- The Psychology of false confessionso The Central Park rape case A woman who was jogging in Central Park was brutally raped in 1989 She was white and well-educated, and there was a lot of media attention and pressure to catch the offender The woman couldn’t remember anything from the incident because of a head injury 5 teenagers were questioned and confessed. They were interrogated separately, all had different stories, and got some of the basic details wrong. The confessions were videotaped but the previous hours of interrogation hadn’tbeen. Afterwards the teens said their confessions were not true, but people didn’t believe them and they went to prison. There was no physical link between the teenagers and the victim. All that was certain was that they were in Central Park the night of the rape. Later, in 2002 an imprisoned rapist confessed, and they matched his DNA Why would you confess to a rape you didn’t commit? Because of the pressure during interrogation Why did the police believe them? They were under pressure to catch the perpetratoro Video on false confessions A 15 year old girl, Katie, was murdered near the Trail of Tears The case had remained unsolved for two years A 20 year old Brazilian named Roberto who went to school with Katie volunteered to go in for questioning The police are allowed to lie and threaten jail time Roberto was intensively interrogated and confessed to murdering Katie under the impression that he would be let go if he told the police what they wanted tohear Roberto was in fact out of the country when Katie was killed. His passport had been stamped and there was even an X-ray from a dentist appointment on the day she was killed, but authorities refused to believe him after his confession (this is due to confirmation bias).o Saul Kassin research False confession includes two factors:- 1) An authority figure insisting on guilt- 2) Lying to suspects about false evidence connecting them to a crime Suspect is under intense pressureo How can you judge the accuracy of a confession? A confession is compelling evidence but caution is needed to avoid confirmationbias Factors that increase likelihood of coercion- Age and competency (young people or people of low intelligence are more likely to confess)- Conditions of custody and interrogation (harsh conditions make a confession more likely) Are the details consistent?  Are their facts knowable only to offender? Consider the confession in its context, not just a videotape obtained without “prep”o Confirmation bias at work (Central Park case) Looked at information that confirmed theory they committed the offenses Ignored all the inconsistencies that suggested they did not know important details of offenseo Kassin’s article on applying psychology to law; why people confess/believing their confessions Stereotypes (why do we believe them?) Reinforcement (operant condition, immediate rewards) Motivation (deprivation food, social needs) Social Impact (conformity, obedience) Adolescence (more compliant, suggestible) Memory (malleable) Fundamental Attribution Error & other biaseso Believing false confessions starts with the belief that you can tell if someone is lying Interrogators are told to consider: - Nonverbal cues- Gaze aversion- Frozen posture- Slouching- Anxiousness- Unconcerned- Guardedo Even innocent people may start to believe they are guilty The “Reid Technique” of interrogation:- Isolate in small, bare, sound proof room- Develop a theme of guilt- Interrupt expressions of innocence- Pressure, then show sympathy - Offer a face-saving explanation for crime- Increase anxiety associated with denial- Reduce the perception of negative consequences for confessing “innocents” people are at risk – they trust the justice system- The social psychology of Halloween, 2011-2012 Madison protests and large group/mob mentalityo Deindividuation- we lose track of ourselves and become part of the collective groupo Dehumanization- the police may call people pigs/animalso Social Roleso Social Norms- how we are “supposed” to act; can be positive or negativeo Group Thinko Halloween 2004- out of control rioting, fires 2005- police cracked down; students vs. police, students resisted 2006- cooperation, you had to pay to enter, police were more friendly and let minor issues go; group think- not to be violent; people were less anonymous (deindividuation lessened)o 2011-2012 protests Very few arrests (perhaps even less than at Badger games) Pressure to behave well  positive social norms  “solidarity” No “us vs. them” mentality with the police Positive group think Social norms were enforced by reminders from others in the group Diversity: children, the elderly, etc. reduced mob mentality Social roles were defined Sherif: competition breeds hostility while cooperation breeds positive behavioro March Madness Badgers Sweet 16 win- no serious trouble on State Street Compared to Arizona- riots, police were tear gassing people Final 4 loss- police were ready for riots but norms had already been established for behavior on State Street- Lessons learned from social psychologyo “Hot Science: the Eyes Have it” article Is the honor system enough to pay for coffee? They posted images of eyes vs. images of flowers People were more likely to pay with the images of eyes (they were mindful of being ethical)o “Real World: Making the Move” article Speed dating- who initiates the first move? Women were choosier when men made the first move and men were choosier when women made the first move This indicates that there are possibly no gender differences in choosiness, because men tend to make the first moveo Cognitive dissonance clarification (in the context of the study where people did a boring task and were paid $1 or $20 to say they enjoyed it) The cognitive dissonance: I said I liked the task, but I didn’t actually like the task 2 Solutions:- Solution 1: change your cognition to liking the task- Solution 2: add a justification to your cognition by getting paid a lot to say you liked ito Cooperation: behavior by 2 or more individuals that leads to mutual benefit The prisoner’s dilemmaCooperation by B (doesn’t confess)Noncooperation by B (confesses)Cooperation by A (doesn’t confess)A and B get 1 year in prisonA gets 30 years