Decisional Process for Miranda Waivers and Self-Incriminations

  • Richard Rogers
  • Eric Y. Drogin


As a Constitutional safeguard, the validity of Miranda decisions is only considered when detainees have waived their Miranda rights. Pragmatically speaking, such waivers are almost never examined unless they are coupled with damaging self-incriminations. A careful analysis of waiver decisions integrates Miranda comprehension and reasoning within a hierarchical model. Determinants of decisions involve systematic examinations of how arrestees weighed the pros and cons of both exercising and waiving Miranda rights. From a nomothetic perspective, the Miranda Reasoning Measure (MRM) is evaluated closely for aggregate scores in the Exercise and Waive domains. From a case-specific perspective, the MRM—as well as open-ended inquiries—provide detailed information via item-level analysis. This analysis is enhanced by the Blackwood’s “salience-probability” approach. In addition, Miranda waiver decisions may strongly be influenced by response styles, such as acquiescence and compliance, both of which are addressed in detail.


Miranda waivers Miranda reasoning Miranda Reasoning Measure (MRM) Miranda Acquiescence Questionnaire (MAQ) Suggestibility Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities (SAMA) 


  1. American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from
  2. Appelbaum, P. S., & Grisso, T. (1995). The MacArthur Treatment Competence Study. I: Mental illness and competence to consent to treatment. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 105–126.Google Scholar
  3. Blackwood, H. L. (2013). Miranda reasoning and competent waiver decisions: Are models of legal decision making applicable? Unpublished dissertation, University of North Texas, Denton.Google Scholar
  4. Blackwood, H. L., Rogers, R., Steadham, J. A., & Fiduccia, C. E. (2015). Investigating Miranda waiver decisions: An examination of the rational consequences. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 42-43, 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonnie, R. J. (1992). The competence of criminal defendants: A theoretical reformulation. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 10, 291–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Drake, K. E., & Egan, V. (2017). Investigating gender differences in the factor structure of the Gudjonsson compliance scale. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 22, 88–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Everington, C., & Fulero, S. M. (1999). Competence to confess: Measuring understanding and suggestibility of defendants with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 37, 212–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frumkin, I. B., Lally, S. J., & Sexton, J. E. (2012). A United States forensic sample for the Gudjonsson suggestibility scales. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30, 749–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grisso, T. (1981). Juveniles’ waiver of rights: Legal and psychological competence. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  10. Grisso, T. (1997). The competence of adolescents as trial defendants. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 3–32.Google Scholar
  11. Grisso, T. (1998). Instruments for assessing understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights. Sarasota: Professional Resource Press.Google Scholar
  12. Grisso, T. (2003). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments (2nd ed.). New York: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  13. Gudjonsson, G. H. (1984). A new scale of interrogative suggestibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gudjonsson, G. H. (1989). Compliance in an interrogative situation: A new scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 535–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gudjonsson, G. H. (1991). The effects of intelligence and memory on group differences in suggestibility and compliance. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 503–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gudjonsson, G. H. (1997). Gudjonsson suggestibility scales manual. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gudjonsson, G. H., & Young, S. (2011). Personality and deception. Are suggestibility, compliance and acquiescence related to socially desirable responding? Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 192–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hansen, I., Smeets, T., & Jelicic, M. (2010). Further data on interrogative suggestibility and compliance scores following instructed malingering. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 221–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harrison, K. S. (2008). Totality of the circumstances: Factors affecting competence to waive Miranda rights. Unpublished dissertation, University of North Texas, Denton.Google Scholar
  20. Hilgendorf, E. L., & Irving, B. (1981). A decision-making model of confessions. In M. A. Lloyd-Bostock (Ed.), Psychology in legal contexts. Applications and limitations (pp. 67–84). London: Macmillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kassin, S. M., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2004). The psychology of confessions: A review of the literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 33–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kassin, S. M., Redlich, A. D., Alceste, F., & Luke, T. J. (2018). On the general acceptance of confessions research: Opinions of the scientific community. American Psychologist, 73, 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mastroberardino, S., & Marucci, F. S. (2013). Interrogative suggestibility: Was it just compliance or a genuine false memory? Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18, 274–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McLachlan, K., Roesch, R., & Douglas, K. S. (2011). Examining the role of interrogative suggestibility in Miranda rights comprehension in adolescents. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 165–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meyer, J. R., & Reppucci, N. D. (2007). Police practices and perceptions regarding juvenile interrogation and interrogative suggestibility. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 757–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mueller, J., Kiernan, R., & Langston, J. W. (2007). Cognistat manual (The Neurobehavioral Cognitive Status Examination). Fairfax: The Northern California Neurobehavioral Group.Google Scholar
