false confession (Costanzo, Krauss, & Pezdek, 2006). Anyone can become susceptible under the right conditions (Wright, 2007).

Multiple approaches for an interrogation are used by the police. First of all, there is the direct questioning. This one is simple: as the name reveals, it’s about asking direct questions towards the crime. A second method is the information-gathering approach: the suspect is given the chance to tell their side of the story, often open-ended questions are asked. The goal is truth seeking. There is also an accusatorial approach. This one differs a lot from the information-gathering approach because the police will try to manipulate the suspect and be very confrontational. Unlike the previous one, the interrogators try to obtain a confession and this is why they will be very confirmatory (Meissner et al., 2014). The focus lies furthermore on the looks of the suspect: the more nervous or anxious he looks, the guiltier he seems according to this method. According to the research results of Meissner et al. (2014), information-gathering is better at obtaining a confession compared with direct questioning, but that the accusatorial approach increases both true and false confessions.

Results of the experiments by Perillo and Kassin (2011) indicate that bluffing has the same effects as the presentation of false evidence. They also imply that these confessions made because of bluffing are not likely to be detected by the interrogators of judges.

The well-known ‘Reid technique’ is often used during an interrogation. It’s a method where the police will use false evidence and reduce the anxiety associated with confessing by misleading the individual and making him believe he will get mercy, even when it’s not directly promised. This is a minimization strategy. The essence of this technique is that the suspect will make a rational cost-benefit analysis. The problem comes forth when false evidence is shown: if the innocent suspect thinks he will