Sie sind auf Seite 1von 20

SOP 3004-U01: Social Psychology

Fall 2010
CP 197
MWF 11:00 – 11:50am

Instructor: Kevin A. Strubler


Office: DM 291 / DM 142A
Office Hours: MW 3:30 – 4:30 pm or by appointment
Email: kstruble@fiu.edu (though I prefer you e-mail me through Blackboard)
Phone: Psychology Main Office – (305) 348-2880 (for messages in case of emergency)

Course Description:

Social psychology is the study of an individual’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as he/she
interacts with others. It is based on the principles of psychological science. Theories are
examined through the scientific method. This course with examine several social psychological
theories and the empirical research experiments supporting them. We will discuss the major
topics in social psychology including persuasion, conformity, helping behavior, and aggression.
Students should be prepared to think critically about each topic and to actively participate in
class discussions. Successful completion of the course requires participation in class activities,
completion of all assignments, and timely reading of assigned materials. Readings will be from
the required text and supplemental articles and are due on the dates specified in the attached
course schedule. At the end of the course, you will have a better understanding of the social
interactions that you encounter on a daily basis.

Learning Objectives:

Upon completion of this course, you should be able to:

1. Describe both the primary findings within social psychology as well as the basic
scientific methodology that was used to obtain those findings
2. Identify fundamental research methods in social psychology, including the
development of research questions and hypotheses, measures and manipulations, etc.
3. Define basic social psychological terms and concepts
4. Critically analyze an empirical research article
5. Evaluate the role of the situation on an individual’s behavior

Required Reading:

Textbook
Kenrick, D.T., Neuberg, S.L., & Cialdini, R.B. (2010). Social Psychology: Goals in Interaction
(5th Edition). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson.
(We will skip the majority of the content in Chapters 13 & 14.)

1
Additional Articles
(Available on Blackboard)

Article 1 (for W 9.8.10)


Miller, D. T. & McFarland, C. (1986). Counterfactual thinking and victim compensation: A test
of norm theory. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 513-519.

Article 2 (for 11.29.10)


Kassin, S. M. & Kiechel, K. L. (1996). The social psychology of false confessions: Compliance,
internalization, and confabulation. Psychological Science, 7, 125-129.

Blackboard CE6:

This course will utilize the Blackboard (Campus Edition 6) online classroom to provide you with
assignment instructions, grades, and additional materials. It is important that you become
familiar with this software and check the course website on a regular basis because all important
class updates and announcements will be posted online. If you have never used Blackboard
before, or if you want to find additional information about the software, I encourage you to
attend the Blackboard training sessions available to students during the first week of classes.
Please refer to http://ce6.fiu.edu for additional information. Login at
http://online.fiu.edu/login/uts. Enter your username (Panther ID) and password (birthdate in the
format mmddyyyy).

Attendance Policy

Successful completion of this course requires regular class attendance and active participation in
class discussions. Students are expected to complete all assigned readings as indicated on the
Course Schedule in preparation for each lecture. Lectures will clarify and expand upon
information provided in your textbook. Exams will include information from the text, as well as
from class lectures. If you miss a class, you are responsible for obtaining the information
discussed in class from your classmates. If any class or assignment conflicts with a religious
holiday, discuss with me what conflict exists during the first week of classes. I will take
attendance randomly ten times throughout the semester worth 1 point each for a total of 10
possible points toward your final grade.

Course Structure

Exams
There will be four (4) non-cumulative exams in this class. Each exam is worth 50 points and will
consist of multiple-choice questions. On the day of the exam please arrive on time and bring a
#2 pencil. If you arrive after the first person has turned in his/her exam, you will not be allowed
to take the exam. You are responsible for bringing a pencil on exam day. You may only take an
exam on the scheduled date and time unless you contact me prior to the time of the exam to
inform me of your absence and then provide documentation of a serious illness, death in the
family, or other serious emergency that prevented you from being present on the day of the exam.
In the event that you provide adequate documentation for your absence, you will be expected to

2
take a make-up exam within one week of the excused absence. I reserve the right to curve the
scores for any exam.

Assignments
There will be two (2) written assignments throughout the semester worth a total of 25 points
toward your final grade. Late assignments will not be accepted.

A. Advertisement Assignment (15 pts) – Find a print advertisement and analyze the ad
from a psychological point of view. Instructions can be found on Blackboard.
[Due W 9.8.10 11am In Class]

B. Helping Assignment (10 pts) – Describe a helping situation you encountered by


applying social psychological theory. Follow the instructions on Blackboard.
[Due M 11.1.10 11am via Blackboard]

To be sure that you have access to Blackboard and have read this syllabus, you will be required
to submit a Practice Assignment on Blackboard. To do this, first download the blank assignment
sheet from Blackboard. Next fill it out with your name and panther ID# and save the file with
this format—LastnamePractice.docx. Then upload this file (substituting your last name in the
filename. If you do this by September 3, 2010 you will receive 1 extra credit point.

Extra Credit
You may earn a maximum of 6 additional extra credit points by using one of the following
methods:

A. Participate in Psychology Department Sponsored Research Studies – You will need


to set up an account at http://fiu.sona-systems.com to see a listing of the available
studies. You must also specify that you want the credits earned to apply to this
course. You will receive 1 research credit for every credit hour in which you
participate. I will double this so that you will get 2 extra credit points added to your
grade for every hour of participation up to a maximum of 6 points (3 hours of
participation). To obtain this credit, I also require that at least one of the studies that
you participate in NOT be conducted online. Therefore, if choosing this option, you
must participate in at least one study in-person. Do not wait until the end of the
semester! Research credits for extra credit must be completed by December 3,
2010.

B. Write an Experimental Paper –You may receive 6 extra credit points by writing an
article summary/critique on one of the articles required for class. This assignment
will be due before the start of class on the day in which we will discuss the
article. Late papers will not be accepted. All assignments must be uploaded through
Blackboard in a valid Microsoft Word document (with the file extension .doc or
.docx). The filename should be in this format—LastnameArticle#.docx—substituting
your last name and the number of the article you reviewed. (For example, if I
submitted a review of the second article my paper would have the filename

3
StrublerArticle2.docx.) Explicit instructions on the format and content of this
assignment can be found on Blackboard. Partial credit may be given at my discretion.

Grading Procedure

Your final grade will include the 4 exams (200 pts), the 2 assignments (25 pts), your attendance
points (10 pts), and any extra credit earned (max 7 pts). The following scale will be used to
assign a final grade:

Grade Percent Points Grade Percent Points

A 93.0 – 100% 219 - 235 C 73.0 – 76.9% 172 - 180


A- 90.0 – 92.9% 212 - 218 C- 70.0 – 72.9% 165 - 171
B+ 87.0 – 89.9% 205 - 211 D+ 67.0 – 69.9% 158 - 164
B 83.0 – 86.9% 195 - 204 D 63.0 – 66.9% 148 - 157
B- 80.0 – 82.9% 188 - 194 D- 60.0 – 62.9% 141 - 147
C+ 77.0 – 79.9% 181 - 187 F below 60.0% below 141

Classroom Conduct

Disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. Please arrive to class on time. If you must leave early,
please do so as quietly as possible. Cell phones and other potential distractions (like those on
computers) should be turned off or in silent mode. In the event that a personal emergency
necessitates access to your cell phone, you must notify me before class begins and set your
phone to vibrate mode. Anyone engaging in a private conversation during class will be asked to
leave. This includes instant messaging as this can also be distracting to other students.

Academic Misconduct

Academic misconduct in any form is a very serious matter, and will not be tolerated in this class.
The term academic misconduct includes (but is not limited to) the following acts: cheating on
examinations, turning in another person’s work as your own, including another person’s words
or ideas in your writing without crediting the source, or engaging in behaviors that prevent other
students in the class from succeeding. Students who engage in academic misconduct will be
sanctioned. Please refer to the Student Handbook for more information.

Disabled Student Policy

The university provides individualized accommodations to students who have disabilities that
may affect their ability to participate in course activities or to meet course requirements. Students
with disabilities are encouraged to contact both me and the Disability Resource Center (GC 190:
305-348-3532) to discuss their individual needs, and the appropriate accommodations will be
made. Be sure to contact me during the first week of classes; these conversations will be
held in strict confidence.

