False Confessions and the Use of Incriminating Evidence
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5195/lesli.2013.4Keywords:
false confession, subjective awareness, incriminating evidence, interrogation techniquesAbstract
To date, few experimental studies have looked at the factors that influence people’s willingness to confess to something they did not do. One widely cited experiment on the topic (i.e., Kassin & Kiechel, 1996) has suggested that false confessions are easy to obtain and that the use of false incriminating evidence increases the likelihood of obtaining one. The present research attempted to replicate Kassin and Kiechel’s (1996) work using a different experimental task. In the present experiment, unlike Kassin and Kiechel’s (1996) study, the participants were completely certain that they were not responsible for what had happened, thereby providing a different context for testing the idea that false incriminating evidence increases the likelihood of obtaining a false confession. The results are discussed with respect to factors that may or may not increase individuals’ willingness to offer a false admission of guilt.References
Agar, J. R. (1999). The admissibility of false confession expert testimony. The Army Lawyer, August, 26-42.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measures of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationship (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford Press.
Conti, R. P. (1999). The psychology of false confessions. Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology, 2, 14-36.
Forrest, K, D., Wadkins, T. A.., & Miller, R. L. (2002). The role of preexisting stress on false confessions: An empirical study. Journal of Credibility Assessment and Witness Psychology, 3, 23-45.
Freyd, J. J. (1996). The science of memory: Apply with caution. Traumatic StressPoints, 10, 1 & 8.
Garven, S., Wood, J.M., Malpass, R.S., & Shaw, J.S. (1998). More than suggestion: The effect of interviewing techniques from the McMartin Preschool case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 347-359.
Gleaves, D. H., & Freyd, J. J. (1997). Questioning additional claims abut the false memory syndrome epidemic. American Psychologist, 52, 993-994.
Hoeffel, J. C. (2002). The sixth amendment’s lost clause: Unearthing compulsory process. Wisconsin Law Review, 1275-1361.
Hoffman, H. G., Granhag, P. A., Kwong See, S. T., & Loftus, E. F. (2001). Social influences on reality monitoring decisions. Memory and Cognition, 29, 394-404.
Honts, C. R. (1996). Criterion development and validity of the CQT in field application. The Journal of General Psychology, 123, 309-324.
Horselenberg, R., Merckelbach, H., Josephs, S. (2003). Individual differences and false confessions: A conceptual replication of Kassin and Kiechel. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 1-8.
Kassin, S. M. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence. American Psychologist, 52, 221-233.
Kassin, S. M., & Kiechel, K. L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: Compliance, internalization, and confabulation. Psychological Science, 7, 125-128.
Kassin, S. M., Goldstein, C. C., & Savitsky, K. (2003). Behavioral confirmation in the interrogation room: On the dangers of presuming guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 187-203.
Lassiter, G. D. (2002). Illusory causation in the courtroom. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 204-208.
Lassiter, G. D., Geers, A. L., Handley, I. M., Weiland, P. E., & Munhall, P. J. (2002). Videotaped interrogations and confessions: A simple change in camera perspective alters verdicts in simulated trials. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 867-874.
Lassiter, G. D., Geers, A. L., Munhall, P. J., Handley, I. M., & Beers, M. J. (2001). Videotaped confessions: Is guilt in the eye of the camera? In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (Vol. 33, pp. 189–254). New York: Academic Press.
Leo, R. A., & Ofshe, R. J. (1998). The consequences of false confessions: Deprivations of liberty and miscarriages of justice in the age of psychological interrogation. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 429-496.
Loftus, E. F. (1997a). Creating false memories. Scientific American, 277, 70-75.
Loftus, E. F. (1997b). Creating childhood memories. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, 75-86.
Meares, T. L., & Harcourt, B. E. (2000). Supreme Court Review: Transparent adjudication and social science research in constitutional criminal procedure. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 90, 733-798.
Nadler, J. (2002). No need to shout: Bus sweeps and the psychology of coercion. The Supreme Court Review, 153, 1-58.
Perina, A. (March/April, 2003). “I confess:” Why would an innocent person profess guilt? Psychology Today, 11-12.
Redlich, A.D., & Goodman, G.S. (2003). Taking responsibility for an act not committed: The influence of age and suggestibility. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 141-156.
Schacter, D. L. (1999). The seven sins of memory: Insights from psychology and cognitive neuroscience. American Psychologist, 54, 182-203.
Smith, P. (Sep. 1, 2003). Why would they falsely confess? New York Times Upfront, 136, 11.
Weisselberg, C. D. (1998). Saving Miranda. Cornell Law Review, 84, 109-192.
Wood, W. (2000). Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 539-570.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
- The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Licenseor its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
- Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
- The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
- Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
- The Author represents and warrants that:
- the Work is the Author’s original work;
- the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
- the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
- the Work has not previously been published;
- the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
- the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
- The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 7 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.
