Coerced or nonvoluntary confessions

Wakefield, Hollida; Underwager, Ralph

doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0798(199823)16:4<423::aid-bsl319>3.0.co;2-2

Cited by 19 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a case involving a disputed confession, the judge holds a preliminary hearing to decide whether to admit the confession into the trial. Once a judge admits a confession, jurors must determine whether a confession is voluntary (see Arizona v. Fulminante , ; Wakefield & Underwager, ), and in these cases jurors must evaluate police deception in general and the FEP or FEPs used in their particular trial. Several important considerations emerged as the individual participants evaluated FEPs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Juries in simulation studies value confessions over other forms of evidence such as eyewitness and character evidence (Kassin & Neumann, ). Although the Supreme Court decision Arizona v. Fulminante () suggested that jurors are capable of evaluating the voluntariness of confessions and disregarding confessions ruled as coerced (see Wakefield & Underwager, ), Kassin and Sukel () demonstrated that mock jurors who were told to disregard a coerced and subsequently inadmissible confession were significantly more likely to convict defendants than were mock jurors who remained ignorant of the confession. These results suggest that presenting confession evidence in court only to render it inadmissible amounts to much more than the “harmless error” suggested by Arizona v. Fulimante ().…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

False‐Evidence Ploys and Interrogations: Mock Jurors' Perceptions of False‐Evidence Ploy Type, Deception, Coercion, and Justification

Forrest

Woody

Brady

et al. 2012

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We studied mock jurors' evaluations of police false-evidence ploys across two false-evidence ploy information conditions (true or false confession). Study 1 participants evaluated lists of demeanor, testimonial, and scientific ploys and rated testimonial false-evidence ploys as more coercive than demeanor false-evidence ploys. Participants in the false-confession condition rated false-evidence ploys as more deceptive than did participants in the true-confession condition. Study 2 participants evaluated false-evidence ploy types within interrogation transcripts. Participants rated testimonial false-evidence ploys as more deceptive and coercive than demeanor false-evidence ploys; participants in the true-confession condition rated false-evidence ploys as more justified. Across studies, participants reading realistic transcripts rated false-evidence ploys as more deceptive and coercive. We discuss implications for scholars, attorneys, and interrogators.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

False‐Evidence Ploys and Interrogations: Mock Jurors' Perceptions of False‐Evidence Ploy Type, Deception, Coercion, and Justification

Forrest

Woody

Brady

et al. 2012

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Police interrogation manuals justify deceitful tactics as necessary tools for criminal interrogation (Underwager & Wakefield, 1992; Wakefield & Underwager, 1998). Such techniques are widely used by police investigators in North America and have generally been considered legally admissible ( Frazier v. Cupp , 1969; R. v. Oickle , 2000).…”

Section: Individual Variables Related To False Confessionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of personality, interrogation techniques and plausibility in an experimental false confession paradigm

Klaver

Lee

Rose

2008

Legal Criminol Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. The goal of the present study was to investigate the effects of personality variables, interrogation techniques and the plausibility level of an alleged transgression on the experimental elicitation of false confessions. Methods. Two hundred and nineteen undergraduate students assessed on measures of compliance, self‐esteem, locus of control and interrogative suggestibility participated in the Kassin and Kiechel (1996) paradigm. Experimental manipulations included minimization and maximization interrogation techniques and high and low plausibility of the alleged typing mistake to examine rates of false confession and internalization. Results. The overall false confession and internalization rates across all conditions were 43 and 10%, respectively. An increased likelihood of false confession behaviour was associated with higher Shift scores on the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale, the use of minimization interrogation techniques and an increase in the plausibility of the allegation. Females were more likely to falsely confess than males in the high plausibility condition, whereas Caucasian and Asian participants were equally likely to falsely confess. Personality variables, such as compliance, most influenced the behaviour of males and Asians. Conclusions. The results of this study offer insight into false confession behaviour, suggesting that individuals who have a tendency to change their responses in the face of negative feedback may be more prone to false confession behaviour. The findings also serve to highlight the dangers of using minimization interrogation techniques and elucidate the limited generalizability of the paradigm to situations in which the alleged transgression is less plausible.

show abstract

“…Several authors (Kassin and Wrightsman, 1985;Kassin, 1997;McCann, 1998;Wakefield and Underwager, 1998) have pointed that there are at least three distinct types of false confessions. The first type is the voluntary false confession that involves spontaneous selfincriminating statements made without external pressure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual Differences and False Confessions: A Conceptual Replication of Kassin and Kiechel (1996)

Horselenberg

Merckelbach

Josephs

2003

Psychology, Crime & Law

117

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website. • The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review. • The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement:

show abstract

Coerced or nonvoluntary confessions

Cited by 19 publications

References 10 publications

False‐Evidence Ploys and Interrogations: Mock Jurors' Perceptions of False‐Evidence Ploy Type, Deception, Coercion, and Justification

False‐Evidence Ploys and Interrogations: Mock Jurors' Perceptions of False‐Evidence Ploy Type, Deception, Coercion, and Justification

Effects of personality, interrogation techniques and plausibility in an experimental false confession paradigm

Individual Differences and False Confessions: A Conceptual Replication of Kassin and Kiechel (1996)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About