Semester

Fall

Date of Graduation

2021

Document Type

Thesis

Degree Type

MS

College

Eberly College of Arts and Sciences

Department

Psychology

Committee Chair

Elisa Krackow

Committee Co-Chair

Amy Fiske

Committee Member

Constance Toffle

Abstract

This study examined the effect of mock jurors’ perceptions of a defendant’s false confession vs. no confession (false confession presence), coercive interrogation techniques vs. panic-escape (false confession reason), and expert witness testimony vs. defendant explanation vs. expert witness testimony plus defendant explanation for his false confession (source). The four hypotheses and one research question pertained to main effects and interaction effects of false confession presence, false confession reason, and source (separately) and expert witness conditions combined on five outcome variables. Outcome variables were defendant’s guilt, trustworthiness, suggestibility, susceptibility to external influences, and juror’s likelihood of changing their verdict. Using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), mock jurors (N = 415) were randomly assigned to one of twelve conditions, in which they read a murder trial scenario and answered questions regarding the outcome variables. Main effects of false confession were found within the defendant’s perceived guilt, trustworthiness, and suggestibility. Main effects of source were also found, such that the defendant’s perceived guilt, suggestibility, and susceptibility to external influences were significant, as was to jurors’ likelihood of changing their verdict (guilty/not guilty) but follow-up analyses yielded an inconsistent pattern. Expert witness testimony reduced perceptions of guilt and suggestibility, and decreased jurors’ openness to changing their verdict. Numerous False Confession x Reason interactions emerged pertaining to the defendant’s perceived guilt, trustworthiness, and suggestibility, as well as the jurors’ likelihood of changing their verdict (guilty/not guilty). A series of planned contrasts comparing the false confession/coercive interrogation/expert witness vs. the false confession/panic-escape/expert witness conditions; the false confession/coercive interrogation/defendant vs. false confession/panic-escape/defendant condition; and the false confession/coercive interrogation/expert witness + defendant vs. false confession/panic-escape/expert witness + defendant showed no significant differences in jurors’ perceptions of the defendant’s guilt.

Keywords: jurors’ perceptions, false confessions

Download

Share

COinS