1 Instructor: Kevin A. Strubler Office: DM 291 / DM 142A Office Hours: MW 3:30 – 4:30 pm or by appointment Email: [email protected](though I prefer you e-mail me through Blackboard) Phone: Psychology Main Office – (305) 348-2880 (for messages in case of emergency) Course Description: Social psychology is the study of an individual’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as he/she interacts with others. It is based on the principles of psychological science. Theories are examined through the scientific method. This course with examine several social psychological theories and the empirical research experiments supporting them. We will discuss the major topics in social psychology including persuasion, conformity, helping behavior, and aggression. Students should be prepared to think critically about each topic and to actively participate in class discussions. Successful completion of the course requires participation in class activities, completion of all assignments, and timely reading of assigned materials. Readings will be from the required text and supplemental articles and are due on the dates specified in the attached course schedule. At the end of the course, you will have a better understanding of the social interactions that you encounter on a daily basis. Learning Objectives: Upon completion of this course, you should be able to: 1. Describe both the primary findings within social psychology as well as the basic scientific methodology that was used to obtain those findings 2. Identify fundamental research methods in social psychology, including the development of research questions and hypotheses, measures and manipulations, etc. 3. Define basic social psychological terms and concepts 4. Critically analyze an empirical research article 5. Evaluate the role of the situation on an individual’s behavior Required Reading: Textbook Kenrick, D.T., Neuberg, S.L., & Cialdini, R.B. (2010). Social Psychology: Goals in Interaction (5 th Edition). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson. (We will skip the majority of the content in Chapters 13 & 14.) SOP 3004-U01: Social Psychology Fall 2010 CP 197 MWF 11:00 – 11:50am
Transcript
1
Instructor: Kevin A. Strubler Office: DM 291 / DM 142A Office Hours: MW 3:30 – 4:30 pm or by appointment Email: [email protected] (though I prefer you e-mail me through Blackboard) Phone: Psychology Main Office – (305) 348-2880 (for messages in case of emergency) Course Description: Social psychology is the study of an individual’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as he/she interacts with others. It is based on the principles of psychological science. Theories are examined through the scientific method. This course with examine several social psychological theories and the empirical research experiments supporting them. We will discuss the major topics in social psychology including persuasion, conformity, helping behavior, and aggression. Students should be prepared to think critically about each topic and to actively participate in class discussions. Successful completion of the course requires participation in class activities, completion of all assignments, and timely reading of assigned materials. Readings will be from the required text and supplemental articles and are due on the dates specified in the attached course schedule. At the end of the course, you will have a better understanding of the social interactions that you encounter on a daily basis. Learning Objectives:
Upon completion of this course, you should be able to:
1. Describe both the primary findings within social psychology as well as the basic scientific methodology that was used to obtain those findings
2. Identify fundamental research methods in social psychology, including the development of research questions and hypotheses, measures and manipulations, etc.
3. Define basic social psychological terms and concepts 4. Critically analyze an empirical research article 5. Evaluate the role of the situation on an individual’s behavior
Required Reading:
Textbook Kenrick, D.T., Neuberg, S.L., & Cialdini, R.B. (2010). Social Psychology: Goals in Interaction
(5th Edition). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson. (We will skip the majority of the content in Chapters 13 & 14.)
SOP 3004-U01: Social Psychology Fall 2010
CP 197 MWF 11:00 – 11:50am
2
Additional Articles (Available on Blackboard) Article 1 (for W 9.8.10) Miller, D. T. & McFarland, C. (1986). Counterfactual thinking and victim compensation: A test
of norm theory. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 513-519. Article 2 (for 11.29.10) Kassin, S. M. & Kiechel, K. L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: Compliance,
internalization, and confabulation. Psychological Science, 7, 125-129. Blackboard CE6:
This course will utilize the Blackboard (Campus Edition 6) online classroom to provide you with assignment instructions, grades, and additional materials. It is important that you become familiar with this software and check the course website on a regular basis because all important class updates and announcements will be posted online. If you have never used Blackboard before, or if you want to find additional information about the software, I encourage you to attend the Blackboard training sessions available to students during the first week of classes. Please refer to http://ce6.fiu.edu for additional information. Login at http://online.fiu.edu/login/uts. Enter your username (Panther ID) and password (birthdate in the format mmddyyyy).
