Law and Human Behavior最新文献

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).

Objective: People who have been wrongly incarcerated report exceptionally poor mental health, and despite having been exonerated, they face discrimination similar to other formerly incarcerated people when seeking housing and employment opportunities. The current audit study was designed to test whether exonerees likewise face discrimination when seeking mental health treatment.

Hypotheses: Therapists will reply less often to treatment inquiries from exonerees and parolees compared to another prospective client with the same symptoms and trauma history-and when therapists do reply, they will less often be willing to meet with exonerated or paroled help seekers.

Method: We emailed 752 therapists across the United States while posing as a man seeking therapy for the mental health symptoms most commonly reported by exonerees. By random assignment, this help seeker had been either incarcerated and paroled, wrongly incarcerated and exonerated, or working as a first responder (control). For each email, we noted whether the therapist replied and, if so, the speed and length of the reply. We also content analyzed all replies for predetermined themes, including willingness to meet.

Results: Overall, therapists replied less often to exonerees (50.6%) than to first responders (62.9%) or parolees (61.1%), who did not differ (V = .11). Therapists' replies also differed in their willingness to meet (V = .13), such that inquiries from first responders would more often result in a meeting with a therapist (31.7%) compared with inquiries from exonerees (19.6%) or parolees (21.0%).

Conclusions: Exonerees' staggering rates of mental illness may be compounded by lesser treatment access. Therapists' reluctance to assist exonerees may reflect stigma and/or perceived incompetence. Our data highlight the need to destigmatize wrongful conviction, empower clinicians to treat exonerated clients, and advance legislation and other means to expand exonerees' access to mental health care. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: Racial biases exist in almost every aspect of the criminal legal system, resulting in disparities across all stages of legal procedures-before, during, and after a legal procedure. Building on expected utility theory, we propose an expected utility framework to organize and quantify racial disparities in legal procedures.

Hypotheses: Corresponding to the parameteres involved in estimating expected utility, we hypothesized that racial biases would occur at different stages of legal procedures.

Method: Using police interrogation procedures as an example, we obtained estimates from previous literature and demonstrated that racial disparities exist at each stage of legal procedures. We then used these estimates to compute and visualize expected utilities, which quantify the average long-term outcomes of interrogations for minority versus nonminority suspects.

Results: Based on this hypothetical example, the expected utility analysis suggests that biases at various stages of interrogations could potentially lead to substantial disparities in legal outcomes between racial groups. In particular, the example shows that interrogations might yield notably worse outcomes for minority suspects than nonminority suspects because of cumulative biases that occur before, during, and after this legal procedure.

Conclusions: The proposed expected utility approach not only offers a valuable tool for accounting the joint impacts of multiple stages of legal procedures to quantify racial disparities but also carries important implications for how the criminal legal system could reduce such disparities. That is, the criminal legal system must seek to reduce racial biases across all stages of legal procedures rather than focusing on just one aspect. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: When an officer places a suspect in an identification procedure and the witness identifies the suspect, it falls on attorneys to make decisions that reflect the strength of that identification. The factor that most affects the strength of identification evidence is the likelihood that the suspect is guilty before being subjected to the procedure, which scholars refer to as the prior probability of guilt. Given large racial disparities in exonerations based on eyewitness misidentifications, the current work examined whether defense attorneys are less sensitive to prior evidence of guilt when the defendant is Black as opposed to White.

Hypotheses: We predicted that when the defendant's race was described as White rather than Black, attorneys' judgments would be more sensitive to variations in the evidence that would influence the base rate of guilt. We also predicted that attorneys would rate the case as stronger when the victim's race was described as White rather than Black.

Method: We gave 316 defense attorneys case files (modeled after the New York Police Department's style) that varied the strength of the preidentification evidence (strong vs. weak), the race of the defendant (Black vs. White), and the race of the victim (Black vs. White).

Results: Attorneys made judgments that were sensitive to the base rate of guilt, but self-report measures demonstrated that they did not understand the extent to which the base rate of guilt influences the reliability of eyewitness evidence. Participants also rated the strength of the preidentification evidence as stronger for Black than for White defendants.

Conclusions: Although attorneys are intuitively sensitive to the strength of preidentification evidence, they lack conscious awareness of how a suspect's prior probability of guilt affects likelihood of a mistaken identification, which may have implications for their ability to make race-neutral evaluations of preidentification evidence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: This survey examined current law enforcement beliefs and practices about interviewing and interrogation to gauge whether they have evolved given the research and training developed over the past 20 years.

Hypotheses: We hypothesized that police beliefs and practices would have evolved along with research findings over the past 20 years.

Method: We surveyed 526 law enforcement officers about the practices and beliefs regarding interviewing and interrogation. We asked questions about officers' beliefs about rates of true and false confessions, time spent in the interrogation room, beliefs about their ability to detect deception, training experience, practices of recording interrogations, and their self-reported use of interrogation techniques.

Results: Overall, when we compared our survey with Kassin et al.'s (2007) seminal survey, we found both similar results and evolving positive trends. The average interview was reportedly 1.6 hr, virtually no different from that in Kassin and colleagues' study. In addition, our sample reported that 26.2% of innocent suspects at least partially falsely confessed. Further, whereas Kassin and colleagues found that fewer than one in 10 interrogations were video recorded, we found that now more than half of interrogations are recorded in this way.

Conclusions: In a geographically diverse sample of U.S. law enforcement officers, we found significant positive trends toward knowledge and practices informed by research generated over the past decades on interviewing and interrogation. Although causality could not be determined, these findings indicate an evolution of the U.S. law enforcement mindset in a more science-based direction. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).