: Forrest, K. D., Wadkins, T. A., & Larson, B. A. (2006). Suspect personality, police interrogations, and false confessions: Maybe it is not just the situation. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(3), 621–628.
The authors empirically test the hypothesis that certain personality traits may be associated with false confessions. The authors recognize that prior research has often focused on environmental factors in the police interrogation setting, but that personality and individual differences might also bear on a person's susceptibility to falsely confessing. Prior studies, for example, have focused on interrogation length, the presentation of false evidence, and other manipulative ploys, as well as the leaking of case details to stimulate a false confession. Prior research on personality traits has included variables such as suggestibility and locus of control. This study also focuses on locus of control, but takes into account what Forrest, Wadkins, and Larson (2006) refer to as internalization. Using a suggestibility scale measure, the authors predict that various personality traits linked with suggestibility would make a person more vulnerable to internalizing an event or act, and therefore more likely to falsely confess. Results showed that one suggestibility trait in particular — called "yield" — was significantly correlated with willingness to sign a false confession. Overall, more than 81% of participants ended up falsely confessing, with tremendous implications for law enforcement practice.
This article connects with the broader body of literature on psychological variables involved in false confessions and can be used to better inform police policy and practice. A further strength of this article is that the authors differentiate between types of false confession. For instance, Forrest, Wadkins, and Larson (2006) discuss the role of real or imagined pressure applied during the interrogation, the fact that many people falsely confess in order to protect someone else, and finally the internalization type, which is the focus of this study. This source directly answers the research question about when false confessions are more likely to occur and how they can best be prevented.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.