|
|
|
|
| LEADER |
00000cam a22000002c 4500 |
| 001 |
1866324764 |
| 003 |
DE-627 |
| 005 |
20250115054912.0 |
| 007 |
cr uuu---uuuuu |
| 008 |
231019s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c |
| 035 |
|
|
|a (DE-627)1866324764
|
| 035 |
|
|
|a (DE-599)KXP1866324764
|
| 040 |
|
|
|a DE-627
|b ger
|c DE-627
|e rda
|
| 041 |
|
|
|a eng
|
| 084 |
|
|
|a 2,1
|2 ssgn
|
| 100 |
1 |
|
|a Yang, Yueran
|e VerfasserIn
|4 aut
|
| 245 |
1 |
0 |
|a To deny or to confess: An interrogation decision-making model
|
| 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
|
| 520 |
|
|
|a This dissertation seeks to explain suspects’ decision-making processes within the context of a custodial interrogation by presenting a new model of confessions referred to as the interrogation decision-making model. The model proposes that suspects’ decision-making process can be analyzed at two different levels—a micro-level process and a macro-level process. Drawing on expected utility theory (Edwards, 1962; Shoemaker, 1982; Von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1944), the micro-level process of the model introduces a mathematical framework to explain the psychological mechanisms underlying suspects’ single interrogation decision at a certain point in time. The macro-level process of the model describes the dynamic nature of suspects’ multiple interrogation decisions throughout an interrogation. These two processes jointly explain suspects’ decisions to deny or confess guilt during a custodial interrogation. This dissertation also describes two experimental studies that tested key predictions generated by the model. Experiment 1 (N = 205) tested the prediction that suspects decide whether to deny or confess guilt on the basis of a proximal outcome’s perceived desirability, or in terms of the model, its perceived utility. Experiment 2 (N = 158) tested the prediction that suspects decide whether to deny or confess guilt on the basis of a distal outcome’s perceived utility. The results of the experiments were mixed. Whereas the utility of a proximal outcome did not significantly influence participants’ admissions and denials of prior misconduct, the utility of a distal outcome did. These findings provide partial support for the model by showing that a critical factor affecting suspects’ decision-making is the perceived utility of distal outcomes
|
| 856 |
4 |
0 |
|u https://core.ac.uk/download/141671329.pdf
|x Verlag
|z kostenfrei
|3 Volltext
|
| 935 |
|
|
|a mkri
|
| 951 |
|
|
|a BO
|
| ELC |
|
|
|a 1
|
| LOK |
|
|
|0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500
|
| LOK |
|
|
|0 001 4392970493
|
| LOK |
|
|
|0 003 DE-627
|
| LOK |
|
|
|0 004 1866324764
|
| LOK |
|
|
|0 005 20231019043656
|
| LOK |
|
|
|0 008 231019||||||||||||||||ger|||||||
|
| LOK |
|
|
|0 035
|a (DE-2619)CORE46035117
|
| 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
|
| LOK |
|
|
|0 935
|a core
|
| OAS |
|
|
|a 1
|
| ORI |
|
|
|a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw
|
