OPINION OF THE COURT
BECKER, Circuit Judge.This state habeas corpus appeal requires us to determine whether a confession to murder, alleged by the petitioner to have been secured by psychological coercion, was voluntary and hence admissible. After reviewing the circumstances of the confession under a plenary standard, see Miller v. Fenton, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 445, 88 L.Ed.2d 405 (1985), rev’g Miller v. Fenton, 741 F.2d 1456 (3d Cir.1984), we find that the confession was voluntary. We therefore affirm.
I. THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On August 13, 1973, seventeen-year-old Deborah Margolin was brutally murdered. According to her brothers, she was sitting on the porch of her home in rural East Amwell Township when a stranger approached in an automobile and informed her that a heifer was loose at the bottom of the driveway. Ms. Margolin drove alone in her brother’s car to retrieve the heifer. She never returned. Later that day, her father found her mutilated body lying face down in a creek.
When the New Jersey State Police arrived at the scene, the victim’s brothers gave them a description of the stranger who had driven up to the house and of the car he had driven, an old white car with the trunk tied shut and two dents in the side. One of the officers recalled that the petitioner, Miller, who lived nearby, drove a car that matched that description. Detective Boyce of the State Police confirmed the description of the car and also concluded that the description of the stranger fit Miller, who had been convicted in 1969 of carnal abuse and arrested in 1973 for statutory rape.
At about 10:50 p.m. that day, the state police questioned Miller at his place of employment, P.F.D. Plastics in Trenton. After a brief discussion, he agreed to accompany the officers to the police barracks for further questioning. At the barracks, Miller spent about seventy-five minutes waiting with Trooper Scott, during which time he was not questioned. He was then taken into an interrogation room by Detective Boyce and read his Miranda rights. Miller signed a Miranda card, thus waiving his Miranda rights,1 and Boyce’s interrogation ensued. One hour into the interrogation, Miller confessed to the murder of Deborah Margolin, then passed out.
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Miller was indicted for first-degree murder. Before his trial, he moved to suppress the confession as involuntary, but the state trial court denied the motion. After a trial at which the confession was received as evidence, Miller was convicted. On appeal of the conviction, a three-judge panel of the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court unanimously reversed, finding that Detective Boyce’s technique in eliciting the confession2 had denied Miller due process of law. Characterizing Boyce’s method of interrogation as “psychological *601pressure,” the panel held that as a result of that pressure, Miller’s confession had not been voluntary.3 In a 4-3 decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the conviction. State v. Miller, 76 N.J. 392, 388 A.2d 218 (1978). Looking at the totality of the circumstances, the court held that Boyce’s interrogation tactics had not overborne Miller’s will, and that the confession had indeed been voluntary and thus properly admissible into evidence.
Miller • petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The petition was referred to a magistrate, who recommended that the writ be denied. The district court agreed, rejecting Miller’s contention that Boyce’s questioning created psychological pressure that rendered the confession involuntary. Miller thereupon appealed to this Court.
In Miller v. Fenton, 741 F.2d 1456 (3rd Cir.1984), rev’d and remanded — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 445, 88 L.Ed.2d 405 (1985), we held that under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), federal review of the state court’s finding of voluntariness was deferential, limited to determining whether the state court had applied the proper legal test and whether the conclusion reached by the state court was supported by the record as a whole.4 Applying that standard, we upheld the determination that Miller’s confession was voluntary. Although we noted in passing that even if our review on the question of voluntariness had been plenary, we would have reached the same result, id. at 1467 n. 21, we did not engage in any detailed analysis of the question of voluntariness under a plenary standard.
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed. Miller v. Fenton, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 445, 88 L.Ed.2d 405 (1985). Stating that the issue of voluntariness is a legal, rather than a factual, question, the Court held that whether the challenged confession was voluntary is a matter for independent federal appellate determination. It remanded the case so that we might conduct a fuller analysis under the correct standard. We now engage in such an inquiry and conclude that Miller’s confession was elicited in a manner compatible with the requirements of the Constitution.
III. THE INTERROGATION
At the outset of our analysis, it is essential that we review the salient features of the interrogation.5 Because the state police taped the interrogation, we have had an opportunity actually to hear Detective Boyce’s questions and Miller’s responses. A significant portion of the questioning was in the typical police interrogation mode, developing chronologically Miller’s whereabouts on the day in question, confronting him with the identification of his car, asking him point-blank whether he committed the crime, challenging his answers, and attempting to discover the details of the crime. This element of the interrogátion is unexceptionable and unchallenged. We shall therefore focus primarily on the features of the interrogation that are at issue.
It is clear that Boyce made no threats arid engaged in no physical coercion of Miller. To the contrary, throughout the interview, Detective Boyce assumed a *602friendly, understanding manner and spoke in a soft tone of voice. He repeatedly assured Miller that he was sympathetic to him and wanted to help him unburden his mind. As the following excerpts demonstrate, the Detective’s statements of sympathy at times approached the maudlin:
Boyce: Now listen to me, Frank. This hurts me more than it hurts you, because I love people.
# $ $ # * $
Boyce: Let it come out, Frank. I’m here, I’m here with you now. I’m on your side, I’m on your side, Frank. I’m your brother, you and I are brothers, Frank. We are brothers, and I want to help my brother.
$ # * $ # Jjt
Boyce: We have, we have a relationship, don’t we? Have I been sincere with you, Frank?
Boyce also gave Miller certain factual information, some of which was untrue. At the beginning of the interrogation, for example, Boyce informed Miller that the victim was still alive; this was false. During the interview, Boyce told Miller that Ms. Margolin had just died, although in fact she had been found dead several hours earlier.
