Investigating the Effects of Repeated Miranda Warnings: Do They Perform a Curative Function on Common Miranda Misconceptions?

Abstract

In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court of the United States required that custodial suspects be apprised of their Constitutional rights against self-incrimination. The Court could not have anticipated the rampant popularization of Miranda warnings in subsequent movies and television dramas. Influenced by public media, many arrestees assume that they already "know" their rights, with no awareness of their misconceptions. The current investigation examines whether repeated exposures to Miranda warnings performs any "curative" function (i.e., dispelling common Miranda misconceptions held by pretrial defendants). The accumulative effects of five different Miranda warnings were tested over a several-hour period on 260 detainees. For the nearly half (113 or 43.5%) with three or more misconceptions, improvement (i.e., ≥2 fewer misconceptions) occurred for only 35 defendants. Predictably, this improved group also tended to display a better understanding of Miranda-relevant vocabulary words and a better recall of the administered Miranda warnings than their unimproved counterparts. On average, the improved group also performed better on general measures of intelligence, and listening and reading comprehension, while still evidencing substantial cognitive deficits. The curative function of Miranda advisements is considered in light of these findings.

One American Perspective on the Rights of Accused: An Initial Survey of Miranda Rights in a Broader Context

“…Longitudinally, defendants with dozens of prior arrests (i.e., ≥ 40) fare no better with Miranda misconceptions than those with brief criminal histories (i.e., < five arrests; see Rogers & Drogin, ). Situationally, repeated exposures to different Miranda warnings within a several‐hour period mostly fail to have a curative effect on key misconceptions (Rogers et al, ).…”

The Impact of Educational Intervention on Young People's Understanding of Legal Rights in New Zealand

“…The medium used to deliver additional information varies between studies. Rogers et al (2013b) examined the influence of educational interventions using different lengths (long or short) and mediums (verbal or written information) on understanding. Written versions of educational interventions which corrected misconceptions, led to better recall in comparison to oral versions, and shorter educational Cautions led to better recall than longer versions.…”

“…General learning research provides evidence that repeated exposure to information aids learning (Bromage & Mayer, 1986;Congleton & Rajaram, 2011). Conversely, research on legal rights suggests being read the Cautions on multiple occasions does not lead to better understanding across any of the various aspects (Grisso, 1981;Kidd & Sullivan, 2014;Rogers et al, 2013b;Winningham, et al, 2018;Zelle et al, 2015). Therefore, it is unclear whether this would have had an impact, signifying the need for more research on this issue.…”

Investigating Miranda waiver decisions: An examination of the rational consequences

“…Unfortunately, recent research casts doubt on the effectiveness of Miranda warnings. Rogers, Fiduccia, Robinson, Steadham, and Drogin (2013) provided five different Miranda warnings asking each time for defendants' recall. The majority (61.1%) of those with serious Miranda misconceptions failed to improve, despite this intensive exposure.…”