Despite the prevalence of guilty pleas, we know relatively little about factors that influence the decision to plead. Replicating and extending Dervan and Edkins’ Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 103, 1-48. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2071397, (2013), we conducted two experiments to examine the effects of guilt status, trial penalty, and conviction likelihood on plea outcomes using an adaptation of a high-stakes cheating paradigm. Students were led to believe that they were participating in a study examining team versus individual problem solving. Those randomly assigned to a guilty condition were induced to cheat on an individual problem by a study confederate (in clear violation of the study instructions). All participants were later accused of cheating in the research study, and were offered the analogue of a plea deal in an academic context. Across both experiments, guilty participants were significantly more likely to plead guilty than innocent participants. In Experiment 2, conviction probability affected plea rates only among the innocent. The trial penalty manipulation had no significant effect on plea rates. Reasons for pleading guilty differed between the innocent and the guilty, whereas the plea rejection rationales were similar across the two groups. Overall, this research highlights several avenues for further research aimed at improving the current system of pleas to reduce false guilty pleas.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
All data and related materials will be made available on the Open Science Framework upon publication.
We chose to exclude everyone with psychological research lab experience due to the increased likelihood that they would be familiar with studies involving deception. We also felt they would not have perceived the consequence of working in the lab as negatively as most people.
Experiment 1 included eight female experimenters. Experiment 2 included twelve experimenters: nine were female and three were male. All of the experimenters (for both experiments) underwent extensive training including three ~90-min sessions supervised by the lead author.
If the descriptive odds of accepting the plea bargain are used to compute the odds ratio, it will differ slightly from the value produced by the logistic regression model. This discrepancy is due to the logistic regression model computing values for which the effects of all other model predictors are removed.
Abrams, D. S. (2011). Is pleading really a bargain? Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 8(1), 200–221. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01234.x.
Albonetti, C. A. (1990). Race and the probability of pleading guilty. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 6, 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01065413.
Bibas, S. (2004). Plea bargaining outside the shadow of a trial. Harvard Law Review, 117(8), 2463–2547. https://doi.org/10.2307/4093404.
Bordens, K. S. (1984). The effects of likelihood of conviction, threatened punishment, and assumed role on mock plea bargaining decisions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 5, 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp0501_4.
Bordens, K. S., & Bassett, J. (1985). The plea bargaining process from the defendant’s perspective: A field investigation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 6, 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp_0602_1.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2015). Federal justice statistics, 2012 - statistical tables (NCJ Report No. 248470). Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
Bushway, S. D., & Redlich, A. D. (2012). Is plea bargaining in the ‘shadow of the trial’ a mirage? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28(3), 437–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-011-9147-5.
Bushway, S. D., Redlich, A. D., & Norris, R. J. (2014). An explicit test of plea bargaining in the “shadow of the trial”. Criminology, 52(4), 723–754. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12054.
Crouch, B. M. (1993). Is incarceration really worse? Analysis of offenders' preferences for prison over probation. Justice Quarterly, 10(1), 67–88.
Dervan, L. E., & Edkins, V. A. (2013). The innocent defendant’s dilemma: An innovative empirical study of plea bargaining’s innocence problem. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 103, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2071397.
Edkins, V. A., & Dervan, L. E. (2012). Pleading innocents: Laboratory evidence of plea bargaining's innocence problem. Current Research in Social Psychology, 14–21. https://crisp.org.uiowa.edu/sites/crisp.org.uiowa.edu/files/2020-04/art5.12.13_1.pdf.
Fisher, G. (2000). Plea bargaining’s triumph. The Yale Law Journal, 109(5), 857–1086. https://doi.org/10.2307/797483.
Frazier, A., Shockley, K., Keenan, J. M., Wilford, M. M., & Gonzales, J. E. (2019). When a plea is no bargain at all: Comparing sentencing outcomes for Massachusetts defendants in non-sexual and sexual crimes. Albany Law Review, 82, 101–140.
Gregory, W. L., Mowen, J. C., & Linder, D. E. (1978). Social psychology and plea bargaining: Applications, methodology, and theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1521–1530. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.2061.
Gross, S. R. (2015, July). 24. The Washington Post: The staggering number of wrongful convictions in America Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-cost-of-convicting-the-innocent/2015/07/24/260fc3a2-1aae-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html.
Helm, R. K., & Reyna, V. F. (2017). Logical but incompetent plea decisions: A new approach to plea bargaining grounded in cognitive theory. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(3), 367. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000125.
Helm, R. K., Reyna, V. F., Franz, A. A., Novick, R. Z., Dincin, S., & Cort, A. E. (2018). Limitations on the ability to negotiate justice: Attorney perspectives on guilt, innocence, and legal advice in the current plea system. Psychology, Crime & Law, 1–20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1457672
Henderson, K. S., & Levett, L. M. (2018). Investigating predictors of true and false guilty pleas. Law and Human Behavior, 42(5), 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000297.
Houston, K. A., Meissner, C. A., & Evans, J. R. (2014). Psychological processes underlying true and false confessions. In Investigative interviewing (pp. 19–34). Springer, New York, NY.
Hudson v. United States. (1926). 272 U.S. 451.
Hussemann, J., & Siegel, J. (2019). Pleading guilty: Indigent defendant perceptions of the plea process. Tennessee Journal of Law and Policy, 13(2), 459–522.
Innocence Project (2017). Our impact. Retrieved from https://25years.innocenceproject.org/ impact/.
Kassin, S. M. (2005). On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence put innocents at risk? American Psychologist, 60, 215–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.3.215.
Kramer, G. M., Wolbransky, M., & Heilbrun, K. (2007). Plea bargaining recommendations by criminal defense attorneys: Evidence strength, potential sentence, and defendant preference. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 573–585. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.759.
Kutateladze, B. L., Andiloro, N. R., & Johnson, B. D. (2016). Opening Pandora’s box: How does defendant race influence plea bargaining? Justice Quarterly, 33, 398–426.
Lafler v. Cooper, 132 U.S. 1376 (2012).
Malloy, L. C., Shulman, E. P., & Cauffman, E. (2014). Interrogations, confessions, and guilty pleas among serious adolescent offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 38(2), 181–193.
Marceau, J., & Rudolph, N. (2012). Colorado counsel conundrum: Plea bargaining, misdemeanors, and the right to counsel. Denver University Law Review, 89(2), 327–367.
May, D. C., & Wood, P. B. (2010). Ranking correctional punishments: Views from offenders, practitioners, and the public. Carolina Academic Press.
McAllister, H. A., & Bregman, N. J. (1986a). Plea bargaining by defendants: A decision theory approach. The Journal of Social Psychology, 126(1), 105–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1986.9713576.
McAllister, H. A., & Bregman, N. J. (1986b). Plea bargaining by prosecutors and defense attorneys: A decision theory approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 686–690.
National Registry of Exonerations. (24 November, 2015). Innocents who plead guilty. Retrieved from http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/NRE.Guilty.Plea. Article1.pdf
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).
Oppel, R. A. Jr. (2011, September, 26) Sentencing shift gives new leverage to prosecutors. The New York Times. A1. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/us/tough-sentences-help-prosecutors-push-for-plea-bargains.html?_r=0
Petersen, N. (2019). Low-level, but high speed?: Assessing pretrial detention effects on the timing and content of misdemeanor versus felony guilty pleas. Justice Quarterly, 36(7), 1314–1335.
Rakoff, J. S. (2014, November 20). Why innocent people plead guilty. The New York Review of Books, 61(18) Retrieved from http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/11/20/why-innocent-people-plead-guilty/.
Redlich, A. D., & Ozdogru, A. A. (2009). Alford pleas in the age of innocence. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 27, 467–488. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.876.
Redlich, A. D., & Shteynberg, R. V. (2016). To plead or not to plead: A comparison of juvenile and adult true and false plea decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 611–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000205.
Redlich, A. D., Summers, A., & Hoover, S. (2010). Self-reported false confessions and false guilty pleas among offenders with mental illness. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9194-8.
Redlich, A. D., Wilford, M. M., & Bushway, S. (2017). Understanding guilty pleas through the lens of social science [special anniversary issue]. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 23(4), 458–471. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000142.
Ross, J. E. (2006). The entrenched position of plea bargaining in United States legal practice. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 54, 717–732. https://doi.org/10.2307/20454559.
Russano, M. B., Meissner, C. A., Narchet, F. M., & Kassin, S. M. (2005). Investigating true and false confessions within a novel and experimental paradigm. Psychological Science, 16(6), 481–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01560.x.
Schneider, R. A., & Zottoli, T. M. (2019). Disentangling the effects of plea discount and potential trial sentence on decisions to plead guilty. Legal and Criminological Psychology., 24, 288–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12157.
Sommers, I., Goldstein, J., & Baskin, D. (2014). The intersection of victims’ and offenders’ sex and race/ethnicity on prosecutorial decisions for violent crimes. Justice System Journal, 35(2), 178–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/009826X.2013.869153.
Stephens, R. (2013). Disparities in postconviction remedies for those who plead guilty and those convicted at trial: A survey of state statutes and recommendations for reform. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 103(1), 309–342.
Stevenson, M., & Mayson, S. (2018). The scale of misdemeanor justice. Boston University Law Review, 98, 731–777.
Subramanian, R., Moreno, R., & Broomhead, S. (2014). Recalibrating justice: A review of 2013 state sentencing and corrections trends. New York: Vera Institute of Justice, Center on Sentencing and Corrections.
Tor, A., Gazal-Ayal, O., & Garcia, S. M. (2010). Fairness and the willingness to accept plea bargain offers. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 7, 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2009.01171.x.
U.S. Sentencing Commission (2011). Mandatory minimum penalties in the federal criminal justice system. Retrieved from http://www.ussc.gov/research/congressional-reports/2011-report-congress-mandatory-minimum-penalties-federal-criminal-justice-system
Ulmer, J. T., & Bradley, M. S. (2006). Variation in trial penalties among serious violent offense. Criminology, 44(3), 631–670.
Viljoen, J. L., Klaver, J., & Roesch, R. (2005). Legal decisions of preadolescent and adolescent defendants: Predictors of confessions, pleas, communication with attorneys, and appeals. Law and Human Behavior, 29(3), 253–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-005-3613-2.
Wilford, M. M., & Khairalla, A. (2019). Innocence and plea bargaining. In V. A. Edkins & A. D. Redlich (Eds.), A system of pleas: Social science’s contribution to the real justice system (pp. 132–152). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Wilford, M. M., Shestak, A., & Wells, G. L. (2019). Plea bargaining. In N. Brewer & A. Bradfield-Douglass (Eds.), Psychological science and the law. Guilford Press.
Wilford, M. M., & Wells, G. L. (2018). Bluffed by the dealer: Distinguishing false pleas from false confessions [special section on guilty pleas]. Psychology, Public Policy & Law, 24(2), 158–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000165.
Wilson, T. D., Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, K. (2010). The art of laboratory experimentation. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, and G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (5th Ed.), Volume 1 (pp. 51–81). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Wodahl, E. J., Garland, B. E., & Schweitzer, K. (2020). Are jail sanctions more punitive than community-based punishments? An examination into the perceived severity of alternative sanctions in community supervision. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 31(5), 696–720.
Zimmerman, D. M., & Hunter, S. (2018). Factors affecting false guilty pleas in a mock plea bargaining scenario. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 23(1), 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12117.
Zottoli, T. M., Daftary-Kapur, T., Winters, G. M., & Hogan, C. (2016). Plea discounts, time pressures, and false-guilty pleas in youth and adults who pleaded guilty to felonies in New York City. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(3), 250–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000095.
This work was supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship to the first author under Grant no. 202–18–94-00.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Both of the experiments described in this manuscript received approval from the Institutional Review Board at Iowa State University (IRB ID: 11–320).
Consent to Participate
All participants provided written consent to participate in the experiments (following the procedures approved by the Institutional Review Board at Iowa State University).
Consent for Publication
All authors have reviewed the current version of the manuscript and consent to potential publication in the American Journal of Criminal Justice. Also, while data from this manuscript has not been previously published, portions of the data were presented at annual meetings of the American Psychology-Law Society.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wilford, M.M., Wells, G.L. & Frazier, A. Plea-Bargaining Law: the Impact of Innocence, Trial Penalty, and Conviction Probability on Plea Outcomes. Am J Crim Just 46, 554–575 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09564-y
- Criminal justice system
- Decision making