An attribution theory–based content analysis of mock jurors’ deliberations regarding coerced confessions.

Abstract

Objective: Because confessions are sometimes unreliable, it is important to understand how jurors evaluate confession evidence. We conducted a content analysis testing an attribution theory model for mock jurors’ discussion of coerced confession evidence in determining verdicts. Hypotheses: We tested exploratory hypotheses regarding mock jurors’ discussion of attributions and elements of the confession. We expected that jurors’ prodefense statements, external attributions (attributing the confession to coercion), and uncontrollable attributions (attributing the confession to defendant naivety) would predict more prodefense than proprosecution case judgments. We also expected that being male, politically conservative, and in support of the death penalty would predict proprosecution statements and internal attributions, which in turn would predict guilty verdicts. Method: Mock jurors (N = 253, Mage = 47 years; 65% women; 88% White, 10% Black, 1% Hispanic, 1% listed “other”) read a murder trial synopsis, watched an actual coerced false confession, completed case judgments, and deliberated in juries of up to 12 members. We videotaped, transcribed, and reliably coded deliberations. Results: Most mock jurors (53%) rendered a guilty verdict. Participants made more prodefense than proprosecution statements, more external than internal attributions, and more internal than uncontrollable attributions. Participants infrequently mentioned various elements of the interrogation (police coercion, contamination, promises of leniency, interrogation length) and psychological consequences for the defendant. Proprosecution statements and internal attributions predicted proprosecution case judgments. Women made more prodefense and external attribution statements than men, which in turn predicted diminished guilt. Political conservatives and death penalty proponents made more proprosecution statements and internal attributions than their counterparts, respectively, which in turn predicted greater guilt. Conclusions: Some jurors identified coercive elements of a false confession and rendered external attributions for a defendant’s false confession (attributing the confession to the coercive interrogation) during deliberation. However, many jurors made internal attributions, attributing a defendant’s false confession to his guilt—attributions that predicted juror and jury inclinations to convict an innocent defendant.

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

“…Although such approaches are time- and resource-intensive, they can add substantial value to the literature. For instance, Stevenson et al (2023) conducted a juror deliberation study in which they coded for the types of attributions that jurors made about a confession. Their findings aligned with notions set forth by attribution theory, thereby enhancing the theoretical foundations of the juror–confession literature.…”