Terms/concepts Definitions/examplesThe 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’t been. 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 perpetrator- Confirmation bias at work (Central Park case)o Looked at information that confirmed theory they committed the offenseso Ignored all the inconsistencies that suggested they did not know important details of offenseVideo 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 Katieunder the impression that he would be let go if he told the police what they wanted to hear- 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).Saul Kassin research - False confession includes two factors:o 1) An authority figure insisting on guilto 2) Lying to suspects about false evidence connecting them to a crime- Suspect is under intense pressure- why people confess/believing their confessionso Stereotypeso Reinforcement (operant condition, immediate rewards)o Motivation (deprivation food, social needs)o Social Impact (conformity, obedience)o Adolescence (more compliant, suggestible)o Memory (malleable)o Fundamental Attribution Error & other biasesDetermining the accuracy of a confession- A confession is compelling evidence but caution is needed to avoid confirmation bias- Factors that increase likelihood of coerciono Age and competency (young people or people of low intelligence are more likely to confess)o 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”Interrogators are told to consider…- Nonverbal cues- Gaze aversion- Frozen posture- Slouching- Anxiousness- Unconcerned- GuardedAnd they believe they can tell if someone is lyingWho is at risk to believe Innocent people because they trust the justice systemfalse confessions?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 confessingSocial psychology of large group/mob mentality- Deindividuation- we lose track of ourselves and become part of the collective group- Dehumanization- the police may call people pigs/animals- Social Roles- Social Norms- how we are “supposed” to act; can be positive or negative- Group ThinkHalloween in Madison - 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)2011-2012 Madison 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 behaviorMarch 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“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)“Real World: Making theMove” 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 moveCognitive dissonance - (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 likethe task- 2 Solutions:o Solution 1: change your cognition to liking the tasko Solution 2: add a justification to your cognition by getting paid a lot to say you liked itCooperation - behavior by 2 or more individuals that leads to mutual benefitPrisoner’s dilemmaCooperation by B (doesn’t confess)Noncooperation byB (confesses)Cooperation by A (doesn’t confess)A and B get 1 year in prison A gets 30 years andB 0 years in prisonNoncooperation by A (confesses)A gets 0 years and B 30 years in prisonA and B get 10 years in prisonIt benefits them to cooperate with each other, but if they don’t trust each other either they will end up with worse