Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Further evidence of a robust point-of-view bias in videotaped confessions

  • Articles
  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Four experiments were conducted to test possible limits on the previously demonstrated point-of-view bias in videotaped confessions. Study 1 showed that deliberation did not eliminate the bias. Study 2 showed that forewarning did not eliminate the bias. Study 3 showed that directing greater attention to the content of the confession did not eliminate the bias. Study 4 showed that using a lengthier, case-based confession also did not eliminate the bias. Taken together, this research clearly indicates that the legal system needs to be concerned with the potential for bias that exists in videotaped confessions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, N. H. (1974). Information integration theory: A brief survey. In D. Krantz, R. Atkinson, R. D. Luce, & P. Suppes (Eds.), Contemporary developments in mathematical psychology (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arizona v. Fulminante, 111 S. Ct. 1246 (1991).

  • Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bray, R. M., & Kerr, N. L. (1982). Methodological considerations in the study of the psychology of the courtroom. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 287–324). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, M. A., & Lassiter, G. D. (1994). More evidence for the robustness of salience effects. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 171–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstem, J., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassell, P. G. (1996). All benefits, no costs: The grand illusion of Miranda's defenders. Northwestern University Law Review, 90, 1084–1124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, B. L. (1988, December). Videotaped evidence in court. The American Psychological Association Monitor, 19, p. 32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, S. S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domash, S. F. (1985, October 6). Videotaped confessions grow. New York Times, Section 21, pp. 1, 8.

  • Ellsworth, P. (1989). Are twelve heads better than one? Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 205–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feild, H. S., & Barnett, N. J. (1978). Simulated jury trials: Students vs. “real” people as jurors. Journal of Social Psychology, 104,287–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foss, R. D. (1976). Group decision processes in the simulated trial jury. Sociometry, 39, 305–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geller, W. A. (1993). Videotaping interrogations and confessions. National Institute of Justice: Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grano, J. D. (1993). Confessions, truth, and the law. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gudjonsson, G. (1992). The psychology of interrogations, confessions and testimony. Chichester, England: Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendrie, E. M. (1997). Beyond Miranda. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 66, 25–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., & Buckley, J. P. (1986). Criminal interrogation and confessions (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1897). The will to believe and other essays in popular philosophy. New York: Longmans, Green.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. E., Kanouse, D. E., Kelley, H. H., Nisbett, R. E., Valins, S., & Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamisar, Y. (1995). On the “fruits” of Miranda violations, coerced confessions, and compelled testimony. Michigan Law Review, 93, 929–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamisar, Y., LaFave, W., & Israel, J. (1994). Modern criminal procedure (8th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, M. F. (1975). Information integration in social judgment: Interaction of the judge and informational components. In M. F. Kaplan & Schwartz (Eds.), Human judgment and decision processes. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, M. F. (1982). Cognitive processes in the individual juror. In N. L. Kerr & R. M. Bray (Eds.), The psychology of the courtroom (pp. 197–220). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, M. F., & Miller, L. E. (1978). Reducing the effects of juror bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1443–1455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence. American Psychologist, 52, 221–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M., & Kiechel, K. L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: Compliance, internalization, and confabulation. Psychological Science, 7, 125–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M., & McNall, K. (1991). Police interrogations and confessions: Communicating promises and threats by pragmatic implication. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 231–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M., & Neumann, K. (1997). On the power of confession evidence: An experimental test of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 469–484.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M., & Sukel, H. (1997). Coerced confessions and the jury: An experimental test of the “harmless error” rule. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1980). Prior confessions and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 133–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1981). Coerced confessions, judicial instruction, and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 489–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1985). Confession evidence. In S. Kassin & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), The psychology of evidence and trial procedure. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H. (1971). Attribution in social interaction. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causality. New York: Wiley—Interscience.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, N. L. (1978). Severity of prescribed penalty and mock jurors' verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1431–1442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassiter, G. D., Briggs, M. A., & Bowman, R. E. (1991). Need for cognition and the perception of ongoing behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 156–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassiter, G. D., Briggs, M. A., & Slaw, R. D. (1991). Need for cognition, causal processing, and memory for behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 694–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassiter, G. D., Geers, A. L., Munhall, P. J., Handley, I. M., & Beers, M. J. (2001). Videotaped confessions: Is guilt in the eye of the camera? In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. (Vol. 33, pp. 189–254). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lassiter, G. D., & Irvine, A. A. (1986). Videotaped confessions: The impact of camera point of view on judgments of coercion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 268–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lassiter, G. D., Slaw, R. D., Briggs, M. A., & Scanlan, C. R. (1992). The potential for bias in videotaped confessions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1838–1851.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lego v. Twomey, 404 U. S. 477 (1972).

  • Leo, R. A. (1992). From coercion to deception: The changing face of police interrogation in America. Crime, Law, and Social Change, 18, 35–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leo, R. A. (1995, June). False memory, false confession: When police interrogations go wrong. Paper presented at the meeting of the Law & Society Association, Toronto, Canada.

  • Leo, R. A. (1996a). The impact of Miranda revisited. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 621–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leo, R. A. (1996b). Inside the interrogation room. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 266–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leo, R. A., & Ofshe, R. J. (1998). The consequences of false confessions: Deprivations of liberty and miscarriages of justice in the age of psychological interrogation. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 429–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCoun, R. J. (1989). Experimental research on jury decision-making. Science, 244, 1046–1050.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mathes, W. C., & DeVitt, E. J. (1965). Federal jury practice and instructions. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • McArthur, L. Z. (1981). What grabs you? The role of attention in impression formation and causal attribution. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 1, pp. 201–241). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, C. T. (1972). Handbook of the law of evidence (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCoy, M. L., Nunez, N., & Dammeyer, M. M. (1999). The effect of jury deliberations on jurors' reasoning skills. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 557–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 336 (1996).

  • Ofshe, R. J., & Leo, R. A. (1997). The social psychology of police interrogation: The theory and classification of true and false confessions. Studies in Law, Politics and Society, 16, 189–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratkanis, A. R., & Aronson, E. (1991). Age of propaganda: The everyday use and abuse of persuasion. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, L. D. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 174–220). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 249–288). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. E., & Thompson, S. C. (1982). Stalking the elusive “vividness” effect. Psychological Review, 89, 155–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wald, M., Ayres, R., Hess, D. W., Schantz, M., & Whitebread, C. H. (1967). Interrogations in New Haven: The impact of Miranda. The Yale Law Journal, 76, 1519–1648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. L. (1980). Asymmetric attributions for compliance: Reward vs. punishment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigmore, J. H. (1970). Evidence (Vol. 3) (revised by J. H. Chadbourn). Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, T. D., & Brekke, N. (1994). Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 117–142.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • White, W. S. (1979). Police trickery in inducing confessions. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 127, 581–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wrightsman, L. S., & Kassin, S. M. (1993). Confessions in the courtroom. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Ohio University, 45701, Athens, OH

    G. Daniel Lassiter, Melissa J. Beers, Andrew L. Geers, Ian M. Handley, Patrick J. Munhall & Paul E. Weiland

Authors
  1. G. Daniel Lassiter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Melissa J. Beers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew L. Geers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ian M. Handley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Patrick J. Munhall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Paul E. Weiland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Daniel Lassiter.

Additional information

This research was supported by funds from the Ohio Board of Regents and the National Science Foundation (BNS-8911067 and SBR-9514966). We thank Kevin Apple, Kim Dudley, Kelly Kinnison, Melanie LaForce, Matthew Leafgren, Richelle Newvahner, Laurie Olsen, John Ray, Alicia Santuzzi, Jason Secondi, and Katie Strieker for their contributions to various aspects of the research. With the exception of Lassiter, order of authorship is alphabetical.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lassiter, G.D., Beers, M.J., Geers, A.L. et al. Further evidence of a robust point-of-view bias in videotaped confessions. Curr Psychol 21, 265–288 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-002-1018-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-002-1018-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation