Exonerees are stigmatized, especially those who have falsely confessed. False confessions prompt a series of negative perceptions that ultimately undermine people's willingness to support reintegration aids. We extended the nascent body of literature on exoneree stigma by exploring first whether false guilty pleas can precipitate a similar series of perceptions and judgments and, second, the role of exoneree responsibility as an underlying mechanism. Participants (N ϭ 290) were randomly assigned to read 1 of 4 news stories in which the exoneree falsely confessed, falsely pleaded guilty, both, or neither and then offered their perceptions and judgments of the exoneree. Unique main effects, but not an interaction, among exonerees who falsely confessed or falsely pleaded guilty were observed. These exonerees were seen as less intelligent, which was associated with beliefs that the exoneree suffered mental health issues, was more responsible for the wrongful conviction, and not entirely innocent. The series of appraisals culminated in judgments that exonerees who falsely admitted guilt were less deserving of reintegration support than exonerees who did not falsely admit guilt. We end with discussions of how the results advance our understanding of the basic stigma against exonerees and practical implications for innocents in the legal system.

Individuals often tend to irrationally blame victims for their plight. This research incorporated a bounded rationality framework to examine first-person perspectives (rather than third-person) of both victims' and nonvictims' perceptions and judgments of acquaintance and stranger sexual violence. Upon completing individual difference measures, including a justworld belief assessment, participants (N = 296) were randomly assigned to read a scenario in which the vignette victim was either acquainted with or had no prior relationship with the perpetrator. Then, taking the perspective of the vignette victim, participants offered four judgments: the likelihood of reporting the crime, self-blame, perceived control, and sympathy expected from others. Results showed that instances of acquaintance sexual violence were judged more negatively than instances of stranger sexual violence. Moreover, participants who had previously experienced sexual violence

No abstract

In the 2010 Lafler v. Cooper decision, the Supreme Court equated the US criminal justice system to one of guilty pleas. As addressed in this chapter, this is because guilty pleas make up the majority of criminal case outcomes (around 64 percent) and the majority of convictions (around 97 percent). In this chapter, common themes in guilty plea research are reviewed, including the psychology of guilty plea decision-making, the validity of guilty pleas, and false guilty pleas. Further, new data are presented, aimed at reconceptualizing guilty plea rates and measuring plea discounts. Researchers’ choices about which dichotomous plea rate (prospective vs. retrospective) to examine and how to define plea discounts have implications for theories of plea decision-making and for advancing psycholegal scholarship on guilty pleas.

Being a victim of a violent crime is a traumatic experience. Sexual victimization, in particular, may be powerful enough to change presumably stable worldviews like just world beliefs. Across two large samples, we examined the influence of sexual victimization on just world beliefs. Results of Study 1 ( N = 727) indicated that victims of sexual aggression had significantly lower levels of just world beliefs compared to nonvictims. Other researchers have claimed that sexual aggression is a uniquely intense traumatic event. Therefore, in a second study, we examined (a) whether just world belief endorsement was associated with the frequency of victimization, and (b) whether sexual aggression was unique in its effect on just world belief endorsement compared to other crimes such as physical assault. Results of Study 2 ( N = 2,011) indicated that multiple incidents of victimization did not meaningfully impact just world beliefs compared to a single instance and just world belief endorsement was not significantly different across victims of sexual aggression, robbery, physical assault, or arson. An exploratory analysis, however, indicated there was a significant difference in victims’ behavior such that victims of sexual aggression were the least likely to have reported the crime. We end with a discussion of how the present research can advance our understanding of just world belief ideology and discuss the practical implications for professionals working with and studying victims of violent crimes.