Videotaped interrogations and confessions: A simple change in camera perspective alters verdicts in simulated trials.
- 1 January 2002
- journal article
- Published by American Psychological Association (APA) in Journal of Applied Psychology
- Vol. 87 (5), 867-874
- https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.867
Abstract
Prior research has indicated that altering the perspective from which a videotaped confession is recorded influences assessments of the confession's voluntariness. The authors examined whether this camera perspective bias persists in more ecologically valid contexts. In Study 1, neither a realistic videotaped trial simulation nor potentially corrective judicial instruction was sufficient to mitigate the prejudicial effect of camera perspective on mock jurors' assessments of voluntariness or on their all-important final verdicts. Study 2 suggests that perhaps the best camera perspective to use is one that focuses trial fact finders' attention on the interrogator, as this particular vantage point may facilitate decision makers' capacity to detect coercive influences, which in turn could, in some cases, improve assessments of the confession's reliability.Keywords
This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- Accountability and the Camera Perspective Bias in Videotaped ConfessionsAnalyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2001
- The Consequences of False Confessions: Deprivations of Liberty and Miscarriages of Justice in the Age of Psychological InterrogationThe Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 1998
- Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations.Law and Human Behavior, 1997
- The Social Psychology of False Confessions: Compliance, Internalization, and ConfabulationPsychological Science, 1996
- The Potential for Bias in Videotaped Confessions1Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1992
- Experimental Research on Jury Decision-MakingScience, 1989
- Juror decision making: The importance of evidence.Law and Human Behavior, 1987
- On the requirements of proof: The timing of judicial instruction and mock juror verdicts.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979
- Severity of prescribed penalty and mock jurors' verdicts.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978
- Effects of Inadmissible Evidence and Level of Judicial Admonishment to Disregard on the Judgments of Mock Jurors1Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1977