权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Psychological Assessment of Voluntary Consent

自愿同意的心理评估

基本信息

批准号：
1823661
负责人：
Vanessa Bohns
金额：
$ 25.09万
依托单位：
Cornell University
依托单位国家：
美国
项目类别：
Standard Grant
财政年份：
2018
资助国家：
美国
起止时间：
2018-09-01 至 2021-08-31
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1823661&HistoricalAwards=false
关键词：
Psychological Assessment Voluntary Consent

项目摘要

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution aims to protect the public from unreasonable search and seizure by requiring authorities to have probable cause before conducting a search. However, the vast majority of police searches today are authorized by citizens' voluntary consent. Consent searches do not require probable cause, which means that an individual can be singled out based on an officer's hunch, or for no reason at all. The legality of these consent searches rests on the "voluntariness test," an assessment of whether a reasonable person would feel free to refuse the officer's request or walk away. This test requires third-party decision-makers to engage in a perspective-taking task. They must determine how it would feel to be approached by a police officer and confronted with a search request. A key insight from social psychology is that people tend to perform such tasks poorly. In particular, people underappreciate the role of situational pressure and feelings of discomfort when judging others' behavior. This insight suggests that outside observers may not fully recognize the distress citizens are likely to experience when considering the prospect of saying "no" to a police officer. In a series of experiments, the current research will assess whether these perspective-taking errors cause outside observers to systematically overestimate how free a reasonable person would feel to refuse a search request, and, accordingly, whether the voluntariness test is biased against citizens who have consented to a search.This research will introduce and validate a new experimental paradigm through which to examine the psychological task of assessing voluntariness. In this paradigm, one group of participants will be asked an intrusive and consequential search request, while another group of participants predicts how a reasonable person would respond to this request. It is hypothesized that participants in the "prediction" condition will underestimate compliance rates, despite having access to all the same information as participants in the "actual search" condition. In pilot studies, this paradigm generated large differences between predicted and observed compliance, indicating its promise for addressing long-standing questions related to the perceived and actual voluntariness of consent search. In addition to testing for main effects, the current research will test for moderation by features of the search request that might reduce the gap between perceived and actual voluntariness. Notifying participants that they could refuse a search without penalty, a frequently proposed solution by critics of consent search sometimes referred to as "Miranda-for-search," was not found to be effective at reducing this gap in pilot studies. Thus, the current research will explore alternative possible solutions, such as seeking written consent. Identifying features of the search request that effectively decrease the gap between perceived and actual voluntariness is essential for developing empirically supported policy recommendations related to changes to the law and/or to the practices used by law enforcement agents to obtain consent from citizens.This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.

美国宪法第四修正案旨在保护公众免受不合理的搜查和扣押，要求当局在进行搜查之前必须有合理的理由。然而，今天警方的绝大多数搜查都是在公民自愿同意的情况下授权的。同意搜查不需要可能的理由，这意味着一个人可以根据警官的预感被挑出来，或者根本没有理由。这些同意搜查的合法性取决于“自愿测试”，这是对一个理性的人是否会自由地拒绝警官的请求或离开的评估。这项测试要求第三方决策者参与一项采取观点的任务。他们必须确定警察接近并面对搜查请求是什么感觉。社会心理学的一个关键见解是，人们往往执行这类任务时表现不佳。尤其是，人们在评判别人的行为时，低估了情境压力和不适感的作用。这种洞察力表明，外部观察者可能没有完全意识到公民在考虑向警察说“不”的前景时可能会经历的痛苦。在一系列实验中，本研究将评估这些视角错误是否会导致外部观察者系统地高估一个合理的人拒绝搜索请求的自由程度，并相应地评估自愿测试是否对同意搜索的公民有偏见。本研究将引入并验证一种新的实验范式，通过该范式来检验评估自愿的心理任务。在这种模式下，一组参与者会被问到一个侵入性的和相应的搜索请求，而另一组参与者则预测一个理性的人会如何回应这个请求。假设“预测”条件下的参与者将低估遵从率，尽管他们可以获得与“实际搜索”条件下的参与者相同的所有信息。在试点研究中，这一范式在预测的遵从性和观察到的遵从性之间产生了巨大的差异，表明它有望解决与感知的和实际的自愿同意搜索有关的长期存在的问题。除了测试主效应外，目前的研究还将测试搜索请求的特征是否适度，这些特征可能会缩小感知到的自愿与实际自愿之间的差距。通知参与者他们可以拒绝搜索而不受惩罚，这是同意搜索的批评者经常提出的一种解决方案，有时被称为“米兰达搜索”，但在试点研究中被发现不能有效地缩小这一差距。因此，目前的研究将探索其他可能的解决方案，例如寻求书面同意。识别搜索请求的特征，有效地缩小感知和实际自愿之间的差距，对于制定与法律变化和/或执法人员为获得公民同意而使用的做法有关的经验支持的政策建议至关重要。这一裁决反映了NSF的法定使命，并通过使用基金会的智力价值和更广泛的影响审查标准进行评估，被认为值得支持。