Open Access Repository
The variable influence of confession inconsistencies: How factual errors (but not contradictions) reduce belief in suspect guilt

Full text not available from this repository.
Abstract
Wrongful conviction statistics suggest that jurors pay little heed to the quality of confession evidence when making verdict decisions. However, recent research indicatesthat confession inconsistencies may sometimes reduce perception of suspect guilt.Drawing on theoretical frameworks of attribution theory, correspondence bias, andthe story model of juror decision-making, we investigated how judgments aboutlikely guilt are affected by different types of inconsistencies: self-contradictions(Experiment 1) and factual errors (Experiment 2). Crucially, judgments of likely guilt ofthe suspect were reduced by factual errors in confession evidence, but not by contradictions. Mediation analyses suggest that this effect of factual errors on judgments ofguilt is underpinned by the extent to which mock-jurors generated a plausible, alternative explanation for why the suspect confessed. These results indicate that not allconfession inconsistencies are treated equally; factual errors might cause suspicionabout the veracity of the confession, but contradictions do not.
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
Authors/Creators: | Holt, GA and Palmer, MA |
Keywords: | confessions, wrongful conviction, juror decisions, attribution, suspicion |
Journal or Publication Title: | Applied Cognitive Psychology |
Publisher: | John Wiley & Sons Ltd |
ISSN: | 0888-4080 |
DOI / ID Number: | 10.1002/acp.3757 |
Copyright Information: | Copyright 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd |
Related URLs: | |
Item Statistics: | View statistics for this item |
Actions (login required)
![]() |
Item Control Page |