Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
S. Kassin, G. Gudjonsson (2004)
The Psychology of ConfessionsPsychological Science in the Public Interest, 5
S. Kassin, Karlyn McNall (1991)
Police interrogations and confessionsLaw and Human Behavior, 15
W. Cooper, H. Leavitt, M. Shelly (1965)
New Perspectives in Organization Research
R. Katzev, Scott Wishart (1985)
The Impact of Judicial Commentary concerning Eyewitness Identifications on Jury Decision MakingJournal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 76
S. Kassin, Holly Sukel (1997)
Coerced Confessions and the Jury: An Experimental Test of the “Harmless Error” RuleLaw and Human Behavior, 21
S. M. Kassin, K. McNall (2005)
The psychology of confession evidence: A review of the literature and issuesPsychological Science in the Public Interest, 5
(1964)
Desegregation or Integration? Comments about
S. Kassin, L. Wrightsman (1981)
Coerced Confessions, Judicial Instruction, and Mock Juror Verdicts'Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11
(1967)
Organizations in the Laboratory
Saul Ka, Karlyn McNallt (1991)
Communicating Promises and Threats by Pragmatic Implication
E. Mazur (2002)
Rational Expectations of Leniency: Implicit Plea Agreements and the Prosecutor’s Role as a Minister of JusticeDuke Law Journal, 51
B. Cutler, H. Dexter, Steven Penrod (1990)
Nonadversarial Methods for Sensitizing Jurors to Eyewitness EvidenceJournal of Applied Social Psychology, 20
E. Greene (1988)
Judge's Instruction on Eyewitness Testimony: Evaluation and Revision1Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18
S. Kassin, Katherina Neumann (1997)
On the Power of Confession Evidence: An Experimental Test of the Fundamental Difference HypothesisLaw and Human Behavior, 21
Daniel Gilbert, Patrick Malone (1995)
The correspondence bias.Psychological bulletin, 117 1
D. Schultz (1969)
The human subject in psychological research.Psychological bulletin, 72 3
R. Cassidy (2004)
'Soft Words of Hope': Giglio, Accomplice Witnesses, and the Problem of Implied InducementsNorthwestern University Law Review, 98
Dan Simon, K. Holyoak (2002)
Structural Dynamics of Cognition: From Consistency Theories to Constraint SatisfactionPersonality and Social Psychology Review, 6
V. Vroom, K. Weick (1968)
Methods of organizational researchAmerican Sociological Review, 33
S. Kassin, L. Wrightsman (1980)
Prior Confessions and Mock Juror VerdictsJournal of Applied Social Psychology, 10
(2005)
Jailhouse informers: A risky bet
R. Bloom (2002)
Ratting: The Use and Abuse of Informants in the American Justice System
S. M. Kassin, K. McNall (1991)
Police interrogations & confessions: Communicating promises and threats by pragmatic implicationLaw and Human Behavior, 15
B. Bornstein (1999)
The Ecological Validity of Jury Simulations: Is the Jury Still Out?Law and Human Behavior, 23
W. Oakes (1972)
External validity and the use of real people as subjects.American Psychologist, 27
R. Peterson (2001)
On the Use of College Students in Social Science Research: Insights from a Second‐Order Meta‐analysisJournal of Consumer Research, 28
L. Ross (1977)
The Intuitive Psychologist And His Shortcomings: Distortions in the Attribution Process1Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10
D. Sears (1986)
College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51
The present study presents one of the first investigations of the effects of accomplice witnesses and jailhouse informants on jury decision-making. Across two experiments, participants read a trial transcript that included either a secondary confession from an accomplice witness, a jailhouse informant, a member of the community or a no confession control. In half of the experimental trial transcripts, the participants were made aware that the cooperating witness providing the secondary confession was given an incentive to testify. The results of both experiments revealed that information about the cooperating witness’ incentive (e.g., leniency or reward) did not affect participants’ verdict decisions. In Experiment 2, participant jurors appeared to commit the fundamental attribution error, as they attributed the motivation of the accomplice witness and jailhouse informant almost exclusively to personal factors as opposed to situational factors. Furthermore, both experiments revealed that mock jurors voted guilty significantly more often when there was a confession relative to a no confession control condition. The implications of the use of accomplice witness and jailhouse informant testimony are discussed.
Law and Human Behavior – American Psychological Association
Published: Apr 17, 2008
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.