The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Coerced confessions and the jury: An experimental test of the "harmless error" rule.
Abstract
Prompted by the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Arizona v. Fulminante (1991), two studies evaluated the proposition that an erroneously admitted coerced confession can be considered “harmless error.” Mock jurors read transcripts of a murder trial containing a confession that was (1) elicited in a high- or low-pressure interrogation, and (2) ruled admissible or inadmissible by the judge (no-confession control groups were also included). As prescribed by law, jurors saw the high-pressure confession as less voluntary, correctly recalled the judge's ruling, and reported that it had less influence on their decisions. On verdicts, however, the confession increased the conviction rate—even when it was seen as coerced, even when it was stricken from the record, and even when jurors said it had no influence. These results suggest that appellate courts should exercise caution in applying the harmless error rule to the admission of coerced confessions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Ironic processes of mental control.
Wegner, D. M. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.101.1.34 · Cited by 2,609
Paradoxical effects of thought suppression.
Wegner, D. M., Schneider, D. J., Carter, S. R., & White, T. L. (1987) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.53.1.5 · Cited by 2,127
Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.21 · Cited by 1,897
Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., & Hubbard, M. (1975) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.32.5.880 · Cited by 1,052
Perceiver-induced constraint: Interpretations of self-generated reality.
Gilbert, D. T., & Jones, E. E. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.269 · Cited by 335 · cited 1×
“Many studies have shown that people often fall prey to the fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977), or correspondence bias ( Gilbert & Jones, 1986 )—that is, they tend to accept the dispositional implications of another person's behavior without sufficiently accounting for the role of situational factors (for revie…”
BackgroundPretrial publicity, judicial remedies, and jury bias.
Kramer, G. P., Kerr, N. L., & Carroll, J. S. (1990) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/bf01044220 · Cited by 202 · cited 1×
“Yet other research has shown that jury verdicts are predictable by the pre-deliberation distribution of individual votes (Kalven & Zeisel, 1966; Kerr, 1981; Sandys & Dillehay, 1995) and that the biasing effects of pretrial publicity and other nonevidentiary factors are often exacerbated by the process of deliberation…”
BackgroundFirst-ballot votes, predeliberation dispositions, and final verdicts in jury trials.
Sandys, M., & Dillehay, R. C. (1995) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1007/bf01499324 · Cited by 103
Cited by
(2005) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195154054.001.0001 · Cited by 586
Behavioral confirmation in the interrogation room: On the dangers of presuming guilt
Kassin, S. M., Goldstein, C. C., & Savitsky, K. (2003) · Law and Human Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1022599230598 · Cited by 358
Self-citationSleep deprivation and false confessions
Frenda, S. J., Berkowitz, S. R., Loftus, E. F., & Fenn, K. M. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1521518113 · Cited by 138
On the Presumption of Evidentiary Independence: Can Confessions Corrupt Eyewitness Identifications?
Hasel, L. E., & Kassin, S. M. (2009) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02262.x · Cited by 138
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Kassin, S. M., & Sukel, H.
- Venue
- Law and Human Behavior
- Published
- 1997-02
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 27-46
- ISSN
- 0147-7307 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-661X
- OpenAlex
- W2064282221
- Cited by
- 263
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 2.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
