Abstract

Confessions are central to criminal investigations. Although an increasing amount of attention is being drawn to the phenomenon of false confessions the majority of research focuses on psychological factors of false confessions. This study instead uses narrative analysis to examine the language of true and false confession narratives, with a focus on how evaluative devices convey degrees of guilt and blame. Justifications and deflection of blame were found to characterize true confessions, while false confessions did not place a primacy on these elements. Furthermore, the actual events of the crime were highly evaluated in true confessions, while false confessions left these events unevaluated. Although generalizability of these findings should be treated with caution, meaningful differences between true and false confessions occur at the level of discourse which may assist investigators in uncovering motives, key events, and the confessor’s state of mind, and may help guide interrogators’ questioning patterns.