The inclusion of the letter sums up important instructions while attempting to mimic a real-life situation where a lawyer may inform a suspect of evidence against him/her. This particular letter was chosen because it has been successfully used in previous manipulations.
Innocent suspects will be instructed to give a truthful recount of what they had done, whereas guilty suspects will be told to lie about committing the mock theft. All suspects will be given ten minutes to prepare for the interrogation. 

Fifty community members will be randomly assigned to act as interrogators.  Prior to the interrogations, each interrogator participant will receive a brief case file containing information about the theft. This information will include the time and place of the theft and three types of evidence pointing to the suspect as the perpetrator: a witness (confederate) who had seen the suspect entering the store; a witness (confederate) who had seen the suspect in the part of the store where the wallet was stolen; and the suspect’s fingerprints on the briefcase, which had to be moved in both conditions. Furthermore, the interrogators will be told that these pieces of evidence actually existed—which they will have—even though it is permissible to fabricate evidence to elicit a confession in the United States. 
	Each interrogator will be given a minimum 45 minutes to prepare and plan for the interrogation in whatever way they best see fit. However, the interrogations will be limited to 10 minutes. The interrogators will be informed that not all of the suspects are guilty, and will be instructed to emphasize correctly assessing the veracity of the suspect over getting a confession. 

Mock interrogation rooms will be assembled with two chairs, a table and a video camera. The rooms to be used are hardwired for audio recording. The video camera will be recording prior to both the suspect and the interrogator, in that order, being led to the interrogation room. The experimenter will wait outside the door and knock on the door after 10 minutes as a cue to wrap up the interrogation. Two minutes later, the experimenter will enter the room, switch off the video camera, and lead the interrogator to a separate room. 

After being separated, both the interrogator and the suspect will answer a post-interrogation questionnaire including demographic information and aspects about the interrogation. Suspects will be instructed to rate their truthfulness, motivation, and confidence in their ability to convince the interrogator of their innocence. Interrogators will receive instructions to rate their motivation to get a confession, motivation to determine if the suspect was lying or telling the truth, perception of suspect’s guilt or innocence and confidence in that decision. Both suspects and interrogators will be asked to list and expand upon strategies thought of prior to the start of the interrogation, which strategies they actually used during the course of the interrogation, and their confidence that these strategies had paid off. 
	All participants will answer a modified version of the Hare SRP-III. This modified version will contain multiple, counterbalanced, differently worded measures of pathological lying, cunning/manipulativeness, and lack of remorse or guilt. The SRP-III was chosen over the LSRP because it is more widely known. Additionally, Neal and Sellbom recently found sixteen measures of interpersonal manipulation statistically significant at the .001 level in their sample of college students, suggesting the Hare SRP-III would be a valid measure to use in a community sample.  Finally, all participants will be asked if they have any prior arrests or experience with the legal system, as this may affect behaviors.
