Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Inter-scorer reliability examines the extent to which independent raters produce similar results when provided with a person’s written responses. It is considered less stringent than interrater reliability, which requires independent raters both to record responses as well as to rate them.
- 2.
Questionable responses (“1”) were omitted, given the uncertainty about their Miranda reasoning.
- 3.
On pragmatic grounds, the validity of Miranda waivers are virtually never questioned unless the arrestee has provided damaging self-incrimination.
- 4.
Results of a PsychINFO search conducted on 6-30-18 yielded 3374 references.
- 5.
Social desirability was omitted from this section because it is less focused on police questioning.
- 6.
However, just because participants know the correct source (i.e., the story) does not necessarily rule-out compliance.
- 7.
In this Canadian case, the issues with the admissibility of his statement were similar to those encountered with Miranda waivers. Following expert witness testimony, the confession was excluded.
References
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/ethics-code-2017.pdf.
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.
Blackwood, H. L. (2013). Miranda reasoning and competent waiver decisions: Are models of legal decision making applicable? Unpublished dissertation, University of North Texas, Denton.
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.
Bonnie, R. J. (1992). The competence of criminal defendants: A theoretical reformulation. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 10, 291–316.
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.
Everington, C., & Fulero, S. M. (1999). Competence to confess: Measuring understanding and suggestibility of defendants with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 37, 212–220.
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.
Grisso, T. (1981). Juveniles’ waiver of rights: Legal and psychological competence. New York: Plenum.
Grisso, T. (1997). The competence of adolescents as trial defendants. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 3–32.
Grisso, T. (1998). Instruments for assessing understanding and appreciation of Miranda rights. Sarasota: Professional Resource Press.
Grisso, T. (2003). Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments (2nd ed.). New York: Kluwer Academic.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (1984). A new scale of interrogative suggestibility. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 303–314.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (1989). Compliance in an interrogative situation: A new scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 535–540.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (1991). The effects of intelligence and memory on group differences in suggestibility and compliance. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 503–505.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (1997). Gudjonsson suggestibility scales manual. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
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.
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.
Harrison, K. S. (2008). Totality of the circumstances: Factors affecting competence to waive Miranda rights. Unpublished dissertation, University of North Texas, Denton.
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.
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.
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.
Mastroberardino, S., & Marucci, F. S. (2013). Interrogative suggestibility: Was it just compliance or a genuine false memory? Legal and Criminological Psychology, 18, 274–286.
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.
Meyer, J. R., & Reppucci, N. D. (2007). Police practices and perceptions regarding juvenile interrogation and interrogative suggestibility. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 757–780.
Mueller, J., Kiernan, R., & Langston, J. W. (2007). Cognistat manual (The Neurobehavioral Cognitive Status Examination). Fairfax: The Northern California Neurobehavioral Group.
Münsterberg, H. (1915). Legal psychology. In Psychology: General and applied (pp. 395–412). New York: D. Appleton & Company.
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.
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.
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.
Rogers, R. (2012). Miranda Reasoning Measure (MRM). Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources.
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.
Rogers, R., & Drogin, E. Y. (2014). Mirandized statements: Successfully navigating the legal and psychological issues. Chicago: American Bar Association Publishing.
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.
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.
Rogers, R., & Shuman, D. W. (2000). Conducting insanity evaluations (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
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.
Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., Drogin, E. Y., & Fiduccia, C. E. (2012). Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities (SAMA) professional manual. Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources.
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.
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.
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.
Smalarz, L., Scherr, K. C., & Kassin, S. M. (2016). Miranda at 50: A psychological analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25, 455–460.
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.
Thorley, C. (2013). Memory conformity and suggestibility. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19, 565–575.
Weijters, B., Geuens, M., & Schillewaert, N. (2010). The stability of individual response styles. Psychological Methods, 15, 96–110.
Wetzel, E., & Carstensen, C. H. (2017). Multidimensional modeling of traits and response styles. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 33, 352–364.
Willard, J., & Burger, C. (2018). Willingness to falsely take blame among friends: Closeness, reporting wrongdoing, and identity. Deviant Behavior, 39, 981–991.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rogers, R., Drogin, E.Y. (2019). Decisional Process for Miranda Waivers and Self-Incriminations. In: Conducting Miranda Evaluations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13511-9_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13511-9_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-13510-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-13511-9
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)