The present study presents one of the first investigations of the effects of accomplice witnesses and jailhouse informants on jury decision-making. Across two experiments, participants read a trial transcript that included either a secondary confession from an accomplice witness, a jailhouse informant, a member of the community or a no confession control. In half of the experimental trial transcripts, the participants were made aware that the cooperating witness providing the secondary confession was given an incentive to testify. The results of both experiments revealed that information about the cooperating witness' incentive (e.g., leniency or reward) did not affect participants' verdict decisions. In Experiment 2, participant jurors appeared to commit the fundamental attribution error, as they attributed the motivation of the accomplice witness and jailhouse informant almost exclusively to personal factors as opposed to situational factors. Furthermore, both experiments revealed that mock jurors voted guilty significantly more often when there was a confession relative to a no confession control condition. The implications of the use of accomplice witness and jailhouse informant testimony are discussed.

Two laboratory studies with 332 student participants investigated secondary confessions (provided by an informant instead of the suspect). Participants allegedly caused or witnessed a simulated computer crash, then were asked to give primary or secondary confessions during interrogation. Study 1 replicated the false evidence effect for primary confessions. Secondary confessions were obtained at a high rate, which was increased by false evidence in combination with incentive to confess. In Study 2 a confederate either confessed to or denied crashing the computer. Incentive increased the rate of secondary confession only in the presence of a denial; that is, incentive increased the number of false secondary confessions only. Implications for the use of incentives during informant interrogation are discussed.

Trying to remember something now typically improves your ability to remember it later. However, after watching a video of a simulated bank robbery, participants who verbally described the robber were 25% worse at identifying the robber in a lineup than were participants who instead listed U.S. states and capitals-this has been termed the "verbal overshadowing" effect (Schooler & Engstler-Schooler, 1990). More recent studies suggested that this effect might be substantially smaller than first reported. Given uncertainty about the effect size, the influence of this finding in the memory literature, and its practical importance for police procedures, we conducted two collections of preregistered direct replications (RRR1 and RRR2) that differed only in the order of the description task and a filler task. In RRR1, when the description task immediately followed the robbery, participants who provided a description were 4% less likely to select the robber than were those in the control condition. In RRR2, when the description was delayed by 20 min, they were 16% less likely to select the robber. These findings reveal a robust verbal overshadowing effect that is strongly influenced by the relative timing of the tasks. The discussion considers further implications of these replications for our understanding of verbal overshadowing.

We sought to identify motivations to resist cooperation in intelligence interviews and develop techniques to overcome this resistance. One source of resistance can arise because of concerns for affiliations (e.g., “I do not want to inform on my friends/family/fellow countryman”). We investigated two avenues of rapport building—approach and avoidance—designed to overcome this concern. In a modified cheating paradigm, our participants (N = 116) became affiliated with a confederate who they then witnessed cheating. Participants were interviewed about the event in a 2 (approach: present vs. absent) × 2 (avoid: present vs. absent) design. The interviewer used either an approach technique that aligned them with the interviewer (portrayed as a morally good person) or an avoid technique that moved them away from the culprit (portrayed as nefarious), neither, or both. The approach technique increased rapport between the interviewer and participant. However, the avoid technique decreased the amount information elicited. When submitted to a mediation model, the approach technique had a positive indirect effect on information yield via perceived rapport and cooperation, while this was not the case for the avoid technique. An exploratory moderator analysis revealed that sympathy for the confederate moderated the effect of the avoid technique on information disclosed, where the more sympathy a participant felt for the confederate, the less information he or she provided. Implications for interviewing are discussed.

Recent findings suggest that priming may be useful for facilitating disclosure in investigative interviews; however, the effects of priming on behavioral outcomes have been mixed. The current studies attempted to replicate the increase in information disclosure when the concept of "openness" is primed. We assessed the separate and combined influence of context reinstatement instructions and activation of the concept of openness (via lexical primes in Experiment 1, via contextual and embodiment primes in Experiment 2) on information disclosure. In doing so, we introduced a novel paradigm to investigate factors contributing to the elicitation of sensitive personal information that participants provided in written (Experiment 1) or verbal (Experiment 2) form. Participants (Experiment 1: N ϭ 173; Experiment 2: N ϭ 194) completed a checklist of illegal behaviors and misdeeds, then engaged in an unrelated task that was used to administer the priming manipulation (either the concept of "open" or "closed," or a neutral prime). Participants then described a life event related to the most serious illegal behavior to which they had admitted, following either a direct request for information or a context reinstatement instruction. Across both experiments, context reinstatement led to robust increases in information disclosure. Although we failed to replicate prior effects of priming on disclosure, our observed effect sizes fell within the confidence intervals of previous studies. A meta-analytic assessment of priming across the two studies suggested a small but significant increase in information elicitation, suggesting that investigators are best served using evidence-based interviewing tactics during investigative interviews. Public Significance StatementWe examined the separate and combined influence of an interview tactic and a subtle elicitation tactic on the amount of information disclosed during an investigative interview. Subtle tactics, such as displaying a poster in a room or showing words related to the concept of openness, were less effective at facilitating information disclosure than explicitly requiring interviewees to mentally recreate the context of the event (an interviewing tactic known as context reinstatement) prior to providing a statement. Our results suggest that interviewers should prioritize the use of techniques such as context reinstatement that have been shown to be effective in laboratory settings.