Camera perspective and trivial details interact to influence jurors' evaluations of a retracted confession

Psychology, Crime and Law

Volumn 16, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 493-506

  Warner, Todd C ^a   Pickel, Kerri L ^b  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BALL STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Amount of detail; Camera perspective; Confessions; Juror decision making

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954264106     PISSN: 1068316X     EISSN: 14772744     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10683160902926158     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. American Bar Association (n.d.). Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project. Retrieved 19 May 2008, from http://www.abanet.org/moratorium/
2. Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
3. Bell, B.E., & Loftus, E.F. (1988). Degree of detail of eyewitness testimony and mock juror judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1172-1192.
4. Bell, B.E., & Loftus, E.F. (1989). Trivial persuasion in the courtroom: The power of (a few) minor details. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 669-679.
5. Bruck, M., & Ceci, S.J. (1999). The suggestibility of children's memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 419-439.
6. Ceci, S.J., & Bruck, M. (1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom: A scientific analysis of children's testimony. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
7. Drizin, S.A., & Leo, R.A. (2004). The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. North Carolina Law Review, 82, 891-1007.
8. Innocence Project (n.d.). Causes of wrongful convictions by state. Retrieved 19 May 2008, from http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php
9. Johnson, M.K., Bush, J.G., & Mitchell, K.J. (1998). Interpersonal reality monitoring: Judging the sources of other people's memories. Social Cognition, 16, 199-224.
10. Johnson, M.K., Foley, M.A., Suengas, A.G., & Raye, C.L. (1988). Phenomenal characteristics of memories for perceived and imagined autobiographical events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 371-376.
11. Johnson, M.K., Hashtroudi, S.H., & Lindsay, D.S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 3-28.
12. Johnson, M.K., & Raye, C.L. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review, 88, 67-85.
13. Kassin, S.M. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence. American Psychologist, 52, 221-233.
14. Kassin, S.M. (2008). False confessions: Causes, consequences, and implications for reform. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 249-253.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Keogh, L., & Markham, R. (1998). Judgements of other people's memory reports: Differences in reports as a function of imagery vividness. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12, 159-171.
20. Lassiter, G.D. (2002). Illusory causation in the courtroom. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 204-208.
21. 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: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 21, 265-288.
22. 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.
23. 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.
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. Leippe, M.R., Manion, A.P., & Romanczyk, A. (1992). Eyewitness persuasion: How and how well do fact finders judge the accuracy of adults' and children's memory reports? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 181-197.
27. MacKinnon, D.P., Fritz, M.S., Williams, J., & Lockwood, C.M. (2007). Distribution of the product confidence limits for the indirect effect: Program PRODCLIN. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 384-389.
28. Pearse, J., Gudjonsson, G.H., Clare, I.C.H., & Rutter, S. (1998). Police interviewing and psychological vulnerabilities: Predicting the likelihood of a confession. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 8, 1-21.
29. Reyes, R.M., Thompson, W.C., & Bower, G.H. (1980). Judgmental biases resulting from differing availabilities of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 2-12.
30. Schooler, J.W., Gerhard, D., & Loftus, E.F. (1986). Qualities of the unreal. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 171-181.
31. Shedler, J., & Manis, M. (1986). Can the availability heuristic explain vividness effects? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 26-36.
32. Sigurdsson, J.F., & Gudjonsson, G.H. (1996). Psychological characteristics of 'false confessors': A study among Icelandic prison inmates and juvenile offenders. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 321-329.
33. 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.
34. Ware, L.J., Lassiter, G.D., Patterson, S.M., & Ransom, M.R. (2008). Camera perspective bias in videotaped confessions: Evidence that visual attention is a mediator. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 192-200.