Videotaped interrogations and confessions: A simple change in camera perspective alters verdicts in simulated trials

Journal of Applied Psychology

Volumn 87, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 867-874

  Lassiter, G Daniel ^a   Geers, Andrew L ^b   Handley, Ian M ^a   Weiland, Paul E ^a   Munhall, Patrick J ^a  

^a OHIO UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0036799660     PISSN: 00219010     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.867     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Arkin, R., & Duval, S. (1975). Focus of attention and causal attributions of actor and observers. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11, 427-438.
2. Bornstein, B.H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91.
3. Cassell, P.G. (1996). All benefits, no costs: The grand illusion of Miranda's defenders. Northwestern University Law Review, 90, 1084-1124.
4. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Diamond, S.S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561-571.
6. Dwyer, J., Neufeld, P., & Scheck, B. (2000). Actual innocence: Five days to execution and other dispatches from the wrongly convicted. New York: Doubleday.
7. Feild, H.S., & Barnett, N.J. (1978). Simulated jury trials: Students vs. "real" people as jurors. Journal of Social Psychology, 104, 287-293.
8. Geller, W.A. (1992). Police videotaping of suspect interrogations and confessions: A preliminary examination of issues and practices (A report to the National Institute of Justice). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
9. Gudjonsson, G. (1992). The psychology of interrogations, confessions and testimony. Chichester, England: Wiley.
10. Horowitz, I.A., & Willging, T.E. (1984). The psychology of law: Integrations and applications. Boston: Little, Brown.
11. Johnson, G. (1997). False confessions and fundamental fairness: The need for electronic recording of custodial interrogations. Boston University Public Interest Law Journal, 6, 719-751.
12. Kassin, S.M. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence. American Psychologist, 52, 221-233.
13. Kassin, S.M., & Kiechel, K.L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: Compliance, internalization, and confabulation. Psychological Science, 7, 125-128.
14. 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.
15. Kassin, S.M., & Wrightsman, L.S. (1979). On the requirements of proof: The timing of judicial instruction and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1877-1887.
16. Kassin, S.M., & Wrightsman, L.S. (1981). Coerced confessions, judicial instruction, and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 489-506.
17. Kassin, S.M., & Wrightsman, L.S. (1985). Confession evidence. In S.M. Kassin & L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.), The psychology of evidence and trial procedure (pp. 67-94). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
18. Kerr, N.L. (1978). Severity of prescribed penalty and mock jurors' verdicts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1431-1442.
19. Lassiter, G.D., Beers, M.J., Geers, A.L., Handley, I.M., Munhall, P.J., & Weiland, P.E. (in press). Further evidence for a robust point-of-view bias in videotaped confessions. Current Psychology.
20. Lassiter, G.D., Beers, M.J., Geers, A.L., & Munhall, P.J. (2001). [Which camera perspective leads to more accurate evaluations of videotaped confessions?]. Unpublished raw data.
21. 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 socialpsychology (Vol. 33, pp. 189-254). New York: Academic Press.
22. 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.
23. Lassiter, G.D., Munhall, P.J., Geers, A.L., Handley, I.M., & Weiland, P.E. (2001). Criminal confessions on videotape: Does camera perspective bias their perceived veracity? Current Research in Social Psychology, 7, 1-10. Retrieved August 8, 2002, from http://www.uiowa.edu/̃grpproc.
24. Lassiter, G.D., Munhall, P.J., Geers, A.L., Weiland, P.E., & Handley, I.M. (2001). Accountability and the camera perspective bias in videotaped confessions. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 1, 53-70.
25. 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.
26. Leo, R.A. (1996). The impact of Miranda revisited. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 621-692.
27. 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.
28. MacCoun, R.J. (1989). Experimental research on jury decision-making. Science, 244, 1046-1050.
29. McArthur, L.Z. (1981). What grabs yon? 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.
30. McCormick, C.T. (1972). Handbook of the law of evidence (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.
31. Pratkanis, A.R., & Aronson, E. (1991). Age of propaganda: The everyday use and abuse of persuasion. New York: Freeman.
32. Ross, L. (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.
33. Storms, M.D. (1973). Videotape and the attribution process: Reversing actors' and observers' points of view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 165-175.
34. 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.
35. Visher, C.A. (1987). Juror decision making: The importance of evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 1-17.
36. Wigmore, J.H. (1970). Evidence (Vol. 3; revised by J.H. Chadbourn). Boston: Little, Brown.
37. Wolf, S., & Montgomery, D.A. (1977). Effects of inadmissible evidence and level of judicial admonishment to disregard on the judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 205-219.