The psychology of confessions: A comparison of expert and lay opinions

Alceste, Fabiana; Luke, Timothy J.; Redlich, Allison D.; Hellgren, Johanna; Amrom, Aria; Kassin, Saul M.

doi:10.1002/acp.3735

Cited by 13 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some studies have further demonstrated that mock jurors may be able to discount juvenile confessions stemming from a coercive interrogation (Najdowski & Bottoms, 2012). Nonetheless, prior research suggests that the public still fails to fully appreciate the risk that young age poses in interrogation contexts (Alceste et al, 2020; Mindthoff et al, 2018), which may explain why a portion of our sample still reported they would advise their child to waive their rights and speak to the police. Even more troublingly, the mere presence of an interested adult in the interrogation room has been found to lead potential jurors to be more likely to convict, regardless of whether the parent advised the child to waive or assert their Mirand a rights (Mindthoff et al, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Parent advice to children during interrogations: Do crime severity and perceptions of consequences matter?

Hellgren,

Haney-Caron,

Baker

et al. 2024

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although many jurisdictions assume that the presence of a parent during youth interrogation protects the child's rights, research on factors that influence parents' behavior and advice is limited. The current study examined factors that influence parental advice to their children regarding Miranda waiver, including the severity of the crime and perceived consequences of adjudication. In an online survey, 997 parents were presented with personalized vignettes in which their child was accused of a crime that varied in severity. We asked parents what advice they would give their child regarding Miranda waiver, the motivation(s) for their advice, and the consequences they believed would be associated with potential adjudication. As predicted, we found that as the severity of the crime increased, so did the number of perceived consequences, which in turn led to an increased likelihood of parents advising their child to assert their Miranda rights. Additionally, a majority of parents cited wanting to protect their child's rights as the motivation for giving advice to assert Miranda. However, parents who advised their child to talk with the police reported they would do so because they also believed it protected their child and was important for them to be honest and take responsibility for their actions. Our results contextualize past research related to parental advice during interrogation and provide support for scholarship that theorizes parents may be influenced by competing roles in the interrogation room. Findings suggest the need for additional policy protections for youth during interrogation, even for interrogations about lower-level offenses.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Parent advice to children during interrogations: Do crime severity and perceptions of consequences matter?

Hellgren,

Haney-Caron,

Baker

et al. 2024

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Confessions are one of the most influential forms of testimonial evidence. Within the U.S. justice system confessions can be the sole basis for a conviction and are found compelling by jurors (Alceste et al, 2021). However, false confessions do occur and have been implicated in a significant proportion of wrongful convictions [DNA Exonerations in the United States ., 2023] (Innocence Project).…”

Section: Sleep-related Fatigue Can Increase False Confessionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How sleep and fatigue shape statements in evidence: A psycho-legal perspective

Krizan,

Curran

2024

Front. Cognit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Testimonial evidence in the form of verbal accounts by victims, witnesses, and suspects plays a critical role in investigations and judicial proceedings, often serving as the only evidence during a trial. The psychological nature of testimonies causes this form of evidence to be inherently limited, motivating psycho-legal scholars to identify both risk factors and solutions necessary to improve its reliability. To this end, the current perspective argues that sleep-related fatigue is a formative factor that influences the fidelity of statements and confessions provided during legal interactions. Specifically, it considers the prevalence of sleep disruption among subjects interacting with the criminal justice system, its likely impact on memory of victims and witnesses, and the role of sleep deprivation in confessions. In view of legal doctrines relevant to both evidentiary and constitutional considerations, this analysis is meant to motivate future work at the intersection of sleep-related fatigue and legal processes.

show abstract

“…The available research suggests that potential jurors generally recognize accusatorial tactics as coercive and unacceptable (Henkel et al, 2008; Mindthoff et al, 2018; Moston & Fisher, 2007), but note that laypersons typically do not find accusatorial tactics as coercive as do social scientist experts (Alceste et al, 2021; Kaplan et al, 2020). Despite the demonstration of such beliefs, potential jurors report that accusatorial tactics are more likely to result in true (vs. false) confessions (Leo & Liu, 2009).…”

Section: Confessions Are Incriminating But Not Alwaysmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of confession evidence on jurors’ verdict decisions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mindthoff,

Ferreira,

Meissner

2024

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Over the past 4 decades, discrepant research findings have emerged in the juror-confession literature, prompting the need for a systematic review and meta-analysis that assesses the effect of confession evidence (coerced or noncoerced) on conviction rates and the efficacy of trial safeguards. Hypotheses: We did not predict any directional hypotheses. Some studies show increased convictions when a confession is present (vs. not), regardless of whether that confession was coerced; other studies demonstrate that jurors are able to discount coerced confessions. Studies have also demonstrated sensitivity effects (safeguards aided jurors in making appropriate decisions), skepticism effects (safeguards led jurors to indiscriminately disregard confession evidence), or null effects with regard to expert testimony and jury instructions. Method: We identified 83 independent samples (N = 24,860) that met our meta-analytic inclusion criteria. Using extracted Hedges' g effect sizes, we conducted both network meta-analysis and metaregression to address key research questions. Results: Coerced and noncoerced confessions (vs. no confession) increased convictions (network gs = 0.34 and 0.70, respectively), yet coerced (vs. noncoerced) confessions reduced convictions (network g = −0.36). When jury instructions were employed (vs. not), convictions in coerced confession cases were reduced (this difference did not emerge for noncoerced confessions; a sensitivity effect). Expert testimony, however, reduced conviction likelihood regardless of whether a confession was coerced (a skepticism effect). Conclusion: Confession evidence is persuasive, and although jurors appear to recognize the detrimental effect of coercive interrogation methods on confession reliability, they do not fully discount unreliable confessions. Educational safeguards are therefore needed, but more research is encouraged to identify the most effective forms of jury instructions and expert testimony. One potential reform could be in the interrogation room itself, as science-based interviewing approaches could provide jurors with more reliable defendant statement evidence that assists them in reaching appropriate verdict decisions. Public Significance StatementConfession evidence typically increases the likelihood that jurors will render a guilty verdict, despite jurors being able to appropriately distinguish between confessions that were elicited via coercive interrogation methods (i.e., methods that increase the risk of false confession) and those that were noncoercive. Possible avenues for educating jurors include expert testimony and jury instructions; more research is, however, needed to identify the most effective forms of these safeguards. One solution to ensure that jurors make the best decisions possible is to present jurors with reliable defendant statements that can be obtained via science-based approaches to interviewing.

show abstract

The psychology of confessions: A comparison of expert and lay opinions

Cited by 13 publications

References 50 publications

Parent advice to children during interrogations: Do crime severity and perceptions of consequences matter?

Parent advice to children during interrogations: Do crime severity and perceptions of consequences matter?

How sleep and fatigue shape statements in evidence: A psycho-legal perspective

The effect of confession evidence on jurors’ verdict decisions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About