Inconsistencies undermine the credibility of confession evidence
Purpose. Although inconsistencies undermine the credibility of evidence from a witness or victim, anecdotal evidence from many court cases suggests that they do not reduce the impact of confession evidence. This research provides the first empirical test of this idea by experimentally manipulating t...
| 1. VerfasserIn: | |
|---|---|
| Beteiligte: | ; ; |
| Medienart: | Elektronisch Aufsatz |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2016
|
| In: |
Legal and criminological psychology
Jahr: 2016, Band: 21, Heft: 1, Seiten: 161-173 |
| Online-Zugang: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Journals Online & Print: | Lade...
|
| Verfügbarkeit prüfen: | HBZ Gateway |
| Schlagwörter: |
MARC
| LEADER | 00000caa a2200000 c 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 1846939887 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230531155340.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230530s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1111/lcrp.12048 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)1846939887 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)KXP1846939887 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 084 | |a 2,1 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Palmer, Matthew A. |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Inconsistencies undermine the credibility of confession evidence |c Matthew A. Palmer, Lizzie Button, Emily Barnett and Neil Brewer |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2016 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Literaturverzeichnis: Seite 171-173 | ||
| 500 | |a Gesehen am 30.05.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a First published: 20 February 2014 | ||
| 520 | |a Purpose. Although inconsistencies undermine the credibility of evidence from a witness or victim, anecdotal evidence from many court cases suggests that they do not reduce the impact of confession evidence. This research provides the first empirical test of this idea by experimentally manipulating the consistency of confession evidence. Drawing on principles from attribution theory, we hypothesized that inconsistencies would undermine the credibility of confession evidence only when there was a salient, plausible alternative explanation (other than guilt) for why the defendant confessed. Methods. In two experiments (total N = 245), participants were presented with information about a crime, including a confession statement, and asked to act as jurors in a courtroom case. As well as manipulating whether the confession was consistent or inconsistent with verifiable facts of the crime, we manipulated whether there was a salient alternative explanation for the confession: specifically, the presence of coercion (2) or the desire to protect another suspect (5). Results. Inconsistencies influenced participants' verdicts regardless of whether an alternative explanation was made salient, such that inconsistent confessions resulted in fewer guilty verdicts than consistent confessions. Additional mediation analysis of the data from 5 suggested that these effects occurred, in part, because the presence of inconsistencies prompted participants to generate alternative explanations for why the defendant confessed (regardless of whether such explanations were salient in the available evidence). Conclusions. Contrary to the existing literature, these results indicate that inconsistencies can undermine the credibility of confession evidence. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Coercion | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Confession | |
| 650 | 4 | |a discounting | |
| 650 | 4 | |a incosistencies | |
| 650 | 4 | |a juror decisions | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Button, Lizzie |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Barnett, Emily |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Brewer, Neil |e VerfasserIn |0 (DE-588)1075934478 |0 (DE-627)834043882 |0 (DE-576)174703139 |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Legal and criminological psychology |d Hoboken, NJ [u.a.] : Wiley, 1996 |g 21(2016), 1, Seite 161-173 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)320441695 |w (DE-600)2005001-X |w (DE-576)090886615 |x 2044-8333 |7 nnas |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:21 |g year:2016 |g number:1 |g pages:161-173 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12048 |x Resolving-System |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lcrp.12048 |x Verlag |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| ELC | |a 1 | ||
| LOK | |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 | ||
| LOK | |0 001 4326900741 | ||
| LOK | |0 003 DE-627 | ||
| LOK | |0 004 1846939887 | ||
| LOK | |0 005 20230616154211 | ||
| LOK | |0 008 230530||||||||||||||||ger||||||| | ||
| LOK | |0 040 |a DE-2619 |c DE-627 |d DE-2619 | ||
| LOK | |0 092 |o n | ||
| LOK | |0 852 |a DE-2619 | ||
| LOK | |0 852 1 |9 00 | ||
| ORI | |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw | ||