Sensitizing the general public: experiential processing alters perceptions of confession evidence and minimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
False confessions are a leading cause of wrongful convictions in Canada, suggesting a lack of protection against false confessions. Moreover, minimization tactics can increase the chance of false confessions. Current educational efforts (i.e., cautionary instructions and expert testimony) do not sufficiently sensitize jurors to false confessions, increasing the chance that false confessions will result in a wrongful conviction. We hypothesized that experiential processing (via personal learning) would alter perceptions of confessions. In Study 1, participants read vignettes whereby minimization led to a confession, and provided perceptions of the confession. Veracity of the confession was manipulated. Learning that a seemingly appropriate interrogation lead to a false confession altered perceptions of that confession evidence. This change in perception carried over to a second, unrelated case. In Study 2, we replicated these findings using video clips of actual Canadian interrogations, strengthening ecological validity of the study. Implications for jury decision making are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".