Study examines why innocent suspects confess to a crime

February 17, 2011
Iowa State psychologists Stephanie Madon (far right) and Max Guyll (middle right) have been overseeing experiments -- like this one by ISU students Shelby Wuebker and Lee Casavant -- on the consequences that drive a person's confession decisions. Credit: Bob Elbert, News Service (download print quality photo)

Why would anyone falsely confess to a crime they didn't commit? It seems illogical, but according to The Innocence Project, there have been 266 post-conviction DNA exonerations since 1989 -- 25 percent of which involved a false confession.

A new Iowa State University study may shed light on one reason for those false confessions. In two experiments simulating choices suspects face in police interrogations, undergraduate subjects altered their behavior to confess to in order to relieve short-term distress (the proximal consequence) while discounting potential long-term (distal) consequences.

"The thing about these exoneration cases is that they all pertained to heinous crimes; that's why there was available. And so we wanted to determine why someone may be willing to falsely confess to one of those crimes," said Stephanie Madon, an ISU associate professor of psychology and the study's lead author. "We thought it might have to do with the pay-off structure of police interrogations. Some interrogation methods -- like physical isolation and the presentation of false evidence -- have immediate consequences for suspects that encourage them to confess. Though they also face consequences that encourage them to deny guilt -- such as the possibility of conviction and incarceration -- these consequences are more distal.

"So the suspect is weighing these two consequences at once and that's going to shape their behavior," she continued. "That's what we were interested in understanding. Which of these consequences is going to influence confession decisions -- those that are happening right now, or the ones that may happen in the future?"

ISU study published in Law and Human Behavior

Iowa State researchers Max Guyll, an assistant professor of psychology; Kyle Scherr, a psychology graduate student; Sarah Greathouse, a former assistant professor of psychology; and Gary Wells, Distinguished Professor of psychology; collaborated with Madon on the study. It will be posted online this week by the journal Law and Human Behavior.

In the first experiment, 81 (38 women, 43 men) ISU psychology undergraduates were interviewed about their prior criminal and unethical behaviors, with their admissions and denials each paired with proximal or distal consequences. The proximal consequence was having to answer a long set of repetitive questions. The distal consequence was having to meet with a police officer in several weeks to discuss their answers in detail.

Researchers found that participants shifted their admissions to avoid the short-term consequence of repetitive questions.

"What we found is that our participants clearly made admission decisions on the basis of the proximal consequence," Madon said. "They would admit to having done some criminal or unethical behavior in order to avoid answering repetitive questions. And they did that even though they knew that it increased the likelihood that they would have to meet with the police officer in several weeks to discuss their answers in more detail."

In the second experiment, 143 (93 women, 50 men) ISU psychology undergraduates were again interviewed about their prior criminal and unethical behaviors. This time, the proximal and distal consequences were reversed from the first experiment. So the proximal consequence was meeting with the police officer immediately after the interview, while the distal consequence was to return to the lab in several weeks to answer the repetitive questions.

"Once again, the participants' admissions were shaped by the proximal consequences. They did not want to meet with the police officer," Madon said. "And so, they responded in a way that got them out of doing that -- even though it increased their likelihood of coming back in several weeks to answer repetitive questions."

Suspects confess to avoid a police interrogation

The researchers say these results may help explain why some suspects confess to crimes in order to avoid a police interrogation -- even though they increase their risk of conviction and severe penalties by doing so. The study's authors theorize that innocent suspects so strongly believe that the truth will eventually be borne out, they may perceive the distal consequences facing them -- conviction, prison, or even a death sentence -- to be remote and unlikely.

"One of the things we wanted to do in this research was to identify an underlying process at play during interrogations, so it can apply to a variety of police interrogation methods," Madon said. "Our findings have implications for any [police interrogation] method that causes suspects to focus on immediate consequences over future consequences."

Madon sees the results underscoring the need to limit the use of police interrogation methods that may exploit suspects' vulnerabilities and encourage them into making confession decisions on the basis of short-term gains.

Explore further: Study: Traditional police lineups valuable

Related Stories

Study finds mom's beliefs may impact their kids' alcohol use

September 15, 2008

( -- Mothers, take note. If you really want to curb your teens' chances of using alcohol, help them develop a self-view that doesn't include drinking. According to a new Iowa State University study, the power ...

Research shows good cop beats bad cop

February 2, 2011

Even the most horrible criminals feel guilt, and according to new research from the University of Montreal, playing on that sentiment might be a good way to extract a confession. In order to gain a better understanding of ...

Recommended for you

How the finch changes its tune

August 3, 2015

Like top musicians, songbirds train from a young age to weed out errors and trim variability from their songs, ultimately becoming consistent and reliable performers. But as with human musicians, even the best are not machines. ...

Shaving time to test antidotes for nerve agents

February 29, 2016

Imagine you wanted to know how much energy it took to bike up a mountain, but couldn't finish the ride to the peak yourself. So, to get the total energy required, you and a team of friends strap energy meters to your bikes ...

Machine Translates Thoughts into Speech in Real Time

December 21, 2009

( -- By implanting an electrode into the brain of a person with locked-in syndrome, scientists have demonstrated how to wirelessly transmit neural signals to a speech synthesizer. The "thought-to-speech" process ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

not rated yet Feb 17, 2011
Excellent work, folks! I just hope this information is used for good and not evil. You know there are some cops out there reading this, stroking their chin and saying "Oh,really!?".
5 / 5 (2) Feb 17, 2011
While I think this is valuable research, it strikes me as extremely obvious. Humans have a limited ability to project into the future, and you see the consequences of this ALL THE TIME. I eat pizza and ice cream because it tastes good now, even though the long term consequences are increased problems with my health. Parents give in to their child's whining because it relieves the immediate stress, even though it hurts the child and the parent in the long run. So again, good research, but very obvious. In fact, isn't that one of the reasons torture is known to be not effective, because people will give a false confession to stop the torture? Not sure these people have added anything, though it is good to highlight these problems with our justice system.
1 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2011
Not sure these people have added anything, though it is good to highlight these problems with our justice system.
Their contribution is of considerable value as most people believe that the justice system does it all just right.
Science is the only power to convey to normal people that the justice system is more often than not doing injustice.
1 / 5 (1) Feb 18, 2011
Science is the only power to convey to normal people that the justice system is more often than not doing injustice.

This is exactly the kind of twisted thinking that has caused leftlings to think that "science" is somehow "liberal" and supports their every Collective wet dream. Science should be allowed to go where it may, no matter what it may prove about our cherished beliefs, but the left is co-opting it in ever increasing chunks, as the professoriate is largely leftist already.

And - "normal people"? Why not - "you people"?
not rated yet Feb 18, 2011
And - "normal people"? Why not - "you people"?
That's a different attitude.
not rated yet Feb 21, 2011
"proximity of consequence" on human behavior.
What is the unit of measure of 'distal' and 'promimity'?

Length? Time? Intensity?
Isolation. The method of choice. To 'destroy'.
All too vague.

For example:
Which of these consequences is going to influence confession decisions -- those that are happening right now, or the ones that may happen in the future?"

Nothing defined. "Right now?"

1.)Get yourselves a security clearance.
2.)Go to ANY covert community.
3.)There it is a 'science'.
4.)Inaccessible in the interest of National Security!

Just how much science is lost to censorship?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.