Public Perceptions of False Confessions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current investigation examined the effects of two catalysts (external vs. internal) that may influence a person’s likelihood of falsely confessing to a crime that they did not commit on public perceptions of an alleged murder (coercive interrogation and desire to exit the interrogation room due to anxiety). We also varied the source (defendant, expert witness, or the expert witness plus defendant) by which participants learned of the defendant’s explanation for falsely confessing. Further, we utilized false confession and no-false confession conditions to investigate these potential impacts. Numerous effects were found in the no-false confession conditions that did not generalize to the false confession conditions. Additionally, there were several interactions between false confession condition and catalyst, as well as limited interactions between catalyst and source. The results highlight the importance of including no-false confession comparison conditions to assist in the interpretation of false confession condition results. Importantly, although there were no significant differences between perceptions of an external versus internal catalyst for confession, participants failed to fully recognize the effects of coercive interrogation on false confessions. Expert witness testimony showed limited positive impacts on public perceptions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".