PSY 3470 Module 5 Psychology and Investigation Paper: False Confessions, Eyewitness Lineups and Criminal Profiling Example

Confessions, Lineups and Profiles: What Psychology Can and Cannot Do for Investigators

Student Name

Bachelor of Arts in Psychology, Thomas Edison State University

PSY-3470: Forensic Psychology

Mentor Name

Month Day, Year

Confessions, Lineups and Profiles: What Psychology Can and Cannot Do for Investigators

Introduction

A news story about a man exonerated by DNA evidence after nearly two decades in prison stopped me. He had confessed after a long interrogation, and an eyewitness had picked him from a lineup. I had assumed that innocent people do not confess and that confident eyewitnesses are accurate. This paper examines what psychology has learned about three investigative practices: interrogation, eyewitness identification and criminal profiling.

Why Innocent People Confess

Kassin et al. (2010), writing on behalf of the American Psychology-Law Society, reviewed research on police-induced confessions. They identified three types of false confession: voluntary, given without police pressure; compliant, given to escape a stressful interrogation despite knowing one is innocent; and internalized, in which an innocent suspect comes to believe they may have committed the crime. Risk factors included dispositional factors, such as youth, intellectual disability and mental illness, and situational factors, such as long interrogations, isolation, confrontation with false evidence and minimization, in which interrogators imply leniency or downplay the seriousness of the crime. False confessions are especially damaging because judges and juries find confessions highly persuasive, and a confession can taint other evidence, such as how forensic analysts or witnesses interpret what they see.

Recommendations on Interrogation

The authors recommended recording entire interrogations on video, from the first moment, so that courts can see what happened; limiting the length of interrogations; reconsidering tactics such as presenting false evidence and implying leniency; and providing special protection for juveniles and people with intellectual disabilities. Recording has since been adopted by many states and departments.

Eyewitness Identification

Eyewitness misidentification has contributed to many wrongful convictions. Wells et al. (2020) issued updated recommendations based on decades of research. They recommended that investigators interview witnesses about the culprit's appearance before any identification procedure; that a lineup be conducted only when there is evidence-based suspicion of a specific person; that lineups be double-blind, so that whoever runs the lineup cannot tell which member is the suspect; that the suspect not stand out from the fillers; that witnesses be told the culprit may not be present; that witnesses' confidence be recorded immediately, before any feedback; that the procedure be video recorded; that repeated identification procedures with the same suspect be avoided; and that showups, presenting a single suspect, be avoided when possible. They emphasized that confidence at the initial identification, under good procedures, can be informative, whereas confidence later inflated by feedback is not.

Criminal Profiling

Criminal profiling, inferring an unknown offender's characteristics from crime scene information, is popular in fiction. Snook et al. (2007) reviewed the literature on profiling and meta-analyzed studies comparing profilers with other groups in predicting offender characteristics. They found that much of the profiling literature relied on commonsense arguments and anecdotes rather than data, and that profilers did not consistently outperform comparison groups, such as police officers or students, by a meaningful margin. They concluded that profiling's apparent value rests largely on its persuasive appeal rather than demonstrated accuracy.

Why Psychology Matters Here

Interrogation and eyewitness research show psychology at its most useful: laboratory and field studies identified specific practices that produce errors, and the recommended reforms are simple and inexpensive. Profiling shows the opposite lesson: an appealing technique can spread without evidence that it works.

Alternatives to Accusatory Interrogation

Some countries have adopted investigative interviewing models that emphasize gathering information rather than obtaining a confession, with open questions, rapport and evaluation of the suspect's account against evidence. Research suggests these approaches produce useful information without the risks of accusatory tactics.

The Dispatcher's Part

Initial descriptions given by callers to 911 are often the first record of what a witness saw. Recording these descriptions accurately, without suggesting details, preserves memory evidence before it can be contaminated, a principle consistent with Wells and colleagues' recommendation to interview witnesses before any identification.

Confession Contamination

A confession can change how other evidence is interpreted. Research shows that once a suspect has confessed, forensic examiners, eyewitnesses and juries may interpret ambiguous evidence as consistent with guilt. This is why false confessions so often appear alongside other mistaken evidence in exoneration cases, and why recording interrogations matters beyond the confession itself.

Training Investigators

Reforms depend on training. Officers who understand how memory is altered by suggestion and how pressure produces compliance are more likely to follow recommended procedures than officers who see the rules as obstacles. Psychologists contribute to this training directly.

Juveniles in the Interrogation Room

Young suspects are especially vulnerable. They are more suggestible, more likely to focus on short-term relief and less likely to understand their rights. Many exonerations involving false confessions involve teenagers. Requiring a parent or attorney to be present and limiting interrogation length for juveniles are reforms supported by this research.

Showups and Field Identifications

When police detain a suspect near a crime scene and show him alone to a witness, the procedure is highly suggestive, because the witness assumes police have the right person. Wells and colleagues advise avoiding showups when possible and, when they must be used, following safeguards such as warning the witness that the person may not be the culprit.

Limits

Laboratory studies of eyewitness memory and confessions cannot fully reproduce real crimes. Profiling research is limited by small numbers of professional profilers willing to be tested.

Conclusion

Kassin and colleagues showed how interrogation tactics and vulnerable suspects produce false confessions, Wells and colleagues showed how lineup procedures can protect eyewitness accuracy and Snook and colleagues found little evidence that profiling works. Recording interrogations, conducting double-blind lineups and treating profiles with skepticism are reforms grounded in evidence that can prevent the kind of wrongful conviction that cost an innocent man two decades.

References

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

Snook, B., Eastwood, J., Gendreau, P., Goggin, C., & Cullen, R. M. (2007). Taking stock of criminal profiling: A narrative review and meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(4), 437-453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854806296925

Wells, G. L., Kovera, M. B., Douglass, A. B., Brewer, N., Meissner, C. A., & Wixted, J. T. (2020). Policy and procedure recommendations for the collection and preservation of eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 44(1), 3-36. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000359