| Title |
High-Risk Interrogation: Using the “Mr. Big Technique” to Elicit Confessions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Law and Human Behavior, January 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10979-009-9203-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Steven M. Smith, Veronica Stinson, Marc W. Patry |
| Abstract |
Kassin et al. (Police-Induced Confessions: Risk Factors and Recommendation, 2009) provide a detailed and thoughtful analysis of how police interrogation practices might elicit false confessions from innocent suspects. The purpose of this commentary is to provide a brief review of a relatively recent development in Canadian police investigation practice and discuss how this procedure may increase the likelihood of police-induced false confessions. The so-called "Mr. Big Technique" is a non-custodial interrogation tactic wherein suspects are drawn into a supposed criminal organization (actually an elaborate police sting) and subsequently told that to move up in the organization, they must confess to a crime. In this article, we describe this remarkable interrogation technique and discuss issues relevant to the potential induction of false confessions. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 7% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | 2% |
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Denmark | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 36 | 84% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 14% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 6 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 24 | 56% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 19% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 March 2014.
All research outputs
#4,369,297
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Law and Human Behavior
#247
of 1,047 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,891
of 172,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Law and Human Behavior
#8
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,047 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 172,626 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.