Does engaging in reason elaboration mitigate bias in mock jurors' evaluations of confession evidence?

Abstract

Objective: Prior research suggests that jurors may commit the fundamental attribution error when evaluating confession evidence (i.e., failing to recognize the situational pressures inherent to coercive interrogations) and exhibit belief perseverance when presented with expert testimony or judicial instructions seeking to remediate juror knowledge. Given mixed findings regarding the use of safeguards that might assist jurors in rendering appropriate decisions, the current research examined the effectiveness of reason elaboration instructions.

Hypotheses: We hypothesized that instructing mock jurors to engage in reason elaboration (Experiments 1, 2, and 4: list reasons; Experiment 3: make an initial judgment and then list reasons for the opposite of their initial belief) for why an individual might confess may help them to become more sensitive to situational and dispositional confession risk factors. We expected that reason elaboration instructions would lead to fewer convictions when a coercive interrogation was presented, but not in cases in which a noncoercive interrogation was presented (i.e., a sensitivity effect).

Method: Across four experiments, jury-eligible participants (N = 1,319) read a murder trial transcript and then responded to items measuring perceived interrogation coerciveness, defendant vulnerability, and verdict decision. We manipulated interrogation approach (noncoercive vs. coercive) and reason listing for a true and/or false confession.

Results: Across all four experiments, mock jurors demonstrated appropriate knowledge of false confession risk factors, and there was no interactive effect of our reason elaboration task with interrogation condition.

Conclusions: Reason elaboration does not appear to be an effective safeguard for debiasing and improving sensitivity in jurors' evaluations of confession evidence. Jurors appeared relatively proficient in distinguishing between coercive and noncoercive interrogation tactics. Future research should assess alternative approaches that can leverage mock jurors' knowledge of appropriate risk factors and further improve their decision making. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).