False-Evidence Ploys and Interrogations: Mock Jurors' Perceptions of False-Evidence Ploy Type, Deception, Coercion, and Justification

Krista D. Forrest, William Douglas Woody, Sara E. Brady, Keller C. Batterman, Bradley J. Stastny, Jennifer A. Bruns

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Scopus citations

Abstract

We studied mock jurors' evaluations of police false-evidence ploys across two false-evidence ploy information conditions (true or false confession). Study 1 participants evaluated lists of demeanor, testimonial, and scientific ploys and rated testimonial false-evidence ploys as more coercive than demeanor false-evidence ploys. Participants in the false-confession condition rated false-evidence ploys as more deceptive than did participants in the true-confession condition. Study 2 participants evaluated false-evidence ploy types within interrogation transcripts. Participants rated testimonial false-evidence ploys as more deceptive and coercive than demeanor false-evidence ploys; participants in the true-confession condition rated false-evidence ploys as more justified. Across studies, participants reading realistic transcripts rated false-evidence ploys as more deceptive and coercive. We discuss implications for scholars, attorneys, and interrogators.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)342-364
Number of pages23
JournalBehavioral Sciences and the Law
Volume30
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2012

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Psychology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Law

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'False-Evidence Ploys and Interrogations: Mock Jurors' Perceptions of False-Evidence Ploy Type, Deception, Coercion, and Justification'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this