A model of mistaken alibis: How innocent alibi providers generate inaccurate alibis

This dissertation comprised two experiments, which addressed three main goals: (a) to test a new paradigm for measuring objectively the accuracy of alibis, (b) to explore the effectiveness of three retrieval cues (time only, location only, and time-and-location) in an alibi context, and (c) to explore the metacognitive strategies of innocent alibi providers who experience different financial incentives as well as different motivations for reporting (be informative vs. be convincing). ^ The novel paradigm appears promising: by surreptitiously controlling the whereabouts of future alibi providers during a critical time, objective accuracy measurements were in fact possible. Such accuracy measurements revealed that time-cued retrieval can be devastating to innocent alibi providers. Participants who attempted to recall their whereabouts via a time cue were significantly less accurate than participants who attempted recall via a location cue (Experiment 1). ^ Innocent alibi providers, when cued effectively, may not, however, report their memories differently from memory reporters in non-alibi contexts. When cued effectively, participants who experienced a goal of being convincing did not differ in accuracy from participants who experienced a goal of merely being informative (Experiment 2). Similarly, participants did not differ from one another in accuracy across different levels of financial incentive (Experiment 2). ^ Despite the indistinguishable accuracy rates of alibi providers and non-alibi memory reporters when retrieval was cued effectively, proffering mistaken alibis presents a real risk for innocent suspects. Future research needs to address methods by which that risk can be reduced. ^

The National Institute of Justice guide for eyewitness identification evidence: Can it improve juror decision-making?

Mistaken eyewitness identifications of innocent lead to more false convictions in the United States than any other cause. In response to concerns about the reliability of eyewitness evidence, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in 1999 published a Guide for the gathering and preservation of eyewitness evidence by law enforcement personnel. Previous research has shown that eyewitness identifications are more accurate when obtained using procedures recommended in the NIJ Guide. This experiment assessed whether informing jurors about the Guide can improve their ability to discriminate between eyewitness identifications likely to be accurate and those likely to be inaccurate and, if so, how to most effectively provide jurors with such information. ^ Seven hundred sixteen U.S. citizens who reported for criminal jury duty participated. Half of the participant jurors read a summary of an armed robbery trial in which the police followed the NIJ Guide when obtaining an eyewitness identification of the defendant. The other half read about an identical case in which the police did not follow the Guide. Jurors received information about the Guide from a court-appointed expert witness, one of the attorneys in the case, the trial judge, the judge in combination with one of the attorneys, or from no one (in the control groups). Jurors then rendered a verdict in the case and answered questions about the evidence in the case. ^ When an expert witness or the judge (either alone or in combination with one of the attorneys) informed jurors about the Guide, the jurors voted to convict defendants likely to be guilty and to acquit defendants likely to be innocent more often than did uninformed jurors assigned to a control group. These data suggest that informing jurors about the NIJ Guide using expert testimony or instructions from a judge will improve the quality and accuracy of jurors' verdict decisions in cases involving eyewitness identification evidence. However, more research is needed to determine whether the judge will remain an effective source of information about the Guide in a longer, more detailed trial scenario and to learn more about the underlying psychological processes governing the effects observed in this experiment. ^

True and false confessions to an intentional act: A novel experimental paradigm

Due to the powerful nature of confession evidence, it is imperative that we investigate the factors that affect the likelihood of obtaining true and false confessions. Previous research has been conducted with a paradigm limited to the study of false confessions to an act of negligence, thereby limiting the generalizability of the findings. The first goal of the current study was to introduce a novel paradigm involving a more serious, intentional act that can be used in the study of both true and false confessions. The second goal was to explore the effects of two police interrogation tactics, minimization and an offer of leniency, on true and false confession rates. ^ Three hundred and thirty-four undergraduates at a large southeastern university were recruited to participate in a study on problem-solving and decision-making. During the course of the laboratory experiment, participants were induced to intentionally break or not break an experimental rule, an act that was characterized as “cheating.” All participants (i.e., both innocent and guilty) were later accused of the act and interrogated. For half of the participants, the interrogator used minimization tactics, which involved downplaying the seriousness of the offense, expressing sympathy, and providing face-saving excuses, in order to encourage the participant to confess. An offer of leniency was also manipulated in which half the participants were offered a “deal” that involved the option of confessing and accepting a known punishment or not confessing and facing the threat of harsher punishment. Results indicated that guilty persons were more likely to confess than innocent persons, and that the use of minimization and an explicit offer of leniency increased both the true and false confession rates. Furthermore, a cumulative effect of techniques was observed, such that the diagnosticity of the interrogation (the ratio of true confessions to false confessions) decreased as the number of techniques used increased. Taken together, the results suggest that caution should be used when implementing these techniques in the interrogation room. ^

The IRS Collection Division: Contacts and Settlements

In his study -The IRS Collection Division: Contacts and Settlements - by John M. Tarras, Assistant Professor School of Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Management, Michigan State University, Tarras initially states: “The collection division of the internal revenue service is often the point of contact for many hospitality businesses. The author describes how the division operates, what the hospitality firm can expect when contacted by it, and what types of strategies firms might find helpful when negotiating a settlement with the IRS.” The author will have you know that even though most chance meetings with the IRS Collection Division are due to unfortunate tax payment circumstances, there are actually more benign reasons for close encounters of the IRS kind. This does not mean, however, that brushes with the IRS Collection Division will end on an ever friendlier note. “…the Tax Reform Act of 1986 with its added complexity will cause some hospitality firms to inadvertently fail to make proper payments on a timely basis,” Tarras affords in illustrating a perhaps less pugnacious side of IRS relations. Should a hospitality business owner represent himself/herself before the IRS? Never, says Tarras. “Too many taxpayers ruin their chances of a fair settlement by making what to them seem innocent remarks, but ones that turn out to be far different,” warns Professor Tarras. Tarras makes the distinction between IRS the Collection Division, and IRS the Audit Division. “While the Audit Division is interested in how the tax liability arose, the Collection Division is generally only interested in collecting the liability,” he informs you. Either sounds firmly in hostile territory. They don’t bluff. Tarras does want you to know that when the IRS threatens to levy on the assets of a hospitality business, they will do so. Those assets may extend to personal and real property as well, he says. The levy action is generally the final resort in an IRS collection effort. Professor Tarras explains the lien process and the due process attached to that IRS collection tactic. “The IRS can also levy a hospitality firm owner's wages. In this case, it is important to realize that you are allowed to exempt from levy $75 per week, along with $25 per week for each of your dependents (unless your spouse works),” Professor Tarras says with the appropriate citation. What are the options available to the hospitality business owner who finds himself on the wrong side of the IRS Collection Division? Negotiate in good faith says Professor Tarras. “In many cases, a visit to the IRS office will greatly reduce the chances that a simple problem will turn into a major one,” Tarras advises. He dedicates the last pages of the discussion to negotiation strategies.

Modeling the role of investigator bias, interrogation techniques, and suspect decision -making on the likelihood of confession

The purpose of the current study was to attempt to model various cognitive and social processes that are believed to lead to false confessions. More specifically, this study manipulated the variables of experimenter expectancy, guilt-innocence of the suspect, and interrogation techniques using the Russano et al. (2005) paradigm. The primary measure of interest was the likelihood of the participant signing the confession statement. By manipulating experimenter expectancy, the current study sought to further explore the social interactions that may occur in the interrogation room. In addition, in past experiments, the interrogator has typically been restricted to the use of one or two interrogation techniques. In the present study, interrogators were permitted to select from 15 different interrogation techniques when attempting to solicit a confession from participants. ^ Consistent with Rusanno et al. (2005), guilty participants (94%) were more likely to confess to the act of cheating than innocent participants (31%). The variable of experimenter expectancy did not effect confessions rates, length of interrogation, or the type of interrogation techniques used. Path analysis revealed feelings of pressure and the weighing of consequences on the part of the participant were associated with the signing of the confession statement. The findings suggest the guilt/innocence of the participant, the participant's perceptions of the interrogation situation, and length of interrogation play a pivotal role in the signing of the confession statement. Further examination of these variables may provide researchers with a better understanding of the relationship between interrogations and confessions. ^

Eyewitness decision -making with showups: Probative or perilous?

Showups are a technique of eyewitness identification in which a single suspect is presented to a witness for identification. Showups are controversial. Defense attorneys argue that they are suggestive and place suspects at undue risk of false identification. Prosecutors and police officers argue that showups are an indispensable investigative tool and are no more suggestive than other identification techniques. Are showups probative or perilous? If so, what can be done to improve their accuracy? This investigation converged on this question by addressing three interrelated goals. The first was to examine the effect of two system variables, retention interval and suspect clothing, on showup accuracy. The second was to determine if showups are more suggestive than lineups. The third goal was to explore carryover effects from showups to subsequent lineup identifications. ^ Eyewitness performance was evaluated with the Eyewitness Identification Paradigm. Approximately 500 undergraduate students at FIU witnesses a staged event (i.e., a "crime") in their classrooms and subsequently participated in a showup and/or lineup identification test. Half of the identification tests contained the target (i.e., the "perpetrator") and half contained a target-substitute (i.e., an "innocent suspect"). ^ The results of this study indicated that, overall, showups are not unusually prejudicial and are no more suggestive than lineups. However this study identified two specific conditions under which showups are likely to lead to false identifications of an innocent suspect. First, false identification are likely to occur in showups that are conducted shortly after a crime when the suspect is wearing clothing similar to that worn by the perpetrator. Second, placing an innocent suspect in both a showup and then a lineup substantially increases the chances that the suspect will be falsely identified in the lineup. The implications of these findings for the conduct of eyewitness investigations are discussed. ^

Exoneration or Observation? Examining a Novel Difference Between Liars and Truth Tellers

