Abstract
Four experiments were conducted to test possible limits on the previously demonstrated point-of-view bias in videotaped confessions. Study 1 showed that deliberation did not eliminate the bias. Study 2 showed that forewarning did not eliminate the bias. Study 3 showed that directing greater attention to the content of the confession did not eliminate the bias. Study 4 showed that using a lengthier, case-based confession also did not eliminate the bias. Taken together, this research clearly indicates that the legal system needs to be concerned with the potential for bias that exists in videotaped confessions.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Anderson, N. H. (1974). Information integration theory: A brief survey. In D. Krantz, R. Atkinson, R. D. Luce, & P. Suppes (Eds.), Contemporary developments in mathematical psychology (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Freeman.
Arizona v. Fulminante, 111 S. Ct. 1246 (1991).
Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75–91.
Bray, R. M., & Kerr, N. L. (1982). Methodological considerations in the study of the psychology of the courtroom. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 287–324). New York: Academic Press.
Briggs, M. A., & Lassiter, G. D. (1994). More evidence for the robustness of salience effects. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 171–180.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstem, J., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197–253.
Cassell, P. G. (1996). All benefits, no costs: The grand illusion of Miranda's defenders. Northwestern University Law Review, 90, 1084–1124.
Cutler, B. L. (1988, December). Videotaped evidence in court. The American Psychological Association Monitor, 19, p. 32.
Diamond, S. S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561–571.
Domash, S. F. (1985, October 6). Videotaped confessions grow. New York Times, Section 21, pp. 1, 8.
Ellsworth, P. (1989). Are twelve heads better than one? Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 205–224.
Feild, H. S., & Barnett, N. J. (1978). Simulated jury trials: Students vs. “real” people as jurors. Journal of Social Psychology, 104,287–293.
Foss, R. D. (1976). Group decision processes in the simulated trial jury. Sociometry, 39, 305–316.
Geller, W. A. (1993). Videotaping interrogations and confessions. National Institute of Justice: Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Grano, J. D. (1993). Confessions, truth, and the law. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Gudjonsson, G. (1992). The psychology of interrogations, confessions and testimony. Chichester, England: Wiley & Sons.
Hendrie, E. M. (1997). Beyond Miranda. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 66, 25–32.
Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., & Buckley, J. P. (1986). Criminal interrogation and confessions (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
James, W. (1897). The will to believe and other essays in popular philosophy. New York: Longmans, Green.
Jones, E. E., Kanouse, D. E., Kelley, H. H., Nisbett, R. E., Valins, S., & Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Kamisar, Y. (1995). On the “fruits” of Miranda violations, coerced confessions, and compelled testimony. Michigan Law Review, 93, 929–1010.
Kamisar, Y., LaFave, W., & Israel, J. (1994). Modern criminal procedure (8th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.
Kaplan, M. F. (1975). Information integration in social judgment: Interaction of the judge and informational components. In M. F. Kaplan & Schwartz (Eds.), Human judgment and decision processes. New York: Academic Press.
Kaplan, M. F. (1982). Cognitive processes in the individual juror. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 197–220). New York: Academic Press.
Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, L. E. (1978). Reducing the effects of juror bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1443–1455.
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., & McNall, K. (1991). Police interrogations and confessions: Communicating promises and threats by pragmatic implication. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 231–251.
Kassin, S. M., & Neumann, K. (1997). On the power of confession evidence: An experimental test of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 469–484.
Kassin, S. M., & Sukel, H. (1997). Coerced confessions and the jury: An experimental test of the “harmless error” rule. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 27–46.
Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1980). Prior confessions and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 133–146.
Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1981). Coerced confessions, judicial instruction, and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 489–506.
Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1985). Confession evidence. In S. Kassin & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), The psychology of evidence and trial procedure. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kelley, H. H. (1971). Attribution in social interaction. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causality. New York: Wiley—Interscience.
Kerr, N. L. (1978). Severity of prescribed penalty and mock jurors' verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1431–1442.
Lassiter, G. D., Briggs, M. A., & Bowman, R. E. (1991). Need for cognition and the perception of ongoing behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 156–160.
Lassiter, G. D., Briggs, M. A., & Slaw, R. D. (1991). Need for cognition, causal processing, and memory for behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 694–700.
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.
Lassiter, G. D., & Irvine, A. A. (1986). Videotaped confessions: The impact of camera point of view on judgments of coercion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 268–276.
Lassiter, G. D., Slaw, R. D., Briggs, M. A., & Scanlan, C. R. (1992). The potential for bias in videotaped confessions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1838–1851.
Lego v. Twomey, 404 U. S. 477 (1972).
Leo, R. A. (1992). From coercion to deception: The changing face of police interrogation in America. Crime, Law, and Social Change, 18, 35–39.
Leo, R. A. (1995, June). False memory, false confession: When police interrogations go wrong. Paper presented at the meeting of the Law & Society Association, Toronto, Canada.
Leo, R. A. (1996a). The impact of Miranda revisited. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 621–692.
Leo, R. A. (1996b). Inside the interrogation room. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 266–303.
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. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 429–496.
MacCoun, R. J. (1989). Experimental research on jury decision-making. Science, 244, 1046–1050.
Mathes, W. C., & DeVitt, E. J. (1965). Federal jury practice and instructions. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.
McArthur, L. Z. (1981). What grabs you? The role of attention in impression formation and causal attribution. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 1, pp. 201–241). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McCormick, C. T. (1972). Handbook of the law of evidence (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.
McCoy, M. L., Nunez, N., & Dammeyer, M. M. (1999). The effect of jury deliberations on jurors' reasoning skills. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 557–575.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 336 (1996).
Ofshe, R. J., & Leo, R. A. (1997). The social psychology of police interrogation: The theory and classification of true and false confessions. Studies in Law, Politics and Society, 16, 189–251.
Pratkanis, A. R., & Aronson, E. (1991). Age of propaganda: The everyday use and abuse of persuasion. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Ross, L. D. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 174–220). New York: Academic Press.
Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 249–288). New York: Academic Press.
Taylor, S. E., & Thompson, S. C. (1982). Stalking the elusive “vividness” effect. Psychological Review, 89, 155–181.
Wald, M., Ayres, R., Hess, D. W., Schantz, M., & Whitebread, C. H. (1967). Interrogations in New Haven: The impact of Miranda. The Yale Law Journal, 76, 1519–1648.
Wells, G. L. (1980). Asymmetric attributions for compliance: Reward vs. punishment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 47–60.
Wigmore, J. H. (1970). Evidence (Vol. 3) (revised by J. H. Chadbourn). Boston: Little, Brown.
Wilson, T. D., & Brekke, N. (1994). Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 117–142.
White, W. S. (1979). Police trickery in inducing confessions. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 127, 581–629.
Wrightsman, L. S., & Kassin, S. M. (1993). Confessions in the courtroom. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by funds from the Ohio Board of Regents and the National Science Foundation (BNS-8911067 and SBR-9514966). We thank Kevin Apple, Kim Dudley, Kelly Kinnison, Melanie LaForce, Matthew Leafgren, Richelle Newvahner, Laurie Olsen, John Ray, Alicia Santuzzi, Jason Secondi, and Katie Strieker for their contributions to various aspects of the research. With the exception of Lassiter, order of authorship is alphabetical.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lassiter, G.D., Beers, M.J., Geers, A.L. et al. Further evidence of a robust point-of-view bias in videotaped confessions. Curr Psychol 21, 265–288 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-002-1018-7
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-002-1018-7