You Have the Right to Understand: The Deleterious Effect of Stress on Suspects’ Ability to Comprehend Miranda

Original Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Miranda rights Comprehension Stress Accusation 

References

  1. 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 .
  2. Bargh, J., & Thein, R. (1985). Individual construct accessibility, person memory, and the recall-judgment link: The case of information overload. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1129–1146. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.5.1129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chagut, E., & Algom, D. (2003). Selective attention improves under stress: Implications for theories of social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 231–248. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.Google Scholar
  7. Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6, 284–290. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cooper, V. G., & Zapf, P. A. (2008). Psychiatric patients’ comprehension of Miranda rights. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 390–405. doi:10.1007/s10979-007-9099-3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deffenbacher, K. A. (1994). Effects of arousal on everyday memory. Human Performance, 7, 141–161. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup0702_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deffenbacher, K. A., Borstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2004). A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 687–706. doi:10.1007/s10979-004-0565-x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Derakshan, N., & Eysenck, M. W. (1998). Working memory capacity in high trait anxious individuals and repressors. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 697–713. doi:10.1080/026999398379501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. Eichenbaum, H., Otto, T., & Cohen, N. J. (1992). The hippocampus: What does it do? Behavioral and Neural Biology, 57, 2–36. doi:10.1016/0163-1047(92)90724-I.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eysenck, M. W. (1982). Attention and arousal: Cognition and performance. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Eysenck, M. W. (1983). Anxiety and individual differences. In G. R. J. Hockey (Ed.), Stress and fatigue in human performance. Chichester: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  20. Eysenck, M. W. (1992). Anxiety: The cognitive perspective. Hove, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Eysenck, M. W. (1997). Anxiety and cognition: A unified theory. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. Grisso, T. (1998). Instruments for assessing understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  25. 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).Google Scholar
  26. Irving, B. (1980). Police interrogation. A case study of current practice. Research Studies, No. 2. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  27. Kassin, S. M., Leo, R. A., Meissner, C. A., Richman, K. D., Colwell, L. H., Leach, A., et al. (2007). Police interviewing and interrogation: A self-report survey of police practices and beliefs. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 381–400. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9073-5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koenig, K. A., Frey, M. C., & Detterman, D. K. (2008). ACT and general cognitive ability. Intelligence, 36, 153–160. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2007.03.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. LeDoux, J. E. (1995). Emotion: Clues from the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 209–235. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.46.1.209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leo, R. A. (1996). Miranda’s revenge: Police interrogation as a confidence game. Law and Society Review, 30, 259–288. doi:10.2307/3053960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leo, R. A., & Thomas, G. C. (1998). The Miranda debate: Law justice, and policing. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lupien, S., Fiocco, A., Wan, N., Maheu, F., Lord, C., Schramek, T., et al. (2005). Stress hormones and human memory function across the lifespan. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30, 225–242. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2004.08.003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. MacLeod, C., & Donnellan, A. M. (1993). Individual differences in anxiety and the restriction of working memory capacity. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 163–173. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(93)90023-V.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miranda v. Arizona. (1966). 384 U.S. 436.Google Scholar
  36. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Connell, M. J., Garmoe, W., & Goldstein, N. E. S. (2005). Miranda comprehension in adults with mental retardation and the effects of feedback style on suggestibility. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 359–369. doi:10.1007/s10979-005-2965-y.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oberlander, L. B., & Goldstein, N. E. (2001). A review and update on the practice of evaluating Miranda comprehension. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 453–471. doi:10.1002/bsl.453.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.Google Scholar
  40. Pratto, F., & Oliver, P. (1991). Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of negative social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 380–391. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.380.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rogers, R. (2008a). A little knowledge is a dangerous thing…Emerging Miranda research and professional roles for psychologists. American Psychologist, 63, 776–787. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.776.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rogers, R. (2008b). Advances in the assessment of Miranda. Symposium presented at the annual conference of the American Psychology-Law Society, Jacksonville, FL.Google Scholar
  43. 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.
  44. Rogers, R., Harrison, K. S., Shuman, D. W., Sewell, K. W., & Hazelwood, L. L. (2007). An analysis of Miranda warnings and waivers: Comprehension and coverage. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 177–192. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9054-8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Russano, M. B., Meissner, C. A., Narchet, F. M., & Kassin, S. M. (2005). Investigating true and false confessions within a novel experimental paradigm. Psychological Science, 16, 481–486. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01560.x.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Sandstrom, A., Rhodin, I. N., Lundberg, M., Olsson, T., & Nyberg, L. (2005). Impaired cognitive performance in patients with chronic burnout syndrome. Biological Psychology, 69, 271–279. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.08.003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schulhofer, S. (1996). Miranda by the data: Substantial benefits and vanishingly small social costs. Northwestern University Law Review, 90, 500–564.Google Scholar
  48. Simon, D. (1991). Homicide: A year on the killing streets. New York: Holt Publishing.Google Scholar
  49. Suen, H. K., & Ary, D. (1989). Analyzing quantitative behavioral observation data. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  50. Watts, F. N., McKenna, F. P., Sharrock, R., & Tresize, L. (1986). Colour naming of phobia-related words. British Journal of Psychology, 77, 97–108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. White, W. S. (2001). Miranda’s waning protections: Police interrogation practices after Dickerson. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations