Date: 26 Apr 2011
You Have the Right to Understand: The Deleterious Effect of Stress on Suspects’ Ability to Comprehend Miranda
Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436, 1966) required that suspects be explicitly warned of the right to avoid self-incrimination and the right to legal representation. This research was designed to examine whether stress, induced via an accusation of wrong-doing, undermined or enhanced suspects’ ability to comprehend their Miranda rights. Participants were randomly assigned to either be accused (n = 15) or not accused (n = 15) of having cheated on an experimental task in a two-cell between-subjects experimental design. Results supported the hypothesis that stress undermines suspects’ ability to comprehend their Miranda rights. Participants who were accused of cheating exhibited significantly lower levels of Miranda comprehension than participants who were not accused of cheating. The theoretical processes responsible for these effects and the implications of the findings for police interrogation are discussed.
American Bar Association. (2002). Public perceptions of lawyers consumer research findings. Section of Litigation (April). Retrieved April 4, 2011, from http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/lawyers/publicperceptions.pdf .
Bothwell, R. K., Brigham, J. C., & Pigott, M. A. (1987). An exploratory study of personality differences in eyewitness memory. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 2, 335–343.
Callaway, E., & Thompson, S. V. (1953). Sympathetic activity and perception: An approach to the relationships between autonomic activity and personality. Psychosomatic Medicine, 15, 443–455.PubMed
Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2010). Social influence. In R. F. Baumeister & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Advanced social psychology: The state of the science (pp. 384–417). New York: Oxford University Press.
Clare, I., & Gudjonsson, G. (1991). Recall and understanding of the caution and rights in police detention among persons of average intellectual ability and persons with a mild mental handicap. Issues in Criminological and Legal Psychology, 1, 31–42.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
Derryberry, D., & Tucker, D. M. (1994). Motivating the focus of attention. In P. M. Niedenthal & S. Kitayama (Eds.), The heart’s eye: Emotional influences in perception and attention (pp. 167–196). San Diego, US: Academic.
Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 74, 16–28. doi:10.1037/h0047707.
Everington, C., & Fulero, S. (1999). Competence to confess: Measuring understanding and suggestibility of defendants with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 37, 212–220. doi:10.1352/0047-6765(1999)037<0212:CTCMUA>2.0.CO;2.PubMedCrossRef
Eysenck, M. W. (1982). Attention and arousal: Cognition and performance. Berlin: Springer.
Eysenck, M. W. (1983). Anxiety and individual differences. In G. R. J. Hockey (Ed.), Stress and fatigue in human performance. Chichester: Wiley and Sons.
Eysenck, M. W. (1992). Anxiety: The cognitive perspective. Hove, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eysenck, M. W. (1997). Anxiety and cognition: A unified theory. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Greenfield, D. P., Dougherty, E. J., Jackson, R. M., Podboy, J. W., & Zimmerman, M. L. (2001). Retrospective evaluation of Miranda reading levels and waiver competency. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 19, 75–86.
Grisso, T. (1998). Instruments for assessing understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Hazelwood, L. (2009). Deficits in Miranda comprehension and reasoning: The effects of substance use and attention deficits. Retrieved January 1, 2011, from Dissertations & Theses: A&I (Publication No. AAT 3399422).
Irving, B. (1980). Police interrogation. A case study of current practice. Research Studies, No. 2. London: HMSO.
Leo, R. A., & Thomas, G. C. (1998). The Miranda debate: Law justice, and policing. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
Mackenzie, C., Smith, M., Hasher, L., Leach, L., & Behl, P. (2007). Cognitive functioning under stress: Evidence from informal caregivers of palliative patients. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 10, 749–758. doi:10.1089/jpm.2006.0171.
Miranda v. Arizona. (1966). 384 U.S. 436.
Newcomer, J. W., Craft, S., Hershey, T., Askins, K., & Bardgett, M. E. (1994). Glucocorticoid induced impairment in declarative memory performance in adult humans. Journal of Neuroscience, 14, 2047–2053.PubMed
Peters, D. P. (1988). Eyewitness memory in a natural setting. In M. M. Gruneberg, P. E. Morris, & R. N. Sykes (Eds.), Practical aspects of memory: Current research and issues. Vol. 1. Memory in everyday life (pp. 89–94). Chichester: Wiley.
Rogers, R. (2008b). Advances in the assessment of Miranda. Symposium presented at the annual conference of the American Psychology-Law Society, Jacksonville, FL.
Rogers, R., Gillard, N. D., Wooley, C. N., & Fiduccia, C. E. (2010). Decrements in Miranda abilities: An investigation of situational effects via a mock-crime paradigm. Law and Human Behavior. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9248-y.
Schulhofer, S. (1996). Miranda by the data: Substantial benefits and vanishingly small social costs. Northwestern University Law Review, 90, 500–564.
Simon, D. (1991). Homicide: A year on the killing streets. New York: Holt Publishing.
Suen, H. K., & Ary, D. (1989). Analyzing quantitative behavioral observation data. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
White, W. S. (2001). Miranda’s waning protections: Police interrogation practices after Dickerson. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
- You Have the Right to Understand: The Deleterious Effect of Stress on Suspects’ Ability to Comprehend Miranda
Law and Human Behavior
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer US
- Additional Links
- Miranda rights