Doctoral Dissertation Research: Improving Elicited Information

虚假供词/承认是有问题的，不仅因为无辜者被定罪，而且因为有罪者逃避司法。研究传统上通过确定增加虚假供词风险的方法来解决这个问题。然而，最近出现了一种利用心理学理论来增强方法的转变，目的是帮助调查人员区分有罪和无辜的嫌疑人。其中一种方法是证据的战略使用（SUE），它涉及证据披露的战略时机（例如，早披露与晚披露）和与证据有关的战略性询问，以增加有罪嫌疑人陈述中陈述与证据的不一致。虽然SUE已经被证明可以有效地增强说谎者和说真话者之间的差异，但它还没有使用富含心理现实主义的实验方法进行测试，这些方法可以更好地模拟真实世界的情况（即，参与者故意犯罪，随后受到询问）。此外，当代各种形式的SUE尚未在无辜和有罪嫌疑人身上进行测试。目前的研究解决这些差距，并在这样做将：（1）阐明SUE变异导致最大量的引出信息;（2）导致非常适用于从业者的发现，因为目前的实验方法更好地反映了现实世界的情况;（3）提供研究经验，代表性不足的少数民族研究人员。总的来说，本研究将有助于执法部门获得有关准确识别肇事者和有效解决案件的有价值的信息。为了实现这些目标，本研究将采用一个作弊范式的变化，其中一个研究助理假装是一个参与者提示（或不提示）实际的参与者作弊的假设“政府发行”的测试。这使提问者能够指控无辜和有罪的参与者作弊，并使用四种证据披露方法之一来询问他们：早期（在讯问前出示证据），迟到（基本SUE，在所有询问后出示证据），SUE-C（逐步提出证据，指出陈述-证据不一致），以及SUE-C/E（与SUE-C相同，但嫌疑人必须解释任何不一致之处）。除了早期条件，所有条件都代表SUE技术的变化。据预测：（1）在所有证据披露策略中，SUE-C/E将导致最多的诊断性供词;（2）所有SUE变体将导致更多的谎言指标（即，陈述证据不一致），与早期证据披露相比;（3）犯罪嫌疑人最终会提供更多的定罪细节时，与SUE的变化比早期披露。鉴于调查结果符合这些预测，SUE可以作为一种方法向执法调查人员宣传，以帮助他们加强调查。该奖项反映了NSF的法定使命，并通过使用基金会的知识价值和更广泛的影响审查标准进行评估，被认为值得支持。

False confessions/admissions are problematic not only because of the conviction of the innocent, but also because the guilty elude justice. Research has traditionally tackled this issue by identifying methods that increase the risk of false confession. However, there has recently been a shift towards using psychological theory to enhance methods, with the goal of helping investigators distinguish between guilty and innocent suspects. One such method is the Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE), which involves strategic timing of evidence disclosure (e.g., early vs. late disclosure) and strategic evidence-related questioning to increase statement-evidence inconsistencies in guilty suspects' statements. While SUE has been demonstrated to effectively enhance the difference between liars and truth-tellers, it has yet to be tested using experimental methods rich in psychological realism that better simulate real-world situations (i.e., participants intentionally commit a transgression and are subsequently questioned). In addition, contemporary variations of SUE have yet to be tested with both innocent and guilty suspects. The present research addresses these gaps, and in doing so will: (1) shed light on which SUE variation results in the greatest amount of elicited information; (2) result in findings that are highly applicable to practitioners, as the present experimental methodology better mirrors real-world situations; and (3) offer research experience to underrepresented minority researchers. Overall, the present research will aid law enforcement in obtaining valuable information pertinent to accurately identifying perpetrators and efficiently solving cases. To achieve these goals, the present research will employ a cheating paradigm variation in which a research assistant pretending to be a participant prompts (or does not prompt) actual participants to cheat on a supposed "government-issued" test. This enables questioner to accuse both innocent and guilty participants of cheating, and to question them using one of four evidence disclosure methods: Early (presenting evidence before questioning), Late (basic SUE, with evidence presented after all questioning), SUE-C (presenting evidence incrementally, with statement-evidence inconsistencies being pointed out), and SUE-C/E (same as SUE-C, except suspects are required to explain any inconsistencies). Except for the Early condition, all conditions represent variations of the SUE technique. It is predicted that: (1) of all evidence disclosure tactics, SUE-C/E will result in the most diagnostic confessions; (2) all SUE variations will result in more lie indicators (i.e., statement-evidence inconsistencies), as compared to early evidence disclosure; and (3) guilty suspects will ultimately offer more incriminating details when questioned with the SUE variations than with early disclosure. Given that findings fall in line with these predictions, SUE can be advocated to law enforcement investigators as a method to help them enhance their investigations.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.