Detective Boyce’s major theme throughout the interrogation was that whoever had committed such a heinous crime had mental problems and was desperately in need of psychological treatment. From early in the interview, Detective Boyce led Miller to understand that he believed that Miller had committed the crime and that Miller now needed a friend to whom he could unburden himself. The Detective stated several times that Miller was not a criminal who should be punished, but a sick individual who should receive help. He assured Miller that he (Detective Boyce) was sincerely understanding and that he wished to help him with his problem. The following excerpts from the transcript of the interrogation provide examples of the statements about Miller’s having psychological problems, as well as of the assurances of help:
Boyce: [Ljet’s forget this incident, [ljet’s talk about your problem. This is what, this is what I’m concerned with, Frank, your problem.
Miller: Right.
Boyce: If I had a problem like your problem, I would want you to help me with my problem.
Miller: Uh, huh.
Boyce: Now, you know what I’m talking about.
Miller: Yeah.
Boyce: And I know, and I think that, uh, a lot of other people know. You know what I’m talking about. I don’t think you’re a criminal, Frank.
Miller: No, but you’re trying to make me one.
Boyce: No I’m not, no I’m not, but I want you to talk to me so we can get this thing worked out.
$ >jc * sfe $ *
Boyce: I want you to talk to me. I want you to tell me what you think. I want you to tell me how you think about this, what you think about this.
Miller: What I think about it?
Boyce: Yeah.
Miller: I think whoever did it really needs help.
Boyce: And that’s what I think and that’s what I know. They don’t, they don’t need punishment, right? Like you said, they need help.
Miller: Right.
Boyce: They don’t need punishment They need help, good medical help.
Miller: That’s right.
Boyce: [T]o rectify their problem. Putting them in, in a prison isn’t going to solve it, is it?
Miller: No, sir. I know, I was in there for three and a half years.
* * * * # *
Boyce: You can see it Frank, you can feel it, you can feel it but you are not responsible. This is what I’m trying to tell you; but you’ve got to come forward and tell me. Don't, don’t, don’t *603let it eat you up, don’t, don’t fight it. You’ve got to rectify it, Frank. We’ve got to get together on this thing, or I, I mean really, you need help, you need proper help, and you know it, my God, you know, in God’s name, you, you, you know it. You are not a criminal, you are not a criminal.
Boyce also appealed to Miller’s conscience and described the importance of Miller’s purging himself of the memories that must be haunting him. This aspect of the interrogation is exemplified in the preceding passage — “Don’t, don’t, don’t let it eat you up, don’t, don’t fight it. You’ve got to rectify it, Frank.” The following excerpts are representative of Boyce’s arguments along this line:
Boyce: Frank, listen to me, honest to God, I'm, I’m telling you, Frank, (inaudible). I know, it’s going to bother you, Frank, it’s going to bother you. It’s there, it’s not going to go away, it’s there. It’s right in front of you, Frank. Am I right or wrong?
Miller: Yeah.
******
Boyce: Honest, Frank. It’s got to come out. You can’t leave it in. It’s hard for you, I realize that, how hard it is, how difficult it is, I realize that, but you’ve got to help yourself before anybody else can help you.
******
Boyce: First thing we have to do is let it all come out. Don’t fight it because it’s worse, Frank, it’s worse. It’s hurting me because I feel it. I feel it wanting to come out, but it’s hurting me, Frank.
******
Boyce: No, listen to me, Frank, please listen to me: The issue now is what happened. The issue now is truth. Truth is the issue now. You’ve got to believe this, and the truth prevails in the end, Frank. You have to believe that and I’m sincere when I’m saying it to you. You’ve got to be truthful with yourself.
Boyce: That’s the most important thing, not, not what has happened, Frank. The fact that you were truthful, you came forward and you said, look I have a problem. I didn’t mean to do what I did. I have a problem, this is what’s important, Frank. This is very important, I got, I, I got to get closer to you, Frank, I got to make you believe this and I’m, and I’m sincere when I tell you this. You got to tell me exactly what happened, Frank. That’s very important. I know how you feel inside, Frank, it’s eating you up, am I right? It’s eating you up, Frank. You’ve got to come forward. You’ve got to do it for yourself, for your family, for your father, this is what’s important, the truth, Frank.
When Miller at last confessed, he collapsed in a state of shock. He slid off his chair and onto the floor with a blank stare on his face. The police officers sent for a first aid squad that took him to the hospital.
IV. THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE CONFESSION
The sole question before this Court is whether Miller’s confession was voluntary. Miller contends. that Detective Boyce’s method of interrogation constituted psychological manipulation of such magnitude that it rendered his confession involuntary. The government counters that Miller’s confession was voluntary and hence properly admissible.
A. The Legal Test of Voluntariness
It is well established that an involuntary confession may result from psychological, as well as physical, coercion. See, e.g., Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U.S. 199, 206, 80 S.Ct. 274, 279, 4 L.Ed.2d 242 (1960) (“A number of cases have demonstrated, if demonstration were needed, that the efficiency of the rack and the thumbscrew can be matched, given the proper subject, by *604more sophisticated modes of ‘persuasion’.”); Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315, 79 S.Ct. 1202, 3 L.Ed.2d 1265 (1959); Fikes v. Alabama, 352 U.S. 191, 77 S.Ct. 281, 1 L.Ed.2d 246 (1957); Leyra v. Denno, 347 U.S. 556, 74 S.Ct. 716, 98 L.Ed. 948 (1954); Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, 69 S.Ct. 1347, 93 L.Ed. 1801 (1949); Turner v. Pennsylvania, 338 U.S. 62, 69 S.Ct. 1352, 93 L.Ed. 1810 (1949); Harris v. South Carolina, 338 U.S. 68, 69 S.Ct. 1354, 93 L.Ed. 1815 (1949); Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U.S. 143, 64 S.Ct. 921, 88 L.Ed. 1192 (1944); Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227, 60 S.Ct. 472, 84 L.Ed. 716 (1940). However, while a per se involuntariness rule applies when an interrogation is accompanied by-physical violence, see Stein v. New York, 346 U.S. 156, 182, 73 S.Ct. 1077, 1091, 97 L.Ed. 1.522 (1953), no such rule applies when the alleged coercion is psychological. Id. at 184, 73 S.Ct. at 1092. As the Supreme Court has noted, “[t]he line between proper and permissible police conduct and techniques and methods offensive to due process is, at best, a difficult one to draw, particularly in cases such as this where it is necessary to make fine judgments as to the effect of psychologically coercive pressures and inducements on the mind and will of an accused.” Haynes v. Washington, 373 U.S. 503, 515, 83 S.Ct. 1336, 1344, 10 L.Ed.2d 513 (1963).
To determine the voluntariness of a confession, the court must consider the effect that the totality of the circumstances had upon the will of the defendant. See, e.g., Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 226-27, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2047-48, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Procunier v. Atchley, 400 U.S. 446, 453, 91 S.Ct. 485, 489, 27 L.Ed.2d 524 (1971); Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739, 89 S.Ct. 1420, 1424, 22 L.Ed.2d 684 (1969); Boulden v. Holman, 394 U.S. 478, 480, 89 S.Ct. 1138, 1139, 22 L.Ed.2d 433 (1969); Blackburn v. Alabama, supra, 361 U.S. at 206, 80 S.Ct. at 279; Fikes v. Alabama, supra, 352 U.S. at 197, 77 S.Ct. at 284. The question in each case is whether the defendant’s will was overborne when he confessed. See, e.g., Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, supra, 412 U.S. at 225-26, 93 S.Ct. at 2046-47; Procunier v. Atchley, supra, 400 U.S. at 453, 91 S.Ct. at 489; Haynes v. Washington, supra, 373 U.S. at 513, 83 S.Ct. at 1342 (1963); Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528, 534, 83 S.Ct. 917, 920, 9 L.Ed.2d 922 (1963); Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 602, 81 S.Ct. 1860, 1879, 6 L.Ed.2d 1037 (1961); Leyra v. Denno, supra, 347 U.S. at 558, 74 S.Ct. at 717 (1954); Watts v. Indiana, supra, 338 U.S. at 53, 69 S.Ct. at 1349. Factors to be considered include:
the youth of the accused; his lack of education or his low intelligence; the lack of any advice to the accused of his constitutional rights; the length of detention; the repeated and prolonged nature of questioning; and the use of physical punishment such as the deprivation of food or sleep.
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, supra, 412 U.S. at 226, 93 S.Ct. at 2047 (1973) (citations omitted). As the Eighth Circuit has explained, “[u]sing the flexible totality of the circumstances approach requires the reviewing court to consider the specific tactics utilized by the police in eliciting the admissions, the details of the interrogation, and the characteristics of the accused____” Rachlin v. United States, 723 F.2d 1373, 1377 (8th Cir.1983) (citations omitted). Although at the trial level the burden is on the government to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a challenged confession was voluntary, see Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 489, 92 S.Ct. 619, 626, 30 L.Ed.2d 618 (1972), on collateral review, the habeas corpus petitioner must prove involuntariness by a preponderance of the evidence. See Martin v. Wainwright, 770 F.2d 918, 925 (11th Cir.1985); Jurek v. Estelle, 623 F.2d 929, 937 (5th Cir.1980); Bruce v. Estelle, 536 F.2d 1051, 1059 (5th Cir.1976).
We emphasize that the test for voluntariness is not a but-for test: we do not ask whether the confession would have been made in the absence of the interrogation. Few criminals feel impelled to confess to the police purely of their own accord, without any questioning at all. See *605Stein v. New York, supra, 346 U.S. at 186, 73 S.Ct. at 1093 (“Of course, these confessions were not voluntary in the sense that petitioners wanted to make them or that they were completely spontaneous, like a confession to a priest, a lawyer, or a psychiatrist. But in this sense no criminal confession is voluntary.”); United States v. Wertz, 625 F.2d 1128, 1134 (4th Cir.1980). Thus, it can almost always be said that the interrogation caused the confession.
Moreover, it is generally recognized that the police may use some psychological tactics in eliciting a statement from a suspect.6 See Haynes v. Washington, supra, 373 U.S. at 514-15, 83 S.Ct. at 1343-44. For example, the interrogator may play on the suspect’s sympathies or explain that honesty might be the best policy for a criminal who hopes for leniency from the state, see Rachlin v. United States, supra, 723 F.2d at 1378 (agents may have told suspect that it was in his best interest to cooperate, but resulting confession was voluntary); United States v. Vera, 701 F.2d 1349, 1363-64 (11th Cir.1983) (agent told suspect that he could help himself by cooperating, but resulting confession was voluntary). These ploys may play a part in the suspect’s decision to confess, but so long as that decision is a product of the suspect’s own balancing of competing considerations, the confession is voluntary. The question we must answer, then, is not whether Detective Boyce’s statements were the cause of Miller’s confession — indeed, we assume that to be the case — but whether those statements were so manipulative or coercive that they deprived Miller of his ability to make an unconstrained, autonomous decision to confess. To that inquiry we now turn.
B. The Circumstances of the Miller Interrogation
A “totality of the circumstances” inquiry defies strictly analytic treatment. We cannot reach a conclusion simply by scrutinizing each circumstance separately, for the concept underlying the phrase “totality of the circumstances” is that the whole is somehow distinct from the sum of the parts. See United States v. Wertz, supra, 625 F.2d at 1134. Nevertheless, we can understand the totality only after reviewing the constituent elements of the situation. We shall therefore discuss each relevant circumstance of the interrogation before addressing the question whether all of the circumstances, taken together, indicate that Miller’s confession was voluntary.7
*6061. Miller’s Background
Miller is a mature adult, thirty-two years of age. He is of normal intelligence and has some high school education. Such a person is more resistant to interrogation than a person who is very young, uneducated or weak-minded. Cf. Davis v. North Carolina, 384 U.S. 737, 86 S.Ct. 1761, 16 L.Ed.2d 895 (1966) (detainee had third- or fourth-grade education and very low IQ); Fikes v. Alabama, supra (detainee was uneducated person of low intelligence, possibly with mental illness); Reck v. Pate, 367 U.S. 433, 81 S.Ct. 1541, 6 L.Ed.2d 948 (1961) (detainee was mentally retarded). Miller was suffering from no painful physical ailment that would have impelled him to confess simply to put an end to the detention. Cf. Reck v. Pate, supra (detainee physically ill, at one point vomiting blood on the floor of the interrogation room); Leyra v. Denno, supra (detainee suffering from acutely painful sinus condition); Ziang Sun Wan v. United States, 266 U.S. 1, 45 S.Ct. 1, 69 L.Ed. 131 (1924) (detainee suffering from spastic colitis).
Moreover, Miller had had previous experience with the criminal system; indeed, he had served a jail sentence. Thus, he was aware of the consequences of confessing. In addition to this experience, he received Miranda warnings. The Seventh Circuit has recently stressed the importance of a detainee’s prior experience, as well as age and education, in determining whether a confession was voluntary. In United States v. Oglesby, 764 F.2d 1273, 1278 (7th Cir.1985), the court noted that the accused had three prior felony convictions, had earned a substantial number of college credit hours and was fifty-four years old at the time of his confession. The court stated that “the record reveals that the defendant was not disadvantaged by youthful ignorance or the naivete born of inexperience” and concluded that he “was able to resist whatever pressure was brought to bear on him by the FBI agent’s promise to make his cooperation known to the United States Attorney____”8
2. The Length of the Interrogation •
Detective Boyce’s interrogation of Miller lasted less than an hour. It was not “a process of interrogation ... so prolonged and unremitting, especially when accompanied by deprivation of refreshment, rest or relief, as to accomplish extortion of an involuntary confession.” Stein v. New York, supra, 346 U.S. at 184, 73 S.Ct. at 1092. It is thus distinguishable from the lengthy interrogations during incommunicado detention that have been held to result in involuntary confessions. See, e.g., Davis v. North Carolina, supra (sixteen days); Reck v. Pate, supra (four days); Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U.S. 560, 78 S.Ct. 844, 2 L.Ed.2d 975 (1958) (forty-nine hours); Fikes v. Alabama, supra (two weeks); Ashcraft v. Tennessee, supra (thirty six hours); Ziang Sung Wan v. United States, supra (seven days). It is significant that cases in which psychological coercion has been found typically involved longer periods of interrogation than that to which Miller was submitted. See, e.g., Blackburn v. Alabama, supra (eight to nine hours); Spano v. New York, supra (two weeks); Leyra v. Denno, supra (four days); Watts v. Indiana, supra (five days). Moreover, Miller did not request the presence of either a lawyer or any other person to provide him with advice or moral support. Cf. Haynes v. Washington, supra (detainee not allowed to call his wife until *607he gave a written confession); Ziang Sun Wan v. United States, supra (detainee asked in vain to see his brother).
3. Boyce’s Friendly Approach
Boyce’s supportive, encouraging manner was an interrogation tactic aimed at winning Miller’s trust and making him feel comfortable about confessing. Excessive friendliness on the part of an interrogator can be deceptive. In some instances, in combination with other tactics, it might create an atmosphere in which a suspect forgets that his questioner is in an adversarial role, and thereby prompt admissions that the suspect would ordinarily make only to a friend, not to the police. See Spano v. New York, supra, 360 U.S. at 323, 79 S.Ct. at 1207 (police officer, who was suspect’s childhood friend, told suspect that his job would be in jeopardy if suspect did not confess and that the loss of his job would be disastrous for his three children, his wife and his unborn child); Leyra v. Denno, supra, 347 U.S. at 559, 74 S.Ct. at 718 (police psychiatrist, after telling suspect that he was a doctor who would give him help with his sinus headache, told suspect how much he wanted to help him with his legal predicament and described how good suspect would feel if he unburdened his conscience).9 See also White, Police Trickery in Inducing Confessions, 127 U.Pa.L. Rev. 581, 614-17 (1979) (advocating per se rule against device of seeking to elicit incriminating information through assumption of a non-adversarial role); F. Royal & S. Schutt, The Gentle Art of Interviewing and Interrogation, 61-61 (1976), quoted in White, supra (“Resistance to the disclosure of [incriminating] information is considerably increased ... if something is not done to establish a friendly and trusting attitude on the part of the subject.”). As John Gay has written:
An open foe may prove a curse, But a pretended friend is worse ...
Quoted in Spano v. New York, supra, 360 U.S. at 323, 79 S.Ct. at 1207.
Nevertheless, the “good guy” approach is recognized as a permissible interrogation tactic. See Royal & Schutt, supra, at 61-62. Moreover, the Supreme Court has indicated that a sympathetic attitude on the part of the interrogator is not in itself enough to render a confession involuntary. See, e.g., Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341, 343, 348, 96 S.Ct. 1612, 1614, 1617, 48 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976) (interrogator adopted sympathetic attitude, but resulting confession was voluntary); Frazier v. Cupp, supra, 394 U.S. at 737-39, 89 S.Ct. at 1423-25 (same). Only if other aspects of the interrogation strengthened the illusion that it was non-adversárial in character could Miller’s confession have been involuntary because of psychological coercion.
4. Boyce’s Lie
While a lie told to the detainee about an important aspect of the case may affect the voluntariness of the confession, the effect of the lie must be analyzed in the context of all the circumstances of the interrogation. See e.g., Frazier v. Cupp, supra, 394 U.S. at 737, 739, 89 S.Ct. at 1423, 1424, (false statement by police officer that detainee’s cousin had confessed, while relevant to issue of voluntariness, was insufficient to make otherwise voluntary confession inadmissible). We do not believe that the lie about the time of Ms. Margolin’s death, by itself, constituted sufficient trickery to overcome Miller’s will. Because Boyce never suggested that the time of Ms. Margolin’s death might be relevant in linking Miller to the crime, the only possible effect of Boyce’s initial statement that she was alive, followed by his report that she had just died, would be an emotional response in Miller. The drama of the announcement of the victim’s death might have prompted particularly acute feelings in Miller, which could have helped to induce his confession.. However, the record suggests that this emotional reaction did not occur, for it appears that Miller was not affected at all by the news of the death. Indeed, he remained quite impassive. We *608therefore conclude that any pathos or remorse he might have felt was not particularly strong.
5. Boyce's Promises
Detective Boyce’s statements that Miller was not a criminal, but rather a mentally ill individual not responsible for his actions, and Boyce’s promises to help Miller raise a more serious question about the voluntariness of Miller’s confession. By telling Miller that he was not responsible for anything he might have done, Boyce may have been understood to be making an implied promise to Miller that Miller would not be prosecuted, or that if he were prosecuted Boyce would aid him in presenting the insanity defense. Similarly, the promises of psychiatric help might have suggested to Miller that he would be treated, rather than prosecuted. If these promises, implicit and explicit, tricked Miller into confessing, his confession may have been involuntary. To determine whether Boyce’s promises affected the voluntariness of Miller’s confession, we must consider how manipulative these tactics in fact were.
a. The Rule Respecting Promises Made During Interrogation
In Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 18 S.Ct. 183, 42 L.Ed. 568 (1897), the Supreme Court endorsed the view that to be voluntary, a confession must not have been “ ‘extracted by any sort of threats or violence, nor obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight.’ ” Id. at 542-43, 18 S.Ct. at 187, quoting 3 Russell on Crimes (6th ed.) 478 (emphasis added). Although the Bram test has been reaffirmed in Hutto v. Ross, 429 U.S. 28, 30, 97 S.Ct. 202, 203, 50 L.Ed.2d 194 (1976) (per curiam), and in dictum in Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 753-54, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1471-72, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970), it has not been interpreted as a per se proscription against promises made during interrogation. Nor does the Supreme Court even use a but-for test when promises have been made during an interrogation, despite the seemingly plain meaning of the Bram rule. Rather, the Court had indicated that it does not matter that the accused confessed because of the promise, so long as the promise did not overbear his will. See Hutto v. Ross, supra, 429 U.S. at 30, 97 S.Ct. at 203. Apparently, the words “obtained by ... promises” in the Bram test have been read to mean “obtained because the suspect’s will was overborne by ... promises.” In other words, promises do not trigger an analysis different from the totality of the circumstances test. See supra at 603-605.
Thus, courts have treated promises as part of the totality of the circumstances in assessing the voluntariness of confessions. See, e.g., Leyra v. Denno, supra, 347 U.S. at 559, 74 S.Ct. at 718 (1954); United States v. Ferrara, 377 F.2d 16 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 908, 88 S.Ct. 225, 19 L.Ed.2d 225 (1967); Rachlin v. United States, supra, 723 F.2d at 1377 (quoting Bram in a discussion of the totality of the circumstances test). As the Second Circuit stated in Ferrara, the Bram rule has never been applied with “wooden literalness.” 377 F.2d at 17. The Fourth Circuit has described the proper analysis of promises thus:
Despite this broad language [in Bram ], the cases indicate that government agents may validly make some representation to a defendant or may discuss cooperation without rendering the resulting confession involuntary. Government agents may initiate conversations on cooperation, they may promise to make a defendant’s cooperation known to the prosecutor, and they may even be able to make and breach certain promises without rendering a resulting confession involuntary. Nevertheless, there are certain promises whose attraction renders a resulting confession involuntary if the promises are not kept, and the defendant’s perception of what government agents have promised is an important factor in determining voluntariness.
United States v. Shears, 762 F.2d 397, 401-02 (4th Cir.1985) (footnotes omitted). In short, there is no support in the case law *609for the dissent’s statement that “when promises, however slight, are made in the interrogation room rather than in the presence of counsel, those promises render the resulting confession inadmissible.” Dissenting opinion, at 627.10
b. The Promises Made to Miller
Detective Boyce’s tone of voice and his frequent repetition of assurances may have lent credibility to his implied promise that Miller would not be prosecuted. However, Miller had been given Miranda warnings, which included the admonition that anything that Miller said could be used against him. Thus, when the interrogation began, Miller knew that if he confessed to the Margolin murder he could be prosecuted. See Frazier v. Cupp, supra, 394 U.S. at 739, 89 S.Ct. at 1425 (“Before petitioner made any incriminating statements, he received partial warnings of his constitutional rights; this is, of course, a circumstance quite relevant to a finding of voluntariness.”). Cf. Robinson v. Smith, 451 F.Supp. 1278, 1282 (W.D.N.Y.1978) (accused who was promised “the benefits of any leniency that may come to him in the courts” did not receive Miranda warnings and was not otherwise advised that he might involve himself in a murder charge by making a statement to the police). Detective Boyce’s words of comfort would have had to overcome Miller’s initial belief that the state intended to prosecute him and to sentence him to jail if convicted in order to render Miller’s confession involuntary.
At no time did Detective Boyce state that Miller would not be prosecuted or that he could successfully avail himself of the insanity defense. Cf. United States v. Powe, 591 F.2d 833, 845 n. 36 (D.C.Cir.1978) (defendant testified that the detective who interrogated him “made propositions to me as far as turning over drug dealers up in that area over to him, to drop my case and Mr. Harris’ case”). While innuendo might rise to the level of trickery, it is not so likely to break down resistance as is a promise that is spelled out. Indeed, Detective Boyce’s statements that Miller was “not a criminal” need not be understood as assurances of leniency at all. Since the Detective’s interrogation strategy was to present himself as a friend to whom Miller could unburden himself, he of course attempted throughout the interview to persuade Miller to trust him and confide in him. The statements at issue can be viewed as a means of convincing Miller that Boyce was sympathetic, no matter what the state’s reaction might be. “You are not responsible” and “You are not a criminal” thus would mean “In my eyes, you are not responsible or a criminal and therefore you should relieve your conscience by talking to me, who understands you.”
*610While such a statement might have made Miller feel more comfortable about speaking to Boyce, it would not render his confession the product of a mistaken belief that the state would grant him leniency. Detective Boyce never stated that anyone but he thought that Miller was “not a criminal,” nor did he state that he had any authority to affect the charges brought against Miller. See United States v. Sebetich, 776 F.2d 412, 422 (3d Cir.1985) (police chief lacked authority to plea bargain); Rachlin v. United States, supra, 723 F.2d at 1376-77 (8th Cir.1983) (Secret Service Agents lacked authority to plea bargain). Miller’s confession may have been made in the hope of leniency, but that does not mean that it was made in response to a promise of leniency. See Rachlin v. United States, supra, 723 F.2d at 1378.
With regard to the psychiatric help, on the other hand, Boyce did make some outright promises. For example, he said, “[W]e’re going to see to it that you get the proper help. This is our job, Frank.” Such a promise could be quite compelling in itself and could also strengthen the implications that Miller might not be prosecuted at all.
A distinction can be drawn, however, between promises of leniency in the imminent criminal proceedings against the defendant and promises of help with some collateral problem. In Bram, supra, there was an implied promise that the defendant would not be prosecuted if he confessed.11 In distinguishing Bram the Court in Brady, supra, noted that under the circumstances of the Bram case “even a mild promise of leniency was deemed sufficient to bar the confession____” 397 U.S. at 754, 90 S.Ct. at 1472 (emphasis added). While promises of help with collateral problems have been found, in combination with other coercive factors, to render confessions involuntary, see, e.g., Leyra, supra, in general, such promises are less coercive to the accused than promises directly related to the criminal proceedings at hand.12
The promises of help to Miller fall somewhere between promises relating to purely collateral issues and promises of leniency in the immediate criminal proceedings against Miller, for help with the “problem” might be interpreted to mean commitment to a psychiatric hospital in lieu of imprisonment. Indeed, in combination with the statements that Miller was “not responsible,” it could be interpreted to mean that there would be no prosecution of Miller. However, taking all these statements together, there is at most an implication that Miller will be treated leniently in the impending criminal proceedings. Boyce made no direct promise of such leniency; the only outright promise he made was to get Miller help with his psychological problem. As we have stated above, indirect promises do not have the potency of direct promises.
In a case quite similar to this one, the First Circuit recently found a confession to be voluntary. Bryant v. Vose, 785 F.2d 364 (1st Cir.1986). During an interrogation of a murder suspect, the police chief told the detainee that, to the best of his knowledge, the general practice for persons who are “crazy” and commit serious crimes is for them “to be sent for observation to Bridgewater [Hospital] ... for observation, *611then they’re determined whether or not they’re capable of standing trial.” Id., at 367. The court rejected the argument that the confession was the product of a promise of leniency. According to the court, “The reference to Bridgewater did not directly suggest leniency, let alone promise it. Any indirect promise to be inferred from the Bridgewater remark is so slight as to be insignificant in these circumstances. ” Id., at 368 (emphasis added).
Leyra v. Denno, 347 U.S. 556, 74 S.Ct. 716, 98 L.Ed. 948 (1954), in which a confession was held involuntary, is noteworthy because it illustrates the kinds of psychological pressures that can overbear a detainee’s will. Although the detainee in Leyra was promised help with a collateral medical problem and was assured that “he had done no moral wrong and would be let off easily,” id. at 560, 74 S.Ct. at 718, the situation in Leyra is quite different from the circumstances of Miller’s confession. Leyra was questioned almost continually over the course of four days. He had had very little sleep and frequently “complained about how tired and how sleepy he was and how he could not think;” the Court noted that his answers to questions “indicate[d] a mind dazed and bewildered.” Id. Adding to the detainee’s distress was an “acutely painful attack of sinus,” id. at 559, 74 S.Ct. at 718, for which a police officer promised to get him medical help. Instead of a general practitioner or an eye, ear and nose specialist, a police psychiatrist with considerable knowledge of hypnosis, “Dr. Helfand,” arrived in the interrogation room. Dr. Helfand did not disclose the fact that he was a psychiatrist. His clever questioning technique induced Leyra’s confession. The psychiatrist told Leyra “how much he wanted to and could help him, how bad it would be for [Leyra] if he did not confess, and how much better he would feel, and how much lighter and easier it would be on him if he would just unbosom himself to the doctor.” Id. at 559-60, 74 S.Ct. at 718-19.
While these statements bear a resemblance to the statements made by Detective Boyce, the obvious differences between the two situations render the interrogation of Miller much less coercive. Leyra was explicitly told that he would be let off easily. Moreover, he was interviewed for several days and was suffering from a painful sinus condition, as well as from extreme fatigue. In contrast, Miller was questioned less than an hour and was not suffering from lack of sleep or any other physical ailment. The promise of help with his supposed mental problem thus did not have the urgent appeal that a promise of help with acute physical pain would have. Any promise of prosecutorial leniency was made only by implication.
6. Effect of the Totality of the Circumstances
In determining whether the circumstances described above indicate that Miller’s confession was involuntary, we must consider whether Boyce’s tactics were sufficiently manipulative to overbear the will of a person with Miller’s characteristics. We thus recognize that “[t]he limits [of permissible questioning tactics] in any case depend upon a weighing of the circumstance of pressure against the power of resistance of the person confessing. What would be overpowering to the weak of will or mind might be utterly ineffective against an experienced criminal.” Stein v. New York, supra, 346 U.S. at 185, 73 S.Ct. at 1093 (1953). See also Schneckloth, supra, 412 U.S. at 225-26, 93 S.Ct. at 2046-47.
