Loading the library…
developmental factors in interrogation
There is consensus, scientific and judicial (J.D.B.), that children experience interrogation differently and are more vulnerable to pressure and false confession. The harder questions are how large the effect is and how it applies to any individual case — not whether youth matters.
Holds as a developmental generalization most pronounced for younger adolescents (roughly 15 and under) and intensifying with coercive interrogation tactics and longer questioning. It concerns objective, commonly understood effects of youth on the interrogation experience — the basis the Supreme Court used in J.D.B. — not a claim about any particular child's subjective state.
Grisso, T., Steinberg, L., Woolard, J., Cauffman, E., Scott, E., Graham, S., et al (2003). Juveniles' competence to stand trial: A comparison of adolescents' and adults' capacities as trial defendants. Law and Human Behavior, 27(4), 333-363.
Cross-sectional · N = 1,393 · adolescents vs. young adults
Youths aged 15 and younger more often performed at impairment levels comparable to adults found incompetent to stand trial, and adolescents more often made choices reflecting compliance with authority and psychosocial immaturity.
Bearing on this claim: Adolescents 15 and under more often show impaired adjudicative capacity and compliance with authority.
doi.org/10.1023/A:1024065015717Experimental false-confession paradigms involve low-stakes acts and cannot ethically replicate real interrogations; field false-confession rates are estimated from exonerations and are uncertain; samples are largely U.S.-based; and individual suggestibility varies widely, limiting case-level inference.
Last reviewed June 18, 2026
Redlich, A. D., & Goodman, G. S (2003). Taking responsibility for an act not committed: The influence of age and suggestibility. Law and Human Behavior, 27(2), 141-156.
Experimental · 12-13, 15-16, young adults
In a controlled paradigm, younger and more suggestible participants were more likely than older, less suggestible ones to falsely take responsibility for an act they did not commit, especially when shown false evidence.
Bearing on this claim: Experimental: younger, more suggestible participants more likely to falsely take responsibility.
Owen-Kostelnik, J., Reppucci, N. D., & Meyer, J. R (2006). Testimony and interrogation of minors: Assumptions about maturity and morality. American Psychologist, 61(4), 286-304.
Review
Reviews developmental research showing youth heightens suggestibility and compliance and argues that interrogation techniques designed for adults are especially problematic when used with minors.
Bearing on this claim: Developmental review of why youth heightens suggestibility and compliance in interrogation.
doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.4.2863 supporting verified sources
Adolescents are more susceptible than adults to peer influence and to external pressure or coercion, with susceptibility greatest in mid-adolescence; the mere presence of peers measurably increases adolescents' risk-taking and shifts their decisions toward immediate rewards.
SupportsJuveniles, especially those age 15 and younger, frequently do not adequately comprehend or appreciate the Miranda warnings they waive: as a group they understand the words of the warnings, and the function and significance of the rights to silence and counsel, less well than adults — raising doubt about whether a juvenile's waiver is knowing and intelligent.
SupportsJuveniles are over-represented among proven false confessions, and adolescents are at elevated risk of false confession relative to adults — a dispositional vulnerability (immaturity of judgment, suggestibility, and compliance with authority) that interacts with situational interrogation pressure. The claim concerns the composition of known and proven cases and comparative risk, not a known absolute rate among all juvenile confessions.
Supports