The effects of variations in confession evidence and need for cognition on jurors’ decisions.

The objective of this article was to examine whether jurors consider the interrogation technique and source of consistent knowledge in judging the reliability of confession evidence. In 2 studies, participants read a trial summary in which the defendant’s confession was consistent versus inconsistent with case facts and evidence was withheld versus disclosed during the interrogation. In Study 2, we also examined for moderating effects of need for cognition (NC). Overall, participants were attuned to confession–case facts consistency in making decisions; furthermore, in Study 2, this effect interacted with evidence disclosure on a number of measures. If the confession was consistent, participants rated the strength of evidence and reliability of the confession higher, and impression of the interrogation more positively, when evidence was withheld during the interrogation rather than disclosed. NC did not moderate these effects. Overall, findings suggest participants are somewhat sensitive to variations in confession evidence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)
Source: Psychology, Public Policy, and Law - Category: Medical Law Source Type: research