4
SOP 3004-U01: Social Psychology
Fall 2010
**Course Schedule**

DATE TOPIC READING ASSIGNMENT

Week 1 Introduction Chapter 1

*none (content in Practice Assignment


Week 2 Research Methods
class notes only) Due F 9.3.10 (online)

M 9.6.10 Labor Day: No Class

^Extra Credit:
Week 3 Person & Situation Chapter 2 / Article 1 Article 1 Paper Due
W 9.8.10 (online)

Week 4 Social Cognition Chapter 3

F 9.17.10 EXAM 1

Week 5 The Self Chapter 4

Attitudes & Ad Assignment Due


Week 6 Chapter 5
Persuasion M 10.4.10 (in class)

Week 7 Social Influence Chapter 6

M 10.11.10 EXAM 2

Affiliation &
Week 8 Chapter 7
Friendship
Love & Romantic
Week 9 Chapter 8
Relationships
Helping Assignment
Week 10 Prosocial Behavior Chapter 9 Due M 11.1.10
(online)

W 11.3.10 EXAM 3

5
DATE TOPIC READING ASSIGNMENT

Week 11 Aggression Chapter 10

Prejudice,
Week 12 Stereotyping, & Chapter 11
Discrimination

Week 13/14 Groups Chapter 12

F 11.26.10 Thanksgiving Holiday: No Class

*none (content in ^Extra Credit:


Social Psychology &
Week 15 class notes only) / Article 2 Paper Due
Law
Article 2 M 11.29.10 (online)

Week 16 Finals Week: No Classes

W 12.8.10
EXAM 4
9:45-11:45am
^While everyone is responsible for reading each article for class and the exams, you may submit
an Experimental Paper on one for Extra Credit.

**This schedule is tentative and subject to change**

6
Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin
http://psp.sagepub.com

Counterfactual Thinking and Victim Compensation: A Test of


Norm Theory
Dale T. Miller and Cathy McFarland
Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1986; 12; 513
DOI: 10.1177/0146167286124014

The online version of this article can be found at:


http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/4/513

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

Additional services and information for Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin can be
found at:

Email Alerts: http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://psp.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations http://psp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/12/4/513

Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on August 20, 2009


Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on August 20, 2009

from the SAGE Social Science Collections. All Rights Reserved.


Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on August 20, 2009
Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on August 20, 2009
Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on August 20, 2009
Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on August 20, 2009
Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on August 20, 2009
Downloaded from http://psp.sagepub.com at FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIV on August 20, 2009
Reading J 5 The Social Psychology of False Confessions
R60;C
3!3f3,6 )
.pect.
READING 15
'e ap-
nder-
Confession to a crime is a potent and incriminating form of evidence. When a defendant
confesses to the police, even if he or she later claims that the confession was coerced,
fix. W.
judges and juries vote for guilt and conviction. Yet every now and then, there are docu-
Vash-
mented reports about innocent people who confess to crimes they did not commit as a
mean of compliance, in response to pressures exerted during a police interrogation. In
lental
some cases, innocent suspects actually come to believe they may be guilty, indicating an
mally even stronger form of influence, internalization. Is it really possible to convince people
\932, that they are guilty of an act they did not commit? Based on an analysis of actual cases,
Kassin and Kiechel (1996) theorized that two factors increase the risk: (I) a suspect who
itique lacks a clear memory of the event, and (2) the presentation of false evidence, a common
1al of police trick. As you will see, these researchers tested and supported this hypothesis in a
-359. laboratory experiment on false confessions. While reading this article, think about how it
:ogni- illustrates processes not only relevant to the psychology of law (Chapter 12), but also to
Ichat- social influence (Chapter 9)and persuasion (Chapter 7) research as well.

nberg
linary The Social Psychology of False ,Confessions: Compliance,
Cam-
Internalization, and Confabulation
esses.

:: An- Saul M. Kassin and Katherine L. Kiechel


Williams College
"olih,

e psy- An experiment demonstrated that false incriminating trial judges and juries consider on a routine basis. To
153- evidence can lead people to accept guilt for a crime they guard citizens against violations of due process and to
did not commit. Subjects in a fast- or slow-paced reac- minimize the risk that the innocent would confess to
:e for tion time task were accused ofdamaging a computer by crimes they did not commit, the courts have erected
pressing the wrong key. All were truly innocent and ini- guidelines for the admissibility of confession evidence.
tially den,ied the charge. A confederate then said she saw Although there is no simple litmus test, confessions are
1974) the subject hit the key or did not see the subject hit the typically excluded from trial if elicited by physical vio-
key. Compared with subjects in the slow-pacelno-witness lence, a threat of harm or punishment, or a promise of
group, those in the fasf-pacelwitness group were more immunity or leniency, or without the suspect being no-
likely to sign a confession, internalize guilt for the tified of his or her Miranda rights.
event, and confabulate details in memory consistent To understand the psychology of criminal confes-
with that belief Both legal and conceptual implications sions, three questions need to be addressed: First, how
are discussed. do police interrogators elicit self-incriminating state-
ments (Le., what means of social influence do they
use)? Second, what effects do these methods have (i.e.,
Address correspondence to Saul Kassin, Department of Psy- do innocent suspects ever confess to crimes they did
chology, Williams College, WilIiamstoVl'll, MA 01267. not commit)? Third, when a coerced confession is re-
tracted and later presented at trial, do juries sufficiently
In criminal law, confession evidence is· a potent discount the evidence in accordance with the law?
weapon for the prosecution and a recurring source of General reviews of relevant case law and research are
controversy. Whether a suspect's self-incriminating available elsewhere (Gudjonsson, 1992; Wrightsman &
statement was voluntary or coerced and whether a sus- Kassin, 1993). The present research addresses the first
pect was of sound mind are just two of the issues that two questions.

SOURCE: Kassin, S. I., &: Kiechel, K.L. 1996. The Social Psychology of False Confessions: Compliance, Internalization, and
Confabulation. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 7, 125-128. Reprinted by permission of Blackwell Science Ltd.
.
200 Part IV APPLYING SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Infonned by developments in case law, the police ined, but there are numerous documented instances on
use various methods of interrogation-including the record (Bedau & Radelet, 1987; Borchard, 1932; Ratt-
presentation of false evidence (e.g., fake polygraph, fin- ner, 1988). Indeed, one can distinguish three types of
gerprints, or other forensic test results; staged eyewitness false confession (Kassin & Wrightsman, 1985): volun-
identifications), appeals to God and religion, feigned tary (in which a subject confesses in the absence of ex-
friendship, and the use of prison infonnants. A number ternal pJ;essure), coerced-compliant (in which a suspect
of manuals are available to advise detectives on how to confesses only to escape an aversive interrogation, se-
extract confessions from reluctant crime suspects (Aubry cure a promised benefit, or avoid a threatened hann),
& Caputo, 1965; O'Hara & O'Hara, 1981). The most and coerced-internalized (in which a suspect actually
popular manual is Inbau, Reid, and Buckley's (1986) comes to believe that he or she is gUilty of the crime).
Criminal Interrogation and Conjessions, originally pub- This last type of false confession seems most
lished in 1962, and now in its third edition. unlikely, but a number of recent cases have come to
After advising interrogators to set aside a bare, light in which the police had seized a suspect who was
soundproof room absent of social support and distrac- vulnerable (by virtue of his or her youth, intelligence,
tion, Inbau et al. (1986) describe in detail a nine-step personality, stress, or mental state) and used false evi-
procedure consisting of various specific ploys. In gen- dence to convince the beleaguered suspect that he or
eral, two types of approaches can be distinguished. One she was gUilty. In one case that received a great deal of
is minimization, a technique in which the detective lulls attention, for example, Paul Ingram was charged with
the suspect into a false sense of security by providing rape and a host of satanic cult crimes that included the
face-saving excuses, citing mitigating circumstances, slaughter of newborn babies. During 6 months of interro-
blaming the victim, and underplaying the charges. The gation, he was hypnotized, exposed to graphic crime de-
second approach is one of maximization, in which the tails, infonned by a police psychologist that sex offenders
interrogator uses scare tactics by exaggerating or falsi- often repress their offenses, and urged by the minister
fYing the characterization of evidence, the seriousness of his church to confess. Eventually, Ingram "recalled"
of the offense, and the magnitude of the charges. In a crime scenes to specification, pleaded guilty, and was
recent study (Kassin & McNall, 1991), subjects read sentenced to prison. There was no physical evidence of
interrogation transcripts in which these ploys were used these crimes, however, and an expert who reviewed the
and estimated the severity of the sentence likely to be case for the state concluded that Ingram had been
received. The results indicated that minimization com- brainwashed. To demonstrate, this expert accused In-
municated an implicit offer of leniency, comparable to gram of a bogus crime and found that although he ini-
that estimated in an explicit-promise condition, tially denied the charge, he later confessed-and
whereas maximization implied a threat of harsh pun- embellished the story (Ofshe, 1992: Wright, 1994).
ishment, comparable to that found in an explicit-threat Other similar cases have been reported (e.g., Prat-
condition. Yet although American courts routinely ex- kanis & Aronson, 1991), but, to date, there is no em-
clude confessions elicited by explicit threats and prom- pirical proof of this phenomenon. Memory researchers
ises, they admit those produced by contingencies that have found that misleading postevent infonnation can
are pragmatically implied. alter actual or reported memories of observed events .
Although police often use coercive methods of in- (Loftus, Donders, Hoffinan, & Schooler, 1989; Loftus,
terrogation, research suggests that juries are prone to Miller, & Burns, 1978; McCloskey & Zaragoza,
convict defendants who confess in these situations. In 1985)-an effect that is particularly potent in young
the case of Arizona v. Fulminante (1991), the U.S. Su- children (Ceci & Bruck, 1993; Ceci, Ross, & Toglia,
preme Court ruled that under certain conditions, an im- 1987) and adults under hypnosis (Dinges et aI., 1992;
properly admitted coerced confession may be Dywan & Bowers, 1983; Sheehan, Statham, &
considered upon appeal to have been nonprejudicial, or Jamieson, 1991). Indeed, recent studies suggest it is
"hannless error." Yet mock-jury research shows that even possible to implant false recollections of traumas
people find it hard to believe that anyone would con- supposedly buried in the unconscious (Loftus, 1993).
fess to a crime that he or she did not commit (Kassin & As related to confessions, the question is, can memory
Wrightsman, 1980, 1981; Sukel & Kassin, 1994). Still, of one's own actions similarly be altered? Can people
it happens. One cannot estimate the prevalence of the be induced to accept guilt for crimes they did not
problem, which has never been systematically exam- commit? Is it, contrary to popular belief, possible?
Reading 15 The Social Psychology of False Confessions

ces on Because of obvious ethical constraints, this impor- on the number of letters typed correctly (Ms = 33.
; Ratt- tant issue has not been addressed previously. This article and 61.12, respectively; FII, 71J = 278.93, P < .00
pes of thus reports on a new laboratory paradigm used to test the and the number of typing errors made (Ms = 1.12
volun- following specific hypothesis: The presentation of false 10.90, respectively; FII, 71J "" 38.81, P < .001),
of ex- evidence can lead individuals who are vulnerable (i.e., in confirming the effectiveness of this manipulation.
,uspect a heightened state of uncertainty) to confess to an act they Second, we varied the use of false inerinlimllill
:m, se- did not commit and, more important, to intemalize the evidence, a common interrogation technique. After
hann), confession and perhaps confabulate details in memory subject initially denied the charge, the experimen
ctually consistent with that new belief. turned to the confederate and asked, "Did you see
me). thing?" In the false-witness condition, the \,oVllll"U,,'
; most "admitted" that she had seen the subject hit the
)me to METHOD key that tenninated the program. In the no-witn
ho was Participating for extra credit in what was supposed to be condition, the same confederate said she had not
igence, a reaction time experiment, 79 undergraduates (40 male, what happened.
se evi- 39 female) were randomly assigned to one of four As dependent measures, three forms of social
: he or groups produced by a 2 (high vs. low vulnerability) x 2 fluence were assessed: compliance, internalization,
deal of (presence vs. absence of a false incriminating witness) confabulation. To elicit compliance, the F'vr'F'rim
:d with factorial design. handwrote a standardized confession ("I hit the 'A
Jed the Two subjects per session (actually, 1 subject and a key and caused the program to crash. Data were
,nterro- female confederate) engaged in a reaction time task on' and asked the subject to sign it-the consequence
me de- an IBM PS21M0dei 50 computer. To bolster the credi- which would be a phone call from the principal
fenders bility of the experimental cover story, they were asked tigator. If the subject refused, the request was repealed
linister to fill out a brief questionnaire concerning their typing a second time,
;alled" experience and ability, spatial awareness, and speed of To assess internalization, we unobtrusively re·
1d was reflexes. The subject and confederate were then taken corded the way subjects privately described what hap.
mceof to another room, seated across a table from the experi- pened soon afterward. As the experimenter and subject
ved the menter, and instructed on the task. The confederate was left the laboratory, they were met in the reception arca
I been to read aloud a list of letters, and the subject was to by a waiting subject (actually, a second confederate
,ed In- type these letters on the keyboard. After 3 min, the sub- who was blind to the subject's condition and previous
he ini- ject and confederate were to reverse roles. Before the behavior) who had overheard the commotion. The ex-
i-and session began, subjects were instructed on proper use perimenter explained that the session would have to he
.). of the computer-and were specifically warned not to rescheduled, and then left the room to retrieve his ap-
., Prat- press the "ALT" key positioned near the space bar be- pointment calendar. At that point, the second confeder·
:10 em- cause doing so would cause the program to crash and ate turned privately to the subject and asked, "What
ifchers data to be lost. Lo and behold, after 60 s, the computer happened?" The subject's reply was recorded verbatim
on can supposedly ceased to function, and a highly distressed and later coded for whether or not he or she had unam·
events experimenter accused the subject of having pressed the biguously internalized guilt for what happened (e.g., "I
Loftus, forbidden key. All subjects initially denied the charge, hit the wrong button and ruined the program"; "I hi! a
;agoza, at which point the experimenter tinkered with the key- button I wasn't supposed to"), A conservative criterion
young board, confirmed that data had been lost, and asked, was employed. Any reply that was prefaced by "he
Toglia, "Did you hit the' AL T' key?" said" or "I may have" or "I think" was not taken as
. 1992; Two forensically relevant factors were independ- evidence of internalization. Two raters who were blind
m, & ently varied. First, we manipulated subjects' level of to the subject's condition independently coded these
st it is vulnerability (i.e., their subjective certainty concerning responses, and their agreement rate was 96%.
raumas their own innocence) by varying the pace of the task. Finally, after the sessions seemed to be over, the
1993). Using a mechanical metronome, the confederate read experimenter reappeared, brought the subjects back
lemory either at a slow and relaxed pace of 43 letters per min- into the lab, reread the list of letters they had typed, and
people ute or at a frenzied pace of 67 letters per minute (these asked if they could reconstruct how or when they hi!
id not settings were established through pretesting). Two-way the "ALT" key. This procedure was designed to probe
? analyses of variance revealed significant main effects for evidence of confabulation, to detennine whether
202 Part IV APPLYING SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

subjects would "recall" specific details to fit the allega- fect. Out of 17 subjects in the fast-pace/witness cell,
tion (e.g., "Yes, here, I hit it with the side of my hand 100% signed a confession, 65% came to believe they
right after you called out the 'A"'). The interrater agree- were guilty (in reality, they were not), and 35% con-
ment rate on the coding of these data was 100%. fabulated details to support their false belief (via chi-
At the end of each session, subjects were fully and square tests, the differences in these rates between the
carefully debriefed about the study-its purpose, the slow-pa~e/no-witness control group and fast-
hypothesis, and the reason for the use of deception-by pace/witness group were significant at ps < .001, .00 I,
the experimenter and first confederate. Most subjects and .005, respectively).
reacted with a combination of relief (that they had not Additional pair-wise comparisons revealed that the
ruined the experiment), amazement (that their percep- presence of a witness alone was sufficient to signifi-
tions of their own behavior had been so completely cantly increase the rates of compliant and internalized
manipulated), and a sense of satisfaction (at having confessions, even in the slow-pace condition (X2[1] =
played a meaningful role in an important study). Sub- 12.18, p < .005, and X2[1] = 16.39, P < .00]). There
jects were also asked not to discuss the experience with were no sex differences on any measures (Le., male
other stud.ents until all the data were collected. Four and female subjects exhibited comparable confession
subjects reported during debriefing that they were sus- rates overall, and were similarly influenced by the in-
picious of the experimental manipulation. Their data dependent variables).
were excluded from all analyses. The present study provides strong initial support
for the provocative notion that the presentation of false
incriminating evidence-an interrogation ploy that is
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
common among the police and sanctioned by many
Overall, 6tJOio of the 75 subjects signed the confession, courts--can induce people to internalize blame for out-
28% exhibited internalization, and 9% confabulated- de- comes they did not produce. These results provide an
tails to support their false beliefs. More important, be- initial basis for challenging the evidentiary validity of
tween-group comparisons provided strong support for the confessions produced by this technique. These findings
main hypothesis. As seen in Table 1, subjects in the slow- also demonstrate, possibly for the first time, that memory
pace/no-witness control group were the least likely to ex- can be altered not only for observed events and remote
hibit an effect, whereas those in the fast-pace/witness past experiences, but also for one's own recent actions.
group were the most likely to exhibit the effect on the An obvious and important empirical question re-
measures of compliance (X 2[3] = 23.84, P < .001), inter- mains concerning the external validity of the present re-
nalization (X 2[3] = 37.61, P < .001), and confabulation sults: To what extent do they generalize to the
<;(2[3J = 18.0, P < .005). interrogation behavior of actual crime suspects? For ethi-
Specifically, although 34.78% of the subjects in the' cal reasons, we developed a laboratory paradigm in
slow-pace/no-witness group signed the confession, indi- which subjects were accused merely of an unconscious
cating compliance, not a single subject in this group ex- act of negligence, not of an act involving explicit criminal
hibited internalization or confabulation. In contrast, the intent (e.g., stealing equipment from the lab or cheating
two in dependent variables had a powerful combined ef- on an important test). In this paradigm, there was only a
minor consequence for liability. At this point, it is unclear
TABLE 1 whether people could similarly be induced to intemalize
Percentage of subjects In each cell who exhibited false gUilt for acts of omission (Le., neglecting to do
the three forms of influence something they were told to do) or for acts that emanate
from conscious intent.
Form of No witness Witness It is important, however, not to overstate this limita-
influence Slow Fast Slow Fast
pace pace Pace pace
tion. The fact that our procedure focused on an act of
Compliance 35. 65. 89bc 100, negligence and low consequence may well explain why
Internalization O. 12,. 44.. 65, the compliance rate was high, with roughly two thirds of
Confabulation O. 0, 6. 35. all subjects agreeing to sign a confession statement. Ef-
fects of this sort on overt judgments and behavior have
Note. Percentages not sharing a common subscript been observed in studies of conformity to group norms,
differ at p < .05 via chi-square test of significance. compliance with direct requests, and obedience to the
Reading 15 The Social Psychology of False Confessions 203

: cell, commands of authority. But the more important and star- Dinges, D.F., Whitehouse, W.O., Orne, E.C., Powell, l.W .•
: they tling result-iliat many subjects privately internalized Orne, M.T., & Erdelyi, M.H. (1992). Evaluating hypnotic
, con- guilt for an outcome they did not produce, and that some memory enhancement (hypermnesia and reminiscence) us-
1 chi- even constructed memories to fit that false belief-is not ing multitrial forced recall. Journal of Experimental Psy-
:n the seriously compromised by the laboratory paradigm that chology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1139-1147.
fast- was used. Conceptually, these findings extend known Dywan, 1., & Bowers, K. (1983). The use of hypnosis to en-
.001, effects of misinformation on memory for observed events hance recall. Science, 222, 184-185.
(Loftus et aI., 1978; McCloskey & Zaragoza, 1985) and Oeller, W.A. (1993). Videotaping interrogations and confes-
at the fur traumas assumed to be buried in the unconscious sions (National Institute of Justice: Research in Briet).
gnifi- (Loftus, 1993). Indeed, our effects were exhibited by col- Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice.
dized lege students who are intelligent (drawn from a popula- Oudjonsson, O. (1992). The psychology of interrogations.
[1] = tion in which the mean score on the Scholastic Aptitude confessions, and testimony. London: Wiley.
There Test is over nOO), self-assured, and under minimal Inbau, F.E., Reid, J.E., & Buckley, J.P. (1986). Criminal in-
male stress compared with crime suspects held in custody, terrogation and confessions (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD:
:ssion often in isolation. Williams & Wilkins.
1e in- At this point, additional research is needed to exam- Kassin, S.M., & McNall, K. (1991). Police interrogations anu
ine other common interrogation techniques (e.g., minimi- confessions: Communicating promises and threats hy
pport zation), individual differences in suspect vulnerability pragmatic implication. Law and Human Behavior, 15.
. false (e.g., manifest anxiety, need for approval, hypnotic sus- 233-251.
mt is ceptibility), and other risk factors for false confessions Kassin, S.M., & Wrightsman, L.S. (1980). Prior confession,
many (e.g., blood alcohol level, sleep deprivation). In light of and mock juror verdicts. Journal of Applied Social 1'.\1-
r out- recent judicial acceptance of a broad range of self- chology, 10, 133-146.
de an incriminatory statements, increasing use of videotaped Kassin, S.M., & Wrightsman, L.S. (1981). Coerced conics·
ityof confessions at the trial level (Geller, 1993), and the U.S. sions, judicial instruction, and mock juror verdicts. Juur'
dings Supreme Court's ruling that an improperly admitted co- nat, ofApplied Social Psychology J1, 489-506.
:mory erced confession may qualifY as a mere "harmless error" Kassin, S.M., & Wrightsman, L.S. (I 985). Confession C\I-
~mote (Arizona v. Fuiminante, 1991), further research is also dence. In S.M. Kassin & L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.). {"'-
ns. needed to assess the lay jury's reaction to this type of psychology of evidence and trial procedure (pp. 67
,n re- evidence when presented in court. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
nt re- Loftus, E.F. (1993). The reality of repressed
I the American Psychologist, 48,518-537 .
. ethi- Acknowledgments--This research was submitted as part of Loftus, E.F., Donders, K., Hoffinan, HO., & Schoob,
;m in a senior honor's thesis by the second author and was funded (1989). Creating new memories that are quickly
:cious by the BTonfman Science Center of Williams College. and confidently held_ Memory and Cognition, 17,
minal Loftus, E.F., Miller, D.O_, & Bums, H.I. (1978).
~ating integration of verbal information into visual
mlya
REFERENCES Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Iclear Arizona v. Fulminante, 59 U.S.L.W. 4235 (1991). and Memory, 4, 19-31.
lalize Aubry, A., & Caputo, R. (1965). Criminal interrogation. McCloskey, M., & Zaragoza, M. (1985),
~o do Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
anate Bedau, H., & Radelet, M. (1987). Miscarriages ofjustice in po- evidence against memory impairment hvr,,,th,....
tentially capital cases, Stanford Law Review, 40, 21-179. of Experimental Psychology, 114,3-18.
mita- Borchard, E.M. (1932). Convicting the innocent: Errors of Ofshe, R. (1992). Inadvertent hypnosis during
lct of criminal justice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. False confession due to dissociative state;
why Ceci, S.1., & Bruck, M. (1993). Suggestibility of the child mUltiple personality and the satanic cult
ds of witness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological national Journal of Clinical and I<:""pri'mlfl
:. Ef- Bulletin, /13,403-439. 40, 125-156.
have Ceci, S.J., Ross, D.F., & Toglia, M.P. (1987). Suggestibility O'Hara, C.E., & O'Hara, O.L. (1981).
lrms, of children's memory: Psycholegal implications. Journal
) the of Experimental Psychology: General, 1/6,38-49.
204 Par/IV APPLYING SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

Pratkanis, A., & Aronson, E. (1991). Age ofpropaganda: The Sukel, H.L., & Kassin, S.M. (1994, March). Coerced confes-
everyday use and abuse of persuasion. New York: W.H. sions and the jul')': An experimental test of the "harmless
Freeman. error" rule. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the
Rattner, A. (1988). Convicted but innocent: Wrongful con- American Psychology-Law Society, Sante Fe, NM.
viction and the criminal justice system. Law and Human Wright, L. (1994). Remembering Satan. New York: Alfred A.
Behavior, 12,283-293. Knopf.•
Sheehan, P.W., Statham, D., & Jamieson, G.A. (1991). Pseu- Wrightsman, L.S., & Kassin, S.M. (1993). Confessions in the
domemory effects and their relationship to level of suscep- courtroom. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
tibility to hypnosis and state instruction. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 130-137. (Received 12121/94; Accepted 2/22/9'5)

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen