Abstract
Wrongful conviction cases indicate that not all confessors are guilty. However, there is currently no validated method to assess the veracity of confessions. In this preregistered study, we evaluate whether a new application of the Concealed Information Test (CIT) is a potentially valid method to make a distinction between true and false admissions of guilt. Eighty-three participants completed problem-solving tasks, individually and in pairs. Unbeknownst to the participants, their team-member was a confederate, tempting the participant to break the experimental rules by assisting during an individual assignment. Irrespective of actual rule-breaking behavior, all participants were accused of cheating and interrogated. True confessors but not false confessors showed recognition of answers obtained by cheating in the individual task, as evidenced by larger physiological responses to the correct than to plausible but incorrect answers. These findings encourage further investigation on the use of memory detection to discriminate true from false confessions.
Highlights
We investigated whether true confessions can be distinguished from false confessions using psychophysiological memory detection
BF01 annotates how much more likely the data are under the null as compared to the alternative hypothesis, and BF10 annotates how much more likely the data are under the alternative as compared to the null hypothesis
In light of the number of wrongful convictions in which false confessions were a contributing factor, it is of utmost importance to verify whether the confessor is factually guilty of the crime or gave a false incriminating statement
Summary
The act of misleading the participants to reach the goal of the study was explicitly mentioned and explained
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