Attendance Policy
Successful completion of this course requires regular class attendance and active participation in class discussions. Students are expected to complete all assigned readings as indicated on the Course Schedule in preparation for each lecture. Lectures will clarify and expand upon information provided in your textbook. Exams will include information from the text, as well as from class lectures. If you miss a class, you are responsible for obtaining the information discussed in class from your classmates. If any class or assignment conflicts with a religious holiday, discuss with me what conflict exists during the first week of classes. I will take attendance randomly ten times throughout the semester worth 1 point each for a total of 10 possible points toward your final grade. Course Structure Exams There will be four (4) non-cumulative exams in this class. Each exam is worth 50 points and will consist of multiple-choice questions. On the day of the exam please arrive on time and bring a #2 pencil. If you arrive after the first person has turned in his/her exam, you will not be allowed to take the exam. You are responsible for bringing a pencil on exam day. You may only take an exam on the scheduled date and time unless you contact me prior to the time of the exam to inform me of your absence and then provide documentation of a serious illness, death in the family, or other serious emergency that prevented you from being present on the day of the exam. In the event that you provide adequate documentation for your absence, you will be expected to
3
take a make-up exam within one week of the excused absence. I reserve the right to curve the scores for any exam. Assignments There will be two (2) written assignments throughout the semester worth a total of 25 points toward your final grade. Late assignments will not be accepted.
A. Advertisement Assignment (15 pts) – Find a print advertisement and analyze the ad from a psychological point of view. Instructions can be found on Blackboard. [Due W 9.8.10 11am In Class]
B. Helping Assignment (10 pts) – Describe a helping situation you encountered by applying social psychological theory. Follow the instructions on Blackboard. [Due M 11.1.10 11am via Blackboard]
To be sure that you have access to Blackboard and have read this syllabus, you will be required to submit a Practice Assignment on Blackboard. To do this, first download the blank assignment sheet from Blackboard. Next fill it out with your name and panther ID# and save the file with this format—LastnamePractice.docx. Then upload this file (substituting your last name in the filename. If you do this by September 3, 2010 you will receive 1 extra credit point. Extra Credit You may earn a maximum of 6 additional extra credit points by using one of the following methods:
A. Participate in Psychology Department Sponsored Research Studies – You will need to set up an account at http://fiu.sona-systems.com to see a listing of the available studies. You must also specify that you want the credits earned to apply to this course. You will receive 1 research credit for every credit hour in which you participate. I will double this so that you will get 2 extra credit points added to your grade for every hour of participation up to a maximum of 6 points (3 hours of participation). To obtain this credit, I also require that at least one of the studies that you participate in NOT be conducted online. Therefore, if choosing this option, you must participate in at least one study in-person. Do not wait until the end of the semester! Research credits for extra credit must be completed by December 3, 2010.
B. Write an Experimental Paper –You may receive 6 extra credit points by writing an
article summary/critique on one of the articles required for class. This assignment will be due before the start of class on the day in which we will discuss the article. Late papers will not be accepted. All assignments must be uploaded through Blackboard in a valid Microsoft Word document (with the file extension .doc or .docx). The filename should be in this format—LastnameArticle#.docx—substituting your last name and the number of the article you reviewed. (For example, if I submitted a review of the second article my paper would have the filename
4
StrublerArticle2.docx.) Explicit instructions on the format and content of this assignment can be found on Blackboard. Partial credit may be given at my discretion.