Individual cues to deception are subtle and often missed by lay people and law enforcement alike. Linguistic statement analysis remains a potentially useful way of overcoming individual diagnostic limitations (e.g. Criteria based Content Analysis; Steller & Köhnken, 1989; Reality monitoring; Johnson & Raye, 1981; Scientific Content Analysis; Sapir, 1996). Unfortunately many of these procedures are time-consuming, require in-depth training, as well as lack empirical support and/or external validity. The current dissertation develops a novel approach to statement veracity analysis that is simple to learn, easy to administer, theoretically sound, and empirically validated. Two strategies were proposed for detecting differences between liars' and truth-tellers' statements. Liars were hypothesized to strategically write statements with the goal of self-exoneration. Liars' statements were predicted to contain more first person pronouns and fewer third person pronouns. Truth-tellers were hypothesized to be motivated toward being informative and thus produce statements with fewer first person pronouns and more third person pronouns. Three studies were conducted to test this hypothesis. The first study explored the verbal patterns of exoneration and informativeness focused statements. The second study used a traditional theft paradigm to examine these verbal patterns in guilty liars and innocent truth tellers. In the third study to better match the context of a criminal investigation a cheating paradigm was used in which spontaneous lying was induced and written statements were taken. Support for the first person pronoun hypothesis was found. Limited support was found for the third person pronoun hypothesis. Results, implications, and future directions for the current research are discussed.

The Effect of Rapport Building in Police Interrogations: Can Rapport Improve the Diagnosticity of Confession Evidence?

Police investigators rely heavily on eliciting confessions from suspects to solve crimes and prosecute offenders. Therefore, it is essential to develop evidence-based interrogation techniques that will motivate guilty suspects to confess but minimize false confessions from the innocent. Currently, there is little scientific support for specific interrogation techniques that may increase true confessions and decrease false confessions. Rapport building is a promising possibility. Despite its recommendation in police interrogation guidelines, there is no scientific evidence showing the effect of rapport building in police interrogations. The current study examined, experimentally, whether using rapport as an interrogation technique would influence participants’ decisions to confess to a wrongdoing. It was hypothesized that building rapport with participants would lead to more true confessions and fewer false confessions than not building rapport. One hundred and sixty nine undergraduates participated in the study. Participants worked on logic problems together and individually, with a study confederate. The confederate asked half of the participants for help in one of the individual problems – effectively breaking the rules of the study. After working on these problems, a research assistant playing the role of interviewer came into the room, built rapport or not with participants, accused all participants of cheating by sharing answers on the individual problems, and asked them to sign a statement admitting their guilt. Results indicated that guilty participants were more likely to sign the confession statement than innocent participants. However, there were no significant differences on participants’ confession decisions based on the level of rapport they experienced. Results do not provide support for the hypothesis that building rapport increases the likelihood of obtaining true confessions and decreases the likelihood of obtaining false confessions. These findings suggest that, despite the overwhelming recommendation for the use of rapport with suspects, its actual implementation may not have a direct impact on the outcome of interrogations.

The Impact of the "Not Sure" Option on Lineup Identification Decisions

Law enforcement officials routinely rely on eyewitness identification evidence to solve crimes. Nonetheless, this form of evidence is prone to errors. Researchers have previously attempted to examine conditions under which such errors can be reduced. The present study examines whether giving witnesses an explicit not sure response option increases the accuracy of lineup identification decisions. 251 participants watched a mock crime video before viewing a lineup that either included the perpetrator, or was made up of innocent suspects. Results indicated that witnesses provided with a not sure option made fewer false identifications, fewer filler identifications, and a similar number of correct identifications as witnesses who were not provided with this option. Furthermore, these benefits occurred regardless of whether witnesses received otherwise biased or unbiased instructions. Results suggest that the inclusion of an explicit not sure response option is a simple procedure that can increase the quality of eyewitness lineup decisions.

Exoneration or observation? Examining a novel difference between liars and truth tellers

Individual cues to deception are subtle and often missed by lay people and law enforcement alike. Linguistic statement analysis remains a potentially useful way of overcoming individual diagnostic limitations (e.g. Criteria based Content Analysis; Steller & Köhnken, 1989; Reality monitoring; Johnson & Raye, 1981; Scientific Content Analysis; Sapir, 1996). Unfortunately many of these procedures are time-consuming, require in-depth training, as well as lack empirical support and/or external validity. The current dissertation develops a novel approach to statement veracity analysis that is simple to learn, easy to administer, theoretically sound, and empirically validated. ^ Two strategies were proposed for detecting differences between liars' and truth-tellers' statements. Liars were hypothesized to strategically write statements with the goal of self-exoneration. Liars' statements were predicted to contain more first person pronouns and fewer third person pronouns. Truth-tellers were hypothesized to be motivated toward being informative and thus produce statements with fewer first person pronouns and more third person pronouns. Three studies were conducted to test this hypothesis. The first study explored the verbal patterns of exoneration and informativeness focused statements. The second study used a traditional theft paradigm to examine these verbal patterns in guilty liars and innocent truth tellers. In the third study to better match the context of a criminal investigation a cheating paradigm was used in which spontaneous lying was induced and written statements were taken. Support for the first person pronoun hypothesis was found. Limited support was found for the third person pronoun hypothesis. Results, implications, and future directions for the current research are discussed.^