This study investigates how judgments of guilt are influenced by factual errors in confessions that either amplify or downplay the severity of the crime. Participants read a confession statement and police report in which either the confession was consistent with the police report, the suspect admitted to a worse crime or the suspect admitted to a lesser crime. Mediation analyses showed that, compared to consistent confessions, both types of directional errors reduced judgments of guilt. Inconsistencies that made the suspect look better – but not those that made the suspect look worse –also increased judgments of guilt via a direct effect. Confessions that contain errors that appear to exaggerate the severity of the crime prompt no higher judgments of suspect guilt; however, errors in confessions that are perceived to downplay the severity of the crime can prompt an increased perception of suspect guilt compared to a consistent confession.

Item Type:	Refereed Article
Keywords:	attribution theory, false confession, juror decision-making, inconsistencies, wrongful conviction
Research Division:	Psychology
Research Group:	Applied and developmental psychology
Research Field:	Forensic psychology
Objective Division:	Expanding Knowledge
Objective Group:	Expanding knowledge
Objective Field:	Expanding knowledge in psychology
UTAS Author:	Palmer, MA (Associate Professor Matt Palmer)
ID Code:	143206
Year Published:	2020
Deposited By:	Psychology
Deposited On:	2021-03-05
Last Modified:	2021-05-26
Downloads:	0