Grading Procedure Your final grade will include the 4 exams (200 pts), the 2 assignments (25 pts), your attendance points (10 pts), and any extra credit earned (max 7 pts). The following scale will be used to assign a final grade: Grade Percent Points Grade Percent Points
Classroom Conduct Disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. Please arrive to class on time. If you must leave early, please do so as quietly as possible. Cell phones and other potential distractions (like those on computers) should be turned off or in silent mode. In the event that a personal emergency necessitates access to your cell phone, you must notify me before class begins and set your phone to vibrate mode. Anyone engaging in a private conversation during class will be asked to leave. This includes instant messaging as this can also be distracting to other students. Academic Misconduct Academic misconduct in any form is a very serious matter, and will not be tolerated in this class. The term academic misconduct includes (but is not limited to) the following acts: cheating on examinations, turning in another person’s work as your own, including another person’s words or ideas in your writing without crediting the source, or engaging in behaviors that prevent other students in the class from succeeding. Students who engage in academic misconduct will be sanctioned. Please refer to the Student Handbook for more information. Disabled Student Policy The university provides individualized accommodations to students who have disabilities that may affect their ability to participate in course activities or to meet course requirements. Students with disabilities are encouraged to contact both me and the Disability Resource Center (GC 190: 305-348-3532) to discuss their individual needs, and the appropriate accommodations will be made. Be sure to contact me during the first week of classes; these conversations will be held in strict confidence.
5
SOP 3004-U01: Social Psychology Fall 2010
**Course Schedule**
DATE TOPIC READING ASSIGNMENT
Week 1 Introduction Chapter 1
Week 2 Research Methods *none (content in class notes only)
Reading J 5 The Social Psychology of False Confessions R60;C
3!3f3,6 )
READING 15 Confession to a crime is a potent and incriminating form of evidence. When a defendant confesses to the police, even if he or she later claims that the confession was coerced, judges and juries vote for guilt and conviction. Yet every now and then, there are documented reports about innocent people who confess to crimes they did not commit as a mean of compliance, in response to pressures exerted during a police interrogation. In some cases, innocent suspects actually come to believe they may be guilty, indicating an even stronger form of influence, internalization. Is it really possible to convince people that they are guilty of an act they did not commit? Based on an analysis of actual cases, Kassin and Kiechel (1996) theorized that two factors increase the risk: (I) a suspect who lacks a clear memory of the event, and (2) the presentation of false evidence, a common police trick. As you will see, these researchers tested and supported this hypothesis in a laboratory experiment on false confessions. While reading this article, think about how it illustrates processes not only relevant to the psychology of law (Chapter 12), but also to social influence (Chapter 9)and persuasion (Chapter 7) research as well.
The Social Psychology of False ,Confessions: Compliance, Internalization, and Confabulation
Saul M. Kassin and Katherine L. Kiechel Williams College
An experiment demonstrated that false incriminating evidence can lead people to accept guilt for a crime they did not commit. Subjects in a fast- or slow-paced reaction time task were accused of damaging a computer by pressing the wrong key. All were truly innocent and initially den,ied the charge. A confederate then said she saw the subject hit the key or did not see the subject hit the key. Compared with subjects in the slow-pacelno-witness group, those in the fasf-pacelwitness group were more likely to sign a confession, internalize guilt for the event, and confabulate details in memory consistent with that belief Both legal and conceptual implications are discussed.
Address correspondence to Saul Kassin, Department of Psy
chology, Williams College, WilIiamstoVl'll, MA 01267.
In criminal law, confession evidence is· a potent weapon for the prosecution and a recurring source of controversy. Whether a suspect's self-incriminating statement was voluntary or coerced and whether a suspect was of sound mind are just two of the issues that
trial judges and juries consider on a routine basis. To guard citizens against violations of due process and to minimize the risk that the innocent would confess to crimes they did not commit, the courts have erected guidelines for the admissibility of confession evidence. Although there is no simple litmus test, confessions are typically excluded from trial if elicited by physical violence, a threat of harm or punishment, or a promise of immunity or leniency, or without the suspect being notified of his or her Miranda rights.
