Evidence of the camera perspective bias in authentic videotaped interrogations: Implications for emerging reform in the criminal justice system

Legal and Criminological Psychology

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 157-170

  Lassiter, G Daniel ^a   Ware, Lezlee J ^a   Ratcliff, Jennifer J ^b   Irvin, Clinton R ^a  

^a OHIO UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDIO RECORDING; CAMERA; CONTROLLED STUDY; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GUILT; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; INTERVIEW BIAS; LAW ENFORCEMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; OFFENDER; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; VIDEORECORDING; VOLUNTARY REPORTING;

EID: 67649996690     PISSN: 13553259     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1348/135532508X284293     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91.
2. Bray, R. M., & Kerr, N. L. (1979). Use of the simulation method in the study of jury behavior: Some methodological considerations. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 107-119.
3. 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. 287-323). New York: Academic Press.
4. DePaulo, B. M., Lanier, K., & Davis, T. (1983). Detecting the deceit of the motivated liar. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1096-1103.
5. DePaulo, B. M., & Pfeifer, R. L. (1986). On-the-job experience and skill at detecting deception. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 249-267.
6. DePaulo, B. M., Stone, J. I., & Lassiter, G. D. (1985). Telling ingratiating lies: Effects of target sex and target attractiveness on verbal and nonverbal deceptive success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1191-1203.
7. Diamond, S. S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561-571.
8. Dwyer, J., Neufeld, P., & Scheck, B. (2000). Actual innocence: Five days to execution and other dispatches from the wrongly convicted. New York: Doubleday.
9. 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.
10. Innocence Project (n.d.). Retrieved May 10, 2007, from http://www.innocenceproject.org/
11. Kassin, S. M. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence. American Psychologist, 52, 221-233.
12. 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.
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., & McNall, K. (1991). Police interrogations and confessions: Communicating promises and threats by pragmatic implication. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 233-251.
15. Lassiter, G. D. (2002). Illusory causation in the courtroom. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 204-208.
16. Lassiter, G. D. (Ed.). (2004). Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment. New York: Kluwer Academic.
17. Lassiter, G. D., Beers, M. J., Geers, A. L., Handley, I. M., Munhall, P. J., & Weiland, P. E. (2002). Further evidence of a robust point-of-view bias in videotaped confessions. Current Psychology, 21, 265-288.
18. Lassiter, G. D., Diamond, S. S., Schmidt, H. C., & Elek, J. K. (2007). Evaluating videotaped confessions: Expertise provides no defense against the camera perspective effect. Psychological Science, 18, 224-226.
19. Lassiter, G. D., & Geers, A. L. (2004). Bias and accuracy in the evaluation of confession evidence. In G. D. Lassiter (Ed.), Interrogations, confessions and entrapment (pp. 197-214). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.
20. Lassiter, G. D., Geers, A. L., Handley, I. M., Weiland, P. E., & Munhall, P. J. (2002). Videotaped interrogations and confessions: A simple change in camera perspective alters verdicts in simulated trials. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 867-874.
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 social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 189-254). New York: Academic press.
22. Lassiter, G. D., Geers, A. L., Munhall, P. J., Ploutz-Snyder, R. J., & Breitenbecher, D. L. (2002). Illusory causation: Why it occurs. Psychological Science, 13, 299-305.
23. 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.
24. Lassiter, G. D., Munhall, P. J., Berger, I. P., Weiland, P. E., Handley, I. M., & Geers, A. L. (2005). Attributional complexity and the camera perspective bias in videotaped confessions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 27-35.
25. 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.
26. Lassiter, G. D., Ratcliff, J. J., Ware, L. J., & Irvin, C. R. (2006). Videotaped confessions: Panacea or Pandora's box? Law and Policy, 28, 192-210.
27. 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.
28. Leo, R. A. (2004). The third degree and the origins of psychological interrogation in the United States. In G. D. Lassiter (Ed.), Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment (pp. 37-84). New York: Kluwer Academic.
29. 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. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 429-496.
30. Mann, S., & Vrij, A. (2006). Police officers' judgements of veracity, tenseness, cognitive load and attempted behavioural control in real-life police interviews. Psychology, Crime and Law, 12, 307-319.
31. Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: Police officers' ability to detect suspects' lies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 137-149.
32. McArthur, L. Z. (1980). Illusory causation and illusory correlation: Two epistemological accounts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 507-519.
33. 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.
34. Meissner, C. A., & Kassin, S. M. (2002). 'He's guilty!': Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 469-480.
35. Russano, M. B., Meissner, C. A., Narchet, F. M., & Kassin, S. M. (2005). Investigating true and false confessions within a novel experimental paradigm. Psychological Science, 16, 481-486.
36. Sullivan, T. P. (2004). Police experiences with recording custodial interrogations. Chicago, IL: Northwestern University School of Law, Center on Wrongful Convictions.
37. Sullivan, T. P. (2005). Electronic recording of custodial interrogations: Everybody wins. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 95, 1127-1144.
38. Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomenon. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 249-288). New York: Academic Press.
39. Wells, G. L., & Windschitl, P. D. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1115-1125.