Archives

Uncategorized — 1 Comment
13
Oct 21

The Real Danger of False Confessions

Would you ever confess to doing something you didn’t actually do? Sure, maybe there are a few specific situations where you might falsely confess to something, like if you are trying to cover for a friend or you just want to move on from a situation. But what if the confession leads to years in prison? Surely no one would make a false confession when it has lifelong consequences, right? Unfortunately, that is not the case. As discussed by Leo (2009), despite the difficulty of definitively proving a criminal confession was false, previous research has found about 300 proven cases of false confessions. However, there are likely many more unproven false confessions that plague our criminal justice system. On the surface, false confessions seem to make no logical sense. After all, why would anyone confess to a crime they didn’t commit?

It may help to consider what the experience of being interrogated is like. Interrogations are not like friendly conversations you have with friends and acquaintances. It can be terrifying to have police officers ask you so many questions at once, especially if you are innocent and have no idea what is going on. The Innocence Project (2021) lists several factors that lead to false confessions, including intimidation or use of force by law enforcement, fear, stress, exhaustion, and even downright devious interrogation techniques. The interrogation process puts a lot of pressure on people, regardless of whether they are innocent or not. Most people do not want to go to prison for a crime they did not commit, but if the interrogation pushes them far beyond their breaking point, they may just falsely confess to finally get it over with. Unfortunately, these false confessions can bias the entire process against an innocent person.

Some may argue that false confessions would be corrected by the process. After all, if a confession is truly false, the evidence would reveal that during a trial, wouldn’t it? Given that the investigation, analysis of evidence, and trial were done very carefully, they may be able to weed out a false confession. However, as discussed by Gruman, Schneider, & Coutts (2017), confessions often cause forensic confirmation biases in the investigation process as people tend to look for or provide evidence consistent with the confession while ignoring or “discouraging” contradictory evidence (pg. 301). To investigators, the confession may serve as the narrative of how the crime happened. They may search for evidence that helps them reconstruct the scene as it was described in the confession. This does not bode well for an innocent person falsely confessing to a crime, as investigators may find new evidence and interpret it in a way that seems to prove that the innocent person did the crime. Even if they wanted to retract their false confession later, the “evidence” of that confession would still put them at a serious disadvantage in the final trial.

Could juries see through false confessions and spare an innocent life from prison or worse? They could if they were cognizant of the possibility that a confession was not genuine and carefully examined the conditions of the confession. Unfortunately, people tend to have trouble looking at the external factors of behavior. As discussed by Gruman et al. (2017), juries are prone to the fundamental attribution error, the human tendency to attribute behaviors more to internal factors and not enough external influences, when a confession is presented during a trial. (pg. 301) When someone confesses, jurors only focus on the suspect and assume that they were the sole factor in their own decision to confess. They may visualize the confession as the image viewed above this paragraph. Jurors may fail to consider the context of the interrogation environment or the possibility of the suspect being coerced into a confession, as visualized below. If a jury is unaware of the possibility of false confessions, then there is very little chance, if any, of them being able to save an innocent life from their own false confession.

Jason Stout (2014)

False confessions are a real concern in the criminal justice system. Research has proven that they do happen, possibly because of coercive interrogation tactics, and that they can bias both the investigation and the trial against an innocent person. Not only does it likely result in an innocent person being thrown in prison for something they didn’t do, but it also means that the real perpetrator gets away with their crime unpunished! What can we do about it? In regards to the investigation process, it might help to separate the law enforcement officials who interrogate suspects from those who are interviewing witnesses and gathering evidence for as long as possible. It might make the investigation take a little longer, but it would help prevent false confessions from biasing the rest of the investigation and leading investigators away from the true offender. In terms of the trial, it might help to describe how the interrogation leading up to a confession was conducted or show the jury a video of the room during the interrogation. Directing their attention to the situation may help a jury overcome the fundamental attribution error and carefully consider whether an interrogation could have forced a confession out of an innocent person. These changes can help reduce the impact a false confession has on the entire process and can potentially save innocent people from going behind bars for crimes that they never committed.

 

References

Gruman, J. A., Schneider, F. W., & Coutts, L. M. (2017). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Los Angeles: SAGE.

Innocence Project. (2021, May 25). False Confessions & Recording Of Custodial Interrogations. Retrieved from https://innocenceproject.org/false-confessions-recording-interrogations/

Leo, R. A. (2009). False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 37(3), 332-343. Retrieved from http://jaapl.org/content/37/3/332

Stout, J. (2014, April 25). [A suspect manipulated into a false confession]. Retrieved from https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2014-04-25/when-confessions-prove-false/

Uncategorized — No Comments
12
Oct 21

Are Police “Gut Instincts” All They’re Cracked Up To Be?

Learning that suspects can give false information whilst being interrogated, incriminating themselves, and leading to innocent people being wrongfully convicted of crimes was quite disturbing. It made me wonder why police officers are not better at distinguishing truth from fiction, innocence from guilt. Surely they are trained in ways to detect deception? Or is it true that they rely on intuition and gut instincts as much as television shows would have us believe? Even then, after many years on the job, surely their intuition must work; they must have developed ways to distinguish between truth and lies? But then, why are so many innocent people mistakenly charged with crimes? My research into this was really surprising because the short answer is that police officers believe that they are accurate at detecting deception, but they actually are not.

I would say that most of us believe that we would know when someone was lying to us. However, experiments consistently show that our ability to accurately judge truth or deception is no better than chance level (Kassin, 2005, p.217). Studies found that training in reliable deception techniques only takes those accuracy levels to slightly above chance. Interestingly, they also found that police investigators are often no more accurate than regular people in detecting deception. (Bartol & Bartol, 2019, p.102). However, investigators are extremely confident in their own ability to tell who is telling the truth or not. This confidence comes from a combination of their years of experience and from specialized training that says it will increase their accuracy in detecting deception (Bartol & Bartol, 2019, p.99). Research found that this training only improves their accuracy to a just-better-than-chance odds. But what the training did do was increase their self-belief in their ability to detect deception…a dangerous combination.

In one study, Kassin and colleagues recruited male prisoners to videotape two confessions to crimes (Kassin, 2005, p.223). One confession was for the crime they were imprisoned for, the other was a false confession for another inmate’s crime. When college students and police investigators judged the videos neither group had high levels of accuracy though the students were slightly higher, but the police investigators were much more confident in their answers. Also, the police investigators’ levels of false alarms – thinking a false confession was true – were significantly higher than the students’. So, the investigators had lower accuracy than college students, but significantly higher confidence, and a response bias toward deception (Kassin, 2005, p.217) … not a great mix if we are trying to prevent innocent people from being wrongly convicted.

Is there training that does improve deception detection? Deception involves three basic processes; emotion, behavioral control, and cognitive load (Bartol & Bartol, 2019, p.102). The Reid technique that most police in the US are taught relies strongly on behavioral patterns as evidence of deception. However, research has found that these are not actually reliable cues as good liars can easily control their behaviors (Bartol & Bartol, 2019, p.102). Research has found that a better way to make lying difficult is to increase an interviewee’s cognitive load. When someone is lying, it takes a lot of cognitive effort so increasing the cognitive load makes it much more difficult for lying interviewees to maintain their stories. Studies using this technique found that it produces much higher accuracy rates of detecting deception (Bartol & Bartol, 2019, p.103). Another thing that I feel would help is for police investigators to be taught about the studies mentioned above and to learn just how inaccurate their gut instincts can be. This way perhaps police investigators will be less confident in their ability to detecting lying and more cautious about presuming someone is guilty. This way, hopefully, fewer innocent people will be charged with crimes.

References:

Bartol, C. R., & Bartol, A. M. (2019). Introduction to forensic psychology: Research and application. SAGE Publications, Inc.

Kassin, S. M. (2005). On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence put innocents at risk? American Psychologist, 60(3), 215-228.

 

Uncategorized — 3 Comments
16
Sep 17

Using Cognitive Dissonance Without Knowing It: How Pictures of Animals Increased Recycling

My family has always believed in the importance of recycling in order to reduce waste and conserve our natural resources.  Growing up, both my sister and I assumed that most people shared these beliefs.  However, when she moved in with her fiancé (now husband), she learned that he, generally, did not recycle.  Incensed by this, my sister devised a plan to encourage him to participate in this environmentally friendly behavior.  Knowing that he has a soft spot for animals, my sister began to look up pictures of animals swimming through trash-filled water or harmed by coming into contact with garbage (i.e. heads or fins stuck through plastic soda holders).  She then told him how much of the trash causing the problems in these photos was recyclable and that many of these problems could be prevented.  Appalled by this new knowledge, my brother-in-law began recycling and now recycles regularly.  As my sister explained this method, I realized that, without even knowing it, she was using a form of cognitive dissonance to get him to change his behaviors.

Cognitive dissonance theory, as proposed by Leon Festinger in 1957, centers on the idea that people strive to maintain consistency across their opinions, attitudes, values, and knowledge, also known as their cognitions.  When this consistency is not maintained and two cognitions are in conflict with one another, it is unpleasant.  People attempt to reduce this unpleasantness by changing or devaluing one of the cognitions or adding a new cognition (Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts, 2012).  This theory has been shown to be remarkably effective in getting people to adopt more environmentally sound practices.  In one notable study, Dickerson, Thibodeau, Aronson, and Miller (1992) were able to encourage people to take significantly shorter showers, and thereby conserve water, by reminding them of past wasteful behavior and pairing this with a public commitment that implored others to take shorter showers.  The pairing of the negative past behaviors with the public commitment aroused dissonance in the subjects of this study which, in turn, motivated them to use less water, themselves.  In the case of my brother-in-law and his recycling behavior, my sister was utilizing a similar technique, though not exactly on purpose.

Without even realizing it, my sister was inducing dissonance in her husband.  He views himself as an animal lover and cares greatly about all different types of creatures.  By showing him pictures of animals harmed by a behavior in which he participates, my sister was creating conflicting cognitions within her husband.  He cares about animals, but is participating in behaviors that harm them.  In order to reduce this dissonance, my brother-in-law had to change one of his cognitions, in this case, his recycling behavior.  By now recycling, his cognitions have regained consistency and the unpleasantness of the dissonance was reduced.

Seeing how effective cognitive dissonance can be in inducing desired behaviors, on both large and small scales, is fascinating.  Dickerson et al.’s (1992) study is a great example of how inducing hypocrisy through cognitive dissonance in many people can be an effective mechanism in getting them to adopt environmentally friendly behaviors, while my sister’s use of animal pictures with her husband illustrates a simple cognitive dissonance technique that was similarly effective.  Overall, it seems that exploiting this principle is an ideal method for changing behaviors and should continue to be explored as the adoption of eco-friendly behaviors takes on increasingly great importance.

 

References

Dickerson, C.A., Thibodeau, R., Aronson, E., & Miller, D. (1992). Using cognitive dissonance to encourage water conservation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22. 841-854.

 

Schneider, F. W., Gruman, J. A., & Coutts, L. M. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understand and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Skip to toolbar