  27. Münsterberg, H. (1915). Legal psychology. In Psychology: General and applied (pp. 395–412). New York: D. Appleton & Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Connell, M. J., Garmoe, W., & Goldstein, N. S. (2005). Miranda comprehension in adults with mental retardation and the effects of feedback style on suggestibility. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 359–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Redlich, A. D., Silverman, M., & Steiner, H. (2003). Pre-adjudicative and adjudicative competence in juveniles and young adults. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21, 393–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Richardson, G., & Kelly, T. P. (2004). A study in the relationship between interrogative suggestibility, compliance and social desirability in institutionalized adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 485–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rogers, R. (2012). Miranda Reasoning Measure (MRM). Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  32. Rogers, R. (2018). An introduction to response styles. In R. Rogers, S. D. Bender, R. Rogers, & S. D. Bender (Eds.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (pp. 3–17). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  33. Rogers, R., & Drogin, E. Y. (2014). Mirandized statements: Successfully navigating the legal and psychological issues. Chicago: American Bar Association Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Rogers, R., Harrison, K. S., Hazelwood, L. L., & Sewell, K. W. (2007). Knowing and intelligent: A study of Miranda warnings in mentally disordered defendants. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 401–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rogers, R., Harrison, K. S., Rogstad, J. E., LaFortune, K. A., & Hazelwood, L. L. (2010). The role of suggestibility in determinations of Miranda abilities: A study of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 66–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rogers, R., & Shuman, D. W. (2000). Conducting insanity evaluations (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  37. Rogers, R., & Shuman, D. W. (2005). Miranda and beyond: Competencies related to police investigations. In R. Rogers & D. W. Shuman, Fundamentals of forensic practice: Mental health and criminal law (pp. 113–149). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., Drogin, E. Y., & Fiduccia, C. E. (2012). Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities (SAMA) professional manual. Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  39. Rogers, R., Steadham, J. A., Carter, R. M., Henry, S. A., Drogin, E. Y., & Robinson, E. V. (2016). An examination of juveniles’ Miranda abilities: Investigating differences in Miranda recall and reasoning. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 34, 515–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rogers, R., Tillbrook, C. E., & Sewell, K. W. (2004). Evaluation of Competency to Stand Trial-Revised (ECST-R) and professional manual. Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  41. Sharf, A. J., Rogers, R., & Williams, M. M. (2017). Reasoning your way out of Miranda rights: How juvenile detainees relinquish their Fifth Amendment protections. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3, 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smalarz, L., Scherr, K. C., & Kassin, S. M. (2016). Miranda at 50: A psychological analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 455–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Søndenaa, E., Rasmussen, K., Palmstierna, T., & Nøttestad, J. A. (2010). The usefulness of assessing suggestibility and compliance in prisoners with unidentified intellectual disabilities. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 434–438.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Thorley, C. (2013). Memory conformity and suggestibility. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19, 565–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weijters, B., Geuens, M., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The stability of individual response styles. Psychological Methods, 15, 96–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wetzel, E., & Carstensen, C. H. (2017). Multidimensional modeling of traits and response styles. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 33, 352–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Willard, J., & Burger, C. (2018). Willingness to falsely take blame among friends: Closeness, reporting wrongdoing, and identity. Deviant Behavior, 39, 981–991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Winkler, J. D., Kanouse, D. E., & Ware, J. E. (1982). Controlling for acquiescence response set in scale development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 555–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Winningham, D. B., Rogers, R., Drogin, E. Y., & Velsor, S. F. (in press). Missing out on Miranda: Investigating Miranda comprehension and waiver decisions in adult inpatients. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry.Google Scholar
  50. Woolston, R., Bain, S. A., & Baxter, J. S. (2006). Patterns of malingering and compliance in measures of interrogative suggestibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 453–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yang, Y., Guyll, M., & Madon, S. (2017). The interrogation decision-making model: A general theoretical framework for confessions. Law and Human Behavior, 41, 80–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Rogers
    • 1
  • Eric Y. Drogin
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of North TexasDentonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychiatryHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations