Bluffed by the dealer: Distinguishing false pleas from false confessions

Thumbnail Image
Date
2014-01-01
Authors
Wilford, Miko
Major Professor
Advisor
Gary L. Wells
Jason C. Chan
Committee Member
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Authors
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Organizational Unit
Psychology
The Department of Psychology may prepare students with a liberal study, or for work in academia or professional education for law or health-services. Graduates will be able to apply the scientific method to human behavior and mental processes, as well as have ample knowledge of psychological theory and method.
Journal Issue
Is Version Of
Versions
Series
Department
Psychology
Abstract

The United States convicts over one million people of felonies each year without affording the resources of a trial. Instead, these convictions are attained in plea bargains. The current research investigated potential differences between pleas and confessions to determine whether new experimental research on plea-bargaining is warranted, or whether the research on false confessions can be extended to pleas as well. Given the exploratory nature of this work, multiple theoretically-relevant variables were measured so that multiple potential differences between pleas and confessions could be explored. The study employed a 2 (innocent or guilty) x 2 (plea or confession) x 2 (evidence-bluff or no-bluff) between-participants design. Participants were recruited for a study described as examining problem solving. Once at the lab, all participants were paired with a confederate posing as another participant. The participant and confederate were asked to complete problems both independently (individual) and together (team). Guilty participants were asked to provide help on one of the individual problems by the confederate. Innocent participants were never asked for help. All participants were later accused of cheating on an individual problem. Participants in confession conditions were then asked to sign a statement admitting guilt. Participants in plea conditions were asked to sign a statement agreeing to work 20 hours in the research lab in exchange for dropping the accusation. Participants in evidence-bluff conditions were told that a video camera recorded the problem-solving phase of the study and could reveal whether cheating actually occurred. The theoretically-relevant individual difference variables did not consistently differentiate pleas from confessions. A hypothesized interaction between the evidence-bluff and plea-confession conditions on acceptance outcomes did not materialize either. Nevertheless, some evidence emerged indicating that pleas and confessions might involve different processes. Specifically, innocent participants gave different reasons for refusing to sign a plea statement than they did for refusing to sign a confession statement. Similarly, the plea and confession conditions prompted guilty participants to provide significantly different reasons for agreeing to sign the statement. In conclusion, the current research provides support for a new line of research on plea-bargaining.

Comments
Description
Keywords
Citation
DOI
Source
Subject Categories
Copyright
Wed Jan 01 00:00:00 UTC 2014