1. False confessions and vulnerable suspects: An experimental approach
Dr. Robert Horselenberg

2. False confessions

3. Individual differences

4. Field and experimental studies

5. Paradigm

6. Experiment: GCS 58 participants: 18 low (5.4, SD = 1.6)
21 medium (9.6, SD = .5)
19 high (14.1, SD = 1.2)
22% False confessions (n = 13)
78% True denials (n = 45)
And 2 false denials; excluded

7. Experiment: GCS
Low GCS score Medium GCS score High GCS score

8. Experiment: GSS 61 participants: 23 low(4.7, SD = 1.7)
16 medium (7.8, SD = 1.3)
22 high(12.1, SD = 1.7)
12% False confessions (n = 7)
88% True denials (n = 54)
And 3 false denials and 1 true confession; excluded, all from mediocre GSS-group

9. Experiment: GSS
Low GSS score Medium GSS score High GSS score

10. False confessions Conclusion:
Careful with focusing on vulnerable suspects – Remember, ‘our’ miscarriages of justice with false confessions: None of them were vulnerable (Low IQ, young of age, psychiatric/mental disorders)
Maybe better focus on system variables – Those the police can control!

11. Thank you!
Questions?