To understand the psychology of criminal confessions, three questions need to be addressed: First, how do police interrogators elicit self-incriminating statements (Le., what means of social influence do they use)? Second, what effects do these methods have (i.e., do innocent suspects ever confess to crimes they did not commit)? Third, when a coerced confession is retracted and later presented at trial, do juries sufficiently discount the evidence in accordance with the law? General reviews of relevant case law and research are available elsewhere (Gudjonsson, 1992; Wrightsman & Kassin, 1993). The present research addresses the first two questions.
SOURCE: Kassin, S. I., &: Kiechel, K.L. 1996. The Social Psychology of False Confessions: Compliance, Internalization, and Confabulation. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 7, 125-128. Reprinted by permission of Blackwell Science Ltd.
Mark
Sticky Note
Marked set by Mark
Mark
Highlight
introduction to the article. Brief description.
Mark
Highlight
Mark
Highlight
Mark
Sticky Note
Marked set by Mark
Mark
Highlight
.. 200 Part IV APPLYING SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
Infonned by developments in case law, the police use various methods of interrogation-including the presentation of false evidence (e.g., fake polygraph, fingerprints, or other forensic test results; staged eyewitness identifications), appeals to God and religion, feigned friendship, and the use of prison infonnants. A number of manuals are available to advise detectives on how to extract confessions from reluctant crime suspects (Aubry & Caputo, 1965; O'Hara & O'Hara, 1981). The most popular manual is Inbau, Reid, and Buckley's (1986) Criminal Interrogation and Conjessions, originally published in 1962, and now in its third edition.
After advising interrogators to set aside a bare, soundproof room absent of social support and distraction, Inbau et al. (1986) describe in detail a nine-step procedure consisting of various specific ploys. In general, two types of approaches can be distinguished. One is minimization, a technique in which the detective lulls the suspect into a false sense of security by providing face-saving excuses, citing mitigating circumstances, blaming the victim, and underplaying the charges. The second approach is one of maximization, in which the interrogator uses scare tactics by exaggerating or falsifYing the characterization of evidence, the seriousness of the offense, and the magnitude of the charges. In a recent study (Kassin & McNall, 1991), subjects read interrogation transcripts in which these ploys were used and estimated the severity of the sentence likely to be received. The results indicated that minimization communicated an implicit offer of leniency, comparable to that estimated in an explicit-promise condition, whereas maximization implied a threat of harsh punishment, comparable to that found in an explicit-threat condition. Yet although American courts routinely exclude confessions elicited by explicit threats and promises, they admit those produced by contingencies that are pragmatically implied.
Although police often use coercive methods of interrogation, research suggests that juries are prone to convict defendants who confess in these situations. In the case of Arizona v. Fulminante (1991), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that under certain conditions, an improperly admitted coerced confession may be considered upon appeal to have been nonprejudicial, or "hannless error." Yet mock-jury research shows that people find it hard to believe that anyone would confess to a crime that he or she did not commit (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1980, 1981; Sukel & Kassin, 1994). Still, it happens. One cannot estimate the prevalence of the problem, which has never been systematically exam-
ined, but there are numerous documented instances on record (Bedau & Radelet, 1987; Borchard, 1932; Rattner, 1988). Indeed, one can distinguish three types of false confession (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1985): voluntary (in which a subject confesses in the absence of external pJ;essure), coerced-compliant (in which a suspect confesses only to escape an aversive interrogation, secure a promised benefit, or avoid a threatened hann), and coerced-internalized (in which a suspect actually comes to believe that he or she is gUilty of the crime).
