Conceptual priming and context reinstatement: A test of direct and indirect interview techniques.

Recent findings suggest that priming may be useful for facilitating disclosure in investigative interviews; however, the effects of priming on behavioral outcomes have been mixed. The current studies attempted to replicate the increase in information disclosure when the concept of "openness" is primed. We assessed the separate and combined influence of context reinstatement instructions and activation of the concept of openness (via lexical primes in Experiment 1, via contextual and embodiment primes in Experiment 2) on information disclosure. In doing so, we introduced a novel paradigm to investigate factors contributing to the elicitation of sensitive personal information that participants provided in written (Experiment 1) or verbal (Experiment 2) form. Participants (Experiment 1: N = 173; Experiment 2: N = 194) completed a checklist of illegal behaviors and misdeeds, then engaged in an unrelated task that was used to administer the priming manipulation (either the concept of "open" or "closed," or a neutral prime). Participants then described a life event related to the most serious illegal behavior to which they had admitted, following either a direct request for information or a context reinstatement instruction. Across both experiments, context reinstatement led to robust increases in information disclosure. Although we failed to replicate prior effects of priming on disclosure, our observed effect sizes fell within the confidence intervals of previous studies. A meta-analytic assessment of priming across the two studies suggested a small but significant increase in information elicitation, suggesting that investigators are best served using evidence-based interviewing tactics during investigative interviews. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Incentives increase the rate of false but not true secondary confessions from informants with an allegiance to a suspect.

One hundred ninety-two students participated in an experimental simulation testing whether incentives would reduce the reluctance of informants to implicate a close other. Half of the students were made to feel interpersonally close to a confederate who either admitted to or denied a misdeed. All students were interrogated and encouraged to sign a secondary confession stating that the confederate had confessed to the misdeed; half were offered an incentive to do so. Contrary to expectations, closeness did not induce reluctance. Instead, the offer of incentive increased the number of participants willing to sign a secondary confession implicating a close other. Further analyses revealed that this increase occurred only for false secondary confessions. Implications for interrogation practices are discussed.

Snitching, lies and computer crashes: an experimental investigation of secondary confessions.

Two laboratory studies with 332 student participants investigated secondary confessions (provided by an informant instead of the suspect). Participants allegedly caused or witnessed a simulated computer crash, then were asked to give primary or secondary confessions during interrogation. Study 1 replicated the false evidence effect for primary confessions. Secondary confessions were obtained at a high rate, which was increased by false evidence in combination with incentive to confess. In Study 2 a confederate either confessed to or denied crashing the computer. Incentive increased the rate of secondary confession only in the presence of a denial; that is, incentive increased the number of false secondary confessions only. Implications for the use of incentives during informant interrogation are discussed.

The effects of accomplice witnesses and jailhouse informants on jury decision making.

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.