Doctoral Dissertation Research: Improving Elicited Information

虚假供词/供词是有问题的，不仅因为无罪的人被定罪，而且因为有罪的人逃避司法审判。传统的研究是通过找出增加虚假供述风险的方法来解决这个问题的。然而，最近有一种转变，即使用心理学理论来改进方法，目的是帮助调查人员区分有罪和无辜的嫌疑人。其中一种方法是战略使用证据（SUE），它涉及到证据披露的战略时机（例如，早披露或晚披露）和战略证据相关的质疑，以增加犯罪嫌疑人供词与证据的不一致。虽然SUE已经被证明可以有效地区分说谎者和说真话者，但它还需要用丰富的心理现实主义实验方法来测试，这些实验方法可以更好地模拟现实世界的情况（即，参与者故意犯了错，随后被询问）。此外，当代的刑事诉讼还没有在无辜和有罪的嫌疑人身上得到检验。目前的研究解决了这些差距，这样做将：(1)阐明哪种SUE变异导致最大数量的诱导信息；(2)由于目前的实验方法更好地反映了现实世界的情况，因此研究结果对实践者高度适用；(3)为代表性不足的少数民族研究人员提供研究经验。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宝贵信息。为了实现这些目标，目前的研究将采用一种作弊范式的变化，其中一个研究助理假装是参与者提示（或不提示）实际的参与者在一个假定的“政府发布”的测试中作弊。这使得提问者可以指控无辜和有罪的参与者作弊，并使用四种证据披露方法中的一种进行询问：早期（在询问前提供证据），晚期（基本SUE，在所有询问后提供证据），SUE- c（逐步提供证据，指出陈述-证据不一致之处）和SUE- c /E（与SUE- c相同，但要求嫌疑人解释任何不一致之处）。除了Early条件外，所有条件都代表了SUE技术的变化。结果表明：(1)在所有证据披露策略中，SUE-C/E的诊断性供词最多；(2)与早期证据披露相比，所有SUE的变化都会导致更多的谎言指标（即陈述与证据不一致）；(3)与早期披露相比，有罪嫌疑人在使用SUE变体进行询问时最终会提供更多的有罪细节。鉴于调查结果与这些预测一致，SUE可以作为一种帮助执法人员加强调查的方法。该奖项反映了美国国家科学基金会的法定使命，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.