This last type of false confession seems most unlikely, but a number of recent cases have come to light in which the police had seized a suspect who was vulnerable (by virtue of his or her youth, intelligence, personality, stress, or mental state) and used false evidence to convince the beleaguered suspect that he or she was gUilty. In one case that received a great deal of attention, for example, Paul Ingram was charged with rape and a host of satanic cult crimes that included the slaughter of newborn babies. During 6 months of interrogation, he was hypnotized, exposed to graphic crime details, infonned by a police psychologist that sex offenders often repress their offenses, and urged by the minister of his church to confess. Eventually, Ingram "recalled" crime scenes to specification, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to prison. There was no physical evidence of these crimes, however, and an expert who reviewed the case for the state concluded that Ingram had been brainwashed. To demonstrate, this expert accused Ingram of a bogus crime and found that although he initially denied the charge, he later confessed-and embellished the story (Of she, 1992: Wright, 1994).
Other similar cases have been reported (e.g., Pratkanis & Aronson, 1991), but, to date, there is no empirical proof of this phenomenon. Memory researchers have found that misleading postevent infonnation can alter actual or reported memories of observed events . (Loftus, Donders, Hoffinan, & Schooler, 1989; Loftus, Miller, & Burns, 1978; McCloskey & Zaragoza, 1985)-an effect that is particularly potent in young children (Ceci & Bruck, 1993; Ceci, Ross, & Toglia, 1987) and adults under hypnosis (Dinges et aI., 1992; Dywan & Bowers, 1983; Sheehan, Statham, & Jamieson, 1991). Indeed, recent studies suggest it is even possible to implant false recollections of traumas supposedly buried in the unconscious (Loftus, 1993). As related to confessions, the question is, can memory of one's own actions similarly be altered? Can people be induced to accept guilt for crimes they did not commit? Is it, contrary to popular belief, possible?
Mark
Sticky Note
Despite the fact that this manual is in its third edition, there's a severe difference between the crimes in 1986, or originally 1962, and today. This book is outdated.
ces on ; Rattpes of volunof ex
,uspect :m, se-hann), ctually me). ; most )me to ho was igence, se evi: he or deal of :d with Jed the ,nterrome defenders linister ;alled" 1d was mceof ved the I been ,ed Inhe inii-and .). ., Prat:10 emifchers on can events Loftus, ;agoza, young
Toglia, . 1992; m, & st it is raumas 1993). lemory people id not ?
Reading 15 The Social Psychology of False Confessions
Because of obvious ethical constraints, this important issue has not been addressed previously. This article thus reports on a new laboratory paradigm used to test the following specific hypothesis: The presentation of false evidence can lead individuals who are vulnerable (i.e., in a heightened state of uncertainty) to confess to an act they did not commit and, more important, to intemalize the confession and perhaps confabulate details in memory consistent with that new belief.
METHOD
Participating for extra credit in what was supposed to be a reaction time experiment, 79 undergraduates (40 male, 39 female) were randomly assigned to one of four groups produced by a 2 (high vs. low vulnerability) x 2 (presence vs. absence of a false incriminating witness) factorial design.
Two subjects per session (actually, 1 subject and a female confederate) engaged in a reaction time task on' an IBM PS21M0dei 50 computer. To bolster the credibility of the experimental cover story, they were asked to fill out a brief questionnaire concerning their typing experience and ability, spatial awareness, and speed of reflexes. The subject and confederate were then taken to another room, seated across a table from the experimenter, and instructed on the task. The confederate was to read aloud a list of letters, and the subject was to type these letters on the keyboard. After 3 min, the subject and confederate were to reverse roles. Before the session began, subjects were instructed on proper use of the computer-and were specifically warned not to press the "ALT" key positioned near the space bar because doing so would cause the program to crash and data to be lost. Lo and behold, after 60 s, the computer supposedly ceased to function, and a highly distressed experimenter accused the subject of having pressed the forbidden key. All subjects initially denied the charge, at which point the experimenter tinkered with the keyboard, confirmed that data had been lost, and asked, "Did you hit the' AL T' key?"
Two forensically relevant factors were independently varied. First, we manipulated subjects' level of vulnerability (i.e., their subjective certainty concerning their own innocence) by varying the pace of the task. Using a mechanical metronome, the confederate read either at a slow and relaxed pace of 43 letters per minute or at a frenzied pace of 67 letters per minute (these settings were established through pretesting). Two-way analyses of variance revealed significant main effects
on the number of letters typed correctly (Ms = 33. and 61.12, respectively; FII, 71J = 278.93, P < .00 and the number of typing errors made (Ms = 1.12 10.90, respectively; FII, 71J "" 38.81, P < .001), confirming the effectiveness of this manipulation.
Second, we varied the use of false inerinlimllill
evidence, a common interrogation technique. After subject initially denied the charge, the experimen turned to the confederate and asked, "Did you see thing?" In the false-witness condition, the \,oVllll"U,,'
"admitted" that she had seen the subject hit the key that tenninated the program. In the no-witn condition, the same confederate said she had not what happened.
As dependent measures, three forms of social fluence were assessed: compliance, internalization, confabulation. To elicit compliance, the F'vr'F'rim
handwrote a standardized confession ("I hit the 'A key and caused the program to crash. Data were and asked the subject to sign it-the consequence which would be a phone call from the principal tigator. If the subject refused, the request was repealed a second time,
To assess internalization, we unobtrusively re· corded the way subjects privately described what hap. pened soon afterward. As the experimenter and subject left the laboratory, they were met in the reception arca by a waiting subject (actually, a second confederate who was blind to the subject's condition and previous behavior) who had overheard the commotion. The experimenter explained that the session would have to he rescheduled, and then left the room to retrieve his appointment calendar. At that point, the second confeder· ate turned privately to the subject and asked, "What happened?" The subject's reply was recorded verbatim and later coded for whether or not he or she had unam· biguously internalized guilt for what happened (e.g., "I hit the wrong button and ruined the program"; "I hi! a button I wasn't supposed to"), A conservative criterion was employed. Any reply that was prefaced by "he said" or "I may have" or "I think" was not taken as evidence of internalization. Two raters who were blind to the subject's condition independently coded these responses, and their agreement rate was 96%.
Finally, after the sessions seemed to be over, the experimenter reappeared, brought the subjects back into the lab, reread the list of letters they had typed, and asked if they could reconstruct how or when they hi! the "ALT" key. This procedure was designed to probe for evidence of confabulation, to detennine whether
202 Part IV APPLYING SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
subjects would "recall" specific details to fit the allegation (e.g., "Yes, here, I hit it with the side of my hand right after you called out the 'A"'). The interrater agreement rate on the coding of these data was 100%.
At the end of each session, subjects were fully and carefully debriefed about the study-its purpose, the hypothesis, and the reason for the use of deception-by the experimenter and first confederate. Most subjects reacted with a combination of relief (that they had not ruined the experiment), amazement (that their perceptions of their own behavior had been so completely manipulated), and a sense of satisfaction (at having played a meaningful role in an important study). Subjects were also asked not to discuss the experience with other stud.ents until all the data were collected. Four subjects reported during debriefing that they were suspicious of the experimental manipulation. Their data were excluded from all analyses.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Overall, 6tJOio of the 75 subjects signed the confession, 28% exhibited internalization, and 9% confabulated- details to support their false beliefs. More important, between-group comparisons provided strong support for the main hypothesis. As seen in Table 1, subjects in the slowpace/no-witness control group were the least likely to exhibit an effect, whereas those in the fast-pace/witness group were the most likely to exhibit the effect on the measures of compliance (X2[3] = 23.84, P < .001), internalization (X2[3] = 37.61, P < .001), and confabulation <;(2[3J = 18.0, P < .005).
Specifically, although 34.78% of the subjects in the' slow-pace/no-witness group signed the confession, indicating compliance, not a single subject in this group exhibited internalization or confabulation. In contrast, the two in dependent variables had a powerful combined ef-
TABLE 1 Percentage of subjects In each cell who exhibited
the three forms of influence
Form of No witness Witness
influence Slow Fast Slow Fast pace pace Pace pace
Compliance 35. 65. 89bc 100, Internalization O. 12,. 44 .. 65, Confabulation O. 0, 6. 35.
Note. Percentages not sharing a common subscript differ at p < .05 via chi-square test of significance.
fect. Out of 17 subjects in the fast-pace/witness cell, 100% signed a confession, 65% came to believe they were guilty (in reality, they were not), and 35% confabulated details to support their false belief (via chisquare tests, the differences in these rates between the slow-pa~e/no-witness control group and fastpace/witness group were significant at ps < .001, .00 I, and .005, respectively).
Additional pair-wise comparisons revealed that the presence of a witness alone was sufficient to significantly increase the rates of compliant and internalized confessions, even in the slow-pace condition (X2[1] = 12.18, p < .005, and X2[1] = 16.39, P < .00]). There were no sex differences on any measures (Le., male and female subjects exhibited comparable confession rates overall, and were similarly influenced by the independent variables).
The present study provides strong initial support for the provocative notion that the presentation of false incriminating evidence-an interrogation ploy that is common among the police and sanctioned by many courts--can induce people to internalize blame for outcomes they did not produce. These results provide an initial basis for challenging the evidentiary validity of confessions produced by this technique. These findings also demonstrate, possibly for the first time, that memory can be altered not only for observed events and remote past experiences, but also for one's own recent actions.
An obvious and important empirical question remains concerning the external validity of the present results: To what extent do they generalize to the interrogation behavior of actual crime suspects? For ethical reasons, we developed a laboratory paradigm in which subjects were accused merely of an unconscious act of negligence, not of an act involving explicit criminal intent (e.g., stealing equipment from the lab or cheating on an important test). In this paradigm, there was only a minor consequence for liability. At this point, it is unclear whether people could similarly be induced to intemalize false gUilt for acts of omission (Le., neglecting to do something they were told to do) or for acts that emanate from conscious intent.
It is important, however, not to overstate this limitation. The fact that our procedure focused on an act of negligence and low consequence may well explain why the compliance rate was high, with roughly two thirds of all subjects agreeing to sign a confession statement. Effects of this sort on overt judgments and behavior have been observed in studies of conformity to group norms, compliance with direct requests, and obedience to the
: cell, : they , con-1 chi:n the
fast.001,
at the gnifidized [1] = There male
:ssion 1e in-
pport . false mt is many r outde an ityof dings :mory ~mote
ns. ,n re
nt reI the . ethi;m in :cious minal ~ating
mlya Iclear lalize ~o do anate
mitalct of why
ds of :. Efhave lrms, ) the
Reading 15 The Social Psychology of False Confessions 203
commands of authority. But the more important and startling result-iliat many subjects privately internalized guilt for an outcome they did not produce, and that some even constructed memories to fit that false belief-is not seriously compromised by the laboratory paradigm that was used. Conceptually, these findings extend known effects of misinformation on memory for observed events (Loftus et aI., 1978; McCloskey & Zaragoza, 1985) and fur traumas assumed to be buried in the unconscious (Loftus, 1993). Indeed, our effects were exhibited by college students who are intelligent (drawn from a population in which the mean score on the Scholastic Aptitude Test is over nOO), self-assured, and under minimal stress compared with crime suspects held in custody, often in isolation.
At this point, additional research is needed to examine other common interrogation techniques (e.g., minimization), individual differences in suspect vulnerability (e.g., manifest anxiety, need for approval, hypnotic susceptibility), and other risk factors for false confessions (e.g., blood alcohol level, sleep deprivation). In light of recent judicial acceptance of a broad range of selfincriminatory statements, increasing use of videotaped confessions at the trial level (Geller, 1993), and the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that an improperly admitted coerced confession may qualifY as a mere "harmless error" (Arizona v. Fuiminante, 1991), further research is also needed to assess the lay jury's reaction to this type of evidence when presented in court.