As we have noted above, a significant portion of the questioning was in the typical police interrogation mode, developing chronologically Miller’s whereabouts on the day in question, confronting him with the identification of his car, asking him pointblank as to whether he committed the crime, challenging his answers, and attempting to discover the details of the crime. This portion of the interrogation would not have an effect upon Miller’s will. Moreover, the interrogation did not last very long, and Miller was not suffering from any painful ailment or physical depri*612vation that would impel him to confess in order to be released from the questioning room. Nor did Miller seek the presence of any other person or, indeed, make any request that was denied by Boyce.
While Boyce’s promises of psychiatric help and statements that Miller was “not a criminal,” in combination with his friendly manner, may have been a form of psychological trickery, we do not believe that these elements of the interrogation affected the voluntariness of the confession. Miller’s personal characteristics, see supra at 606, support a conclusion that the confession was voluntary, for Miller does not seem to be the type of person whose will would be easily overborne by Boyce’s remarks. Miller’s age, intelligence and experience rendered him resistant to the level of persuasiveness that Boyce employed.
Moreover, throughout the interview, Miller made remarks that indicate that he knew that this was an ordinary police interrogation, rather than an encounter with a compassionate friend, and that he was aware that a confession would result in criminal prosecution and possibly in conviction and sentence. Throughout the session, he appears to have retained a suspicious, guarded attitude. At one point, when Detective Boyce asked him if he wanted help, Miller replied, “Yes, uh, huh, yes, but yet I’m, I’m not going to admit something that, that I wasn’t involved in.” In reply to the statement, “I don’t think you’re a criminal, Frank,” Miller said, “No, but you’re trying to make me one.” The following exchange illustrates even more clearly Miller’s distrustful attitude toward the Detective:
Boyce: ... It’s hard for you, I realize that, how hard it is, how difficult it is, I realize that, but you’ve, got to help yourself, before anybody else can help you. And we’re going to see to it that you get the proper help. This is our job, Frank. This is our job. This is what I want to do.
Miller: By sending me back down there.
It also is apparent that Miller’s prior experience with the law made him wary of policemen.
Boyce: ... You have this problem like we talked about before, right?
Miller: Yeah, you, you say this now, but this thing goes to court and everything and you ...
Boyce: No, listen to me, Frank, please listen to me. The issue now is what happened. The issue now is truth. Truth is the issue now. You’ve got to believe this, and the truth prevails in the end, Frank. You have to believe that and I’m sincere, when I’m saying it to you. You’ve got to be truthful with yourself.
Miller: Yeah, truth, you say in the end, right? That’s why I done three and a half years for ...
Boyce: Wait, whoa ... whoa
Miller: ... for a crime that I never committed because of one stinkin’ detective framing me ...
Boyce: Frank, Frank.
Miller: ... by the name of Rocco.
Given these statements, it is difficult for us to believe that Miller was tricked into confessing. Rather, it seems that Miller made an uncoerced decision to unburden his inner tensions and to acknowledge his guilt.
Indeed, from the tape of the interrogation, it clearly appears that the precipitating cause of Miller’s confession was a desire to make a clean breast of it, rather than a reliance on any promises of leniency or psychiatric help. He expressed the reservation that “this is going to kill my father.” Thereupon, Detective Boyce made a speech about the importance of truthfulness both for himself and his family. Miller capitulated immediately thereafter. Apparently, he took Boyce’s words to heart and decided that it would be better for all concerned if he told the truth.13
*613We have little doubt that Detective Boyce’s encouraging words, perhaps in combination with the sad announcement that the victim had just died, helped Miller to reach his decision to unburden himself. However, the test for voluntariness is not a but-for test, but a question of whether the confession was a product of free choice. As the Eleventh Circuit has pointed out, “mere emotionalism and confusion do not necessarily invalidate” confessions. Corn v. Zant, 708 F.2d 549, 567 (11th Cir.1983), vacated in part on other grounds, 772 F.2d 681 (11th Cir.1985). Many criminals experience an urge during interrogation to own up to their crimes, see O. Rogge, Why Men Confess 209-30 (1959), quoted in Grano, Voluntariness, Free Will, and the Law of Confessions, 65 Va.L.Rev. 859, 887 n. 131 (1979); Driver, Confessions and the Social Psychology of Coercion, 82 Harv.L.Rev. 42, 57 (1968). Boyce’s manner and his statements may have stirred this urge in Miller, but, in our view, they did not produce psychological pressure strong enough to overbear the will of a mature, experienced man, who was suffering from no mental or physical illness and was interrogated for less than an hour at a police station close to his home.
Detective Boyce’s method of interrogation might have overborne the will of another detainee, for example, a young, inexperienced person of lower intelligence than Miller, or a person suffering from a painful physical ailment. It might have overcome the will of Miller himself if the interrogation had been longer or if Miller had been refused food, sleep, or contact with a person he wished to see. Moreover, if Miller had made remarks that indicated that he truly believed that the state would treat him leniently because he was “not responsible” for what he had done or that he believed that he would receive psychiatric help rather than punishment, we might not find the confession voluntary. We hold simply that, under the totality of the circumstances of this case, the confession was voluntarily given.
V. CONCLUSION
Exercising a plenary standard of review, we have concluded that under the totality of the circumstances, Miller’s confession was voluntary and therefore admissible.
The judgment of the district court will be affirmed.
. Neither the adequacy of the Miranda warnings nor the validity of the waiver is at issue.
. We discuss this technique in detail infra.
. The quote is taken from the unpublished opinion of the appellate division, State v. Miller, No. A-1275-73 (N.J.App.October 27, 1975).
. Section 2254(d) provides that a state court factual finding is entitled to a “presumption of correctness" in a federal habeas corpus proceeding unless one of eight enumerated exceptions applies. Conceding that the “concept of voluntariness is not one that lends itself to easy description," 741 F.2d at 1463, we concluded that recent decisions of the Supreme Court indicated that the inference as to a defendant’s state of mind should no longer be considered a “legal" or "hybird” question, but rather a question of "ultimate fact.” Id.
. We reject the dissent’s contention that we have selectively picked and chosen from the transcript in attempting to demonstrate the voluntariness of the confession, and we welcome the dissent’s decision to attach the entire transcript, which will demonstrate that our reading was fair.
. This is simply another way of saying what we stated earlier — that there is no per se rule against the use of psychological tactics in interrogations.
. Judge Gibbons argues in dissent that "the interrogation of Miller has no purpose other than obtaining admissions that could be used to charge Miller with felony murder," and that, apparently as a matter of law, "such an interrogation requires the closest scrutiny." Dissenting opinion, at 615. The factual premise of this argument is stated at page 615:
Thus the police did not need to conduct an interrogation directed at investigating- the murder — it was already solved so far as they were concerned.
Hence, the dissent concludes, there was a "complete absence of any legitimate investigative purpose for the interrogation," Dissenting opinion, at 615.
This line of argument, never advanced by Miller’s able counsel, is flawed. First, the evidence that the police already had — principally the description given by Ms. Margolin’s brothers of an automobile just like Miller’s and of a person generally fitting Miller’s characteristics whom one of the brothers had seen shortly before the homicide — was not enough to solve the crime. Indeed, Judge Gibbons himself stresses the inconclusiveness of this evidence at a later point in the opinion. ' See dissenting opinion, at 617. Neither a lineup nor the development of evidence undermining Miller’s alibi would necessarily have filled the gap.
Second, the dissent implies that the interrogation would have been inappropriate as a matter of law even if it had been conducted according to Hoyle. We disagree. It is well settled that interrogation is a legitimate police investigative tool which the police have a right to pursue no matter how strong the other evidence of a suspect’s guilt may be. It is obviously desirable for the police to get as much exact information as they can in-any criminal case, and especially in a first-degree murder case, so as to reduce to an absolute minimum the possibility that an innocent person will be convicted. Indeed we have found no support for the dissent’s novel sugges*606tion that even if the police have conclusive evidence of the identity of an offender, it is improper to interrogate him.
. See also Stein v. New York, supra, 346 U.S. at 185-86, 73 S.Ct. at 1093-94 (holding confessions voluntary and noting that "[t]hese men were not young, soft, ignorant or timid. They were not inexperienced in the ways of crime or its detection, nor were they dumb as to their rights.”); Martin v. Wainwright, 770 F.2d 918, 926 (11th Cir.1985) (in holding confession voluntary court noted that detainee previously had pled guilty to three counts of second-degree murder and one count of arson, for which he had been sentenced to 18 to 30 years in prison, and was on parole at the time of the events relevant to the interrogation). Cf. Reck v. Pate, supra, 367 U.S. at 441, 81 S.Ct. at 1546 (detainee had no prior criminal record or experience with the police).
. Distinguishing factors in Leyra are described infra at 612.
. While it is true, as the dissent points out, that other federal circuit courts have cited the Bram test, these courts have not applied it as a per se proscription of promises made in the interrogation room. Rather, as we explained above, these courts have inquired into whether the promise induced the confession by overbearing the will of the accused. The discussion of promises in Jarrell v. Balkcom, 735 F.2d 1242 (11th Cir.1984), exemplifies this approach, although the dissent cites it to prove that Bram has been interpreted as rendering all promises during interrogations invalid.
In Jarrell, 735 F.2d at 1250, the Eleventh Circuit cited Bram to support the proposition that "confessions induced by promised benefits are inadmissible.” Although this statement seems to be a flat prohibition against the making, of promises during an interrogation, the court’s analysis follows a totality of the circumstances test.
The court noted that the detainee had initiated the subjects of psychiatric help and police protection against the vengeance of the victim’s husband. Id. at 1250, 1251. It also pointed out that the detainee was in control of his faculties while confessing. Id. at 1250. The court concluded that the alleged promise of police protection did not render the confession inadmissible because "the officer’s statement [about police protection] was neither likely to nor intended to induce confession." Id. at 1251. As for the statements about psychiatric help, it found "no promised benefit inferrable" therefrom.
While the court conforms to a strict reading of Bram by finding that there were no promises, the analysis it uses is not a per se test, but an inquiry into whether the challenged statement overbore the will of the detainee. The inquiiy is really whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the statement induced the confession, not whether it was, on its face, a promise.
. The detective informed the accused that another person had seen him commit the murder, 168 U.S. at 562, 18 S.Ct. at 194, and that he should tell the detective if he had an accomplice in order to avoid having "the blame of this horrible crime on your own shoulders.” Id. at 564, 18 S.Ct. at 195. The Court interpreted the second statement as an offer of a benefit.
. But see White, Police Trickery in Inducing Confessions, 127 U.Pa.L.Rev. 581, 623 (1979), in which the author argues that all promises of tangible benefits made by police during interrogation in order to elicit a confession should be proscribed under a per se rule. According to Professor White, "the difficulty of assessing the effect on the suspect subjected to the interrogation suggests that with respect to this issue the totality of the circumstances test does not provide effective protection for the suspect’s constitutional rights.” Id.
We are not convinced, however, that the application of the totality of the circumstances test to this issue is significantly more difficult than its application to other factors affecting voluntariness.
. The dissent states that we do not make much of Miller’s collapse. However, we recognize the possibility that the human psyche, upon being released from the terrible burden of concealing such a heinous crime, might well react just as Miller’s did after a confession.