RT Article
T1 Inconsistencies undermine the credibility of confession evidence
JF Legal and criminological psychology
VO 21
IS 1
SP 161
OP 173
A1 Palmer, Matthew A.
A2 Button, Lizzie
A2 Barnett, Emily
A2 Brewer, Neil
LA English
YR 2016
UL https://krimdok.uni-tuebingen.de/Record/1846939887
AB 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.
NO Literaturverzeichnis: Seite 171-173
NO Gesehen am 30.05.2023
NO First published: 20 February 2014
K1 Coercion
K1 Confession
K1 discounting
K1 incosistencies
K1 juror decisions
DO 10.1111/lcrp.12048