Confessions that corrupt: Evidence from the dna exoneration case files

Psychological Science

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 41-45

  Kassin, Saul M ^a   Bogart, Daniel ^b   Kerner, Jacqueline ^c  

^a JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

legal confession; legal processes; social influences; social perception

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855494908     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: 14679280     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0956797611422918     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Balcetis E.,Dunning D.See what you want to see: Motivational influences on visual perception.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2006;91:612-625.
2. Bressan P.,Dal Martello M. F.Talis pater, talis filius: Perceived resemblance and the belief in genetic relatedness.Psychological Science. 2002;13:213-218.
3. Bruner J. S.,Minturn A. L.Perceptual identification and perceptual organization.Journal of General Psychology. 1955;53:21-28.
4. Bugelski B. R.,Alampay D. A.The role of frequency in developing perceptual sets.Canadian Journal of Psychology. 1961;15:205-211.
5. Charman S. D.,Wells G. L.Can eyewitnesses correct for external influences on their lineup identifications? The actual/counterfactual assessment paradigm.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 2008;14:5-20.
6. Darley J.,Gross P. H.A hypothesis confirming bias in labeling effects.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1983;44:20-33.
7. Dror I. E.,Charlton D.,Peron A.Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications.Forensic Science International. 2006;156:74-78.
8. Dror I. E.,Cole S. A.The vision in "blind" justice: Expert perception, judgment, and visual cognition in forensic pattern recognition.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2010;17:161-167.
9. Elaad E.,Ginton A.,Ben-Shakhar G.The effects of prior expectations and outcome knowledge on polygraph examiners' decisions.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 1994;7:279-292.
10. Fisher G.Ambiguity of form: Old and new.Perception & Psychophysics. 1968;4:189-192.
11. Gabbert F.,Memon A.,Allan K.Memory conformity: Can eyewitnesses influence each other's memories for an event?.Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2003;17:533-543.
12. Greathouse S. M.,Kovera M. B.Instruction bias and lineup presentation moderate the effects of administrator knowledge on eyewitness identification.Law and Human Behavior. 2009;33:70-82.
13. Gudjonsson G. H.,Pearse J.Suspect interviews and false confessions.Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2011;20:33-37.
14. Hasel L. E.,Kassin S. M.On the presumption of evidentiary independence: Can confessions corrupt eyewitness identifications?.Psychological Science. 2009;20:122-126.
15. Henkel L. A.Jurors' reactions to recanted confessions: Do the defendant's personal and dispositional characteristics play a role?.Psychology, Crime & Law. 2008;14:565-578.
16. Henkel L. A.,Coffman K. A. J.,Dailey E. M.A survey of people's attitudes and beliefs about false confessions.Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 2008;26:555-584.
17. Kassin S. M.,Drizin S. A.,Grisso T.,Gudjonsson G. H.,Leo R. A.,Redlich A. D.Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations.Law and Human Behavior. 2010;34:49-52.
18. Kassin S. M.,Gudjonsson G. H.The psychology of confession evidence: A review of the literature and issues.Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2004;5:35-69.
19. Kassin S. M.,Sukel H.Coerced confessions and the jury: An experimental test of the "harmless error" rule.Law and Human Behavior. 1997;21:27-46.
20. Lange N. D.,Thomas R. P.,Dana J.,Dawes R. M.Contextual biases in the interpretation of auditory evidence.Law and Human Behavior.:.
21. Leeper R.A study of a neglected portion of the field of learning: The development of sensory organization.Journal of Genetic Psychology. 1935;46:41-75.
22. Leo R. A.,Liu B.What do potential jurors know about police interrogation techniques and false confessions?.Behavioral Sciences & the Law. 2009;27:381-399.
23. Levine T. R.,Kim R. K.,Blair J. P.(In)accuracy at detecting true and false confessions and denials: An initial test of a projected motive model of veracity judgments.Human Communication Research. 2010;36:81-101.
24. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009:.
25. Neuschatz J. S.,Lawson D. S.,Swanner J. K.,Meissner C. A.,Neuschatz J. S.The effects of accomplice witnesses and jailhouse informants on jury decision making.Law and Human Behavior. 2008;32:137-149.
26. Shaw J. S.,Garven S.,Wood J. M.Co-witness information can have immediate effects on eyewitness memory reports.Law and Human Behavior. 1997;5:503-521.
27. Skagerberg E. M.Co-witness feedback in line-ups.Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2007;21:489-497.
28. Wallace D. B.,Kassin S. M.Harmless error analysis: How do judges respond to confession errors?.Law and Human Behavior.:.
29. Wells G. L.,Memon A.,Penrod S. D.Eyewitness evidence: Improving its probative value.Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 2006;7:45-75.
30. Wells G. L.,Small M.,Penrod S.,Malpass R.,Fulero S.,Brimacombe C. A. E.Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads.Law and Human Behavior. 1998;22:603-647.