Acknowledgments--This research was submitted as part of a senior honor's thesis by the second author and was funded by the BTonfman Science Center of Williams College.
REFERENCES Arizona v. Fulminante, 59 U.S.L.W. 4235 (1991). Aubry, A., & Caputo, R. (1965). Criminal interrogation.
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Bedau, H., & Radelet, M. (1987). Miscarriages of justice in po
tentially capital cases, Stanford Law Review, 40, 21-179. Borchard, E.M. (1932). Convicting the innocent: Errors of
criminal justice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Ceci, S.1., & Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child
witness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, /13,403-439.
Ceci, S.J., Ross, D.F., & Toglia, M.P. (1987). Suggestibility of children's memory: Psycholegal implications. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1/6,38-49.
Orne, M.T., & Erdelyi, M.H. (1992). Evaluating hypnotic memory enhancement (hypermnesia and reminiscence) using multitrial forced recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1139-1147.
Dywan, 1., & Bowers, K. (1983). The use of hypnosis to enhance recall. Science, 222, 184-185.
Oeller, W.A. (1993). Videotaping interrogations and confessions (National Institute of Justice: Research in Briet). Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice.
Oudjonsson, O. (1992). The psychology of interrogations. confessions, and testimony. London: Wiley.
Inbau, F.E., Reid, J.E., & Buckley, J.P. (1986). Criminal interrogation and confessions (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.
Kassin, S.M., & McNall, K. (1991). Police interrogations anu
confessions: Communicating promises and threats hy pragmatic implication. Law and Human Behavior, 15. 233-251.
Kassin, S.M., & Wrightsman, L.S. (1980). Prior confession, and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Applied Social 1'.\1-chology, 10, 133-146.
nat, of Applied Social Psychology J 1, 489-506. Kassin, S.M., & Wrightsman, L.S. (I 985). Confession C\I
dence. In S.M. Kassin & L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.). {"'psychology of evidence and trial procedure (pp. 67 Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Loftus, E.F. (1993). The reality of repressed American Psychologist, 48,518-537 .
Loftus, E.F., Donders, K., Hoffinan, HO., & Schoob, (1989). Creating new memories that are quickly and confidently held_ Memory and Cognition, 17,
Loftus, E.F., Miller, D.O_, & Bums, H.I. (1978). integration of verbal information into visual Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human and Memory, 4, 19-31.
McCloskey, M., & Zaragoza, M. (1985),
evidence against memory impairment hvr,,,th, ....
of Experimental Psychology, 114,3-18. Ofshe, R. (1992). Inadvertent hypnosis during
False confession due to dissociative state; mUltiple personality and the satanic cult national Journal of Clinical and I<:""pri'mlfl
40, 125-156. O'Hara, C.E., & O'Hara, O.L. (1981).
204 Par/IV APPLYING SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
Pratkanis, A., & Aronson, E. (1991). Age of propaganda: The everyday use and abuse of persuasion. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Rattner, A. (1988). Convicted but innocent: Wrongful conviction and the criminal justice system. Law and Human Behavior, 12,283-293.
Sheehan, P.W., Statham, D., & Jamieson, G.A. (1991). Pseudomemory effects and their relationship to level of susceptibility to hypnosis and state instruction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 130-137.
Sukel, H.L., & Kassin, S.M. (1994, March). Coerced confessions and the jul')': An experimental test of the "harmless error" rule. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Sante Fe, NM.
Wright, L. (1994). Remembering Satan. New York: Alfred A. Knopf .•
Wrightsman, L.S., & Kassin, S.M. (1993). Confessions in the courtroom. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
