Loading…
Further evidence of a robust point-of-view bias in videotaped confessions
Four experiments were conducted to test possible limits on the previously demonstrated point-of-view bias in videotaped confessions. Study 1 showed that deliberation did not eliminate the bias. Study 2 showed that forewarning did not eliminate the bias. Study 3 showed that directing greater attentio...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Current Psychology 2002-09, Vol.21 (3), p.265-288 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c336t-641584883832ef1ac692a3ea13835d887927dba52b034aa151ef9aaf123280dd3 |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c336t-641584883832ef1ac692a3ea13835d887927dba52b034aa151ef9aaf123280dd3 |
| container_end_page | 288 |
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 265 |
| container_title | Current Psychology |
| container_volume | 21 |
| creator | Lassiter, G. Daniel Beers, Melissa J. Geers, Andrew L. Handley, Ian M. Munhall, Patrick J. Weiland, Paul E. |
| description | Four experiments were conducted to test possible limits on the previously demonstrated point-of-view bias in videotaped confessions. Study 1 showed that deliberation did not eliminate the bias. Study 2 showed that forewarning did not eliminate the bias. Study 3 showed that directing greater attention to the content of the confession did not eliminate the bias. Study 4 showed that using a lengthier, case-based confession also did not eliminate the bias. Taken together, this research clearly indicates that the legal system needs to be concerned with the potential for bias that exists in videotaped confessions.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT] |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s12144-002-1018-7 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_850830532</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2262777991</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c336t-641584883832ef1ac692a3ea13835d887927dba52b034aa151ef9aaf123280dd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotkMFKxDAURYMoWEc_wF1wH83LS5t0KYOjAwNudB3SNsEM2tSkHfHvbamrC5fDvXAIuQV-D5yrhwwCpGScCwYcNFNnpIAaKyYV4jkpuELFtKjEJbnK-chnUEosyH43pfHDJepOoXN962j01NIUmymPdIihH1n07BTcD22CzTT0dCHjaAfX0Tb23uUcYp-vyYW3n9nd_OeGvO-e3rYv7PD6vN8-HliLWI2sklBqqTVqFM6DbataWHQW5qLstFa1UF1jS9FwlNZCCc7X1noQKDTvOtyQu3V3SPF7cnk0xzilfr40uuQaeYlihmCF2hRzTs6bIYUvm34NcLMIM6swM3swizCj8A9E2F0o</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>850830532</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Further evidence of a robust point-of-view bias in videotaped confessions</title><source>Springer Link</source><creator>Lassiter, G. Daniel ; Beers, Melissa J. ; Geers, Andrew L. ; Handley, Ian M. ; Munhall, Patrick J. ; Weiland, Paul E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Lassiter, G. Daniel ; Beers, Melissa J. ; Geers, Andrew L. ; Handley, Ian M. ; Munhall, Patrick J. ; Weiland, Paul E.</creatorcontrib><description>Four experiments were conducted to test possible limits on the previously demonstrated point-of-view bias in videotaped confessions. Study 1 showed that deliberation did not eliminate the bias. Study 2 showed that forewarning did not eliminate the bias. Study 3 showed that directing greater attention to the content of the confession did not eliminate the bias. Study 4 showed that using a lengthier, case-based confession also did not eliminate the bias. Taken together, this research clearly indicates that the legal system needs to be concerned with the potential for bias that exists in videotaped confessions.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</description><identifier>ISSN: 0737-8262</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1046-1310</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1936-4733</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s12144-002-1018-7</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer Nature B.V</publisher><subject>Bias ; Confessions ; Criminal investigations ; Evidence ; Law ; Trials</subject><ispartof>Current Psychology, 2002-09, Vol.21 (3), p.265-288</ispartof><rights>Springer 2001</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c336t-641584883832ef1ac692a3ea13835d887927dba52b034aa151ef9aaf123280dd3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c336t-641584883832ef1ac692a3ea13835d887927dba52b034aa151ef9aaf123280dd3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lassiter, G. Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beers, Melissa J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geers, Andrew L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Handley, Ian M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Munhall, Patrick J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weiland, Paul E.</creatorcontrib><title>Further evidence of a robust point-of-view bias in videotaped confessions</title><title>Current Psychology</title><description>Four experiments were conducted to test possible limits on the previously demonstrated point-of-view bias in videotaped confessions. Study 1 showed that deliberation did not eliminate the bias. Study 2 showed that forewarning did not eliminate the bias. Study 3 showed that directing greater attention to the content of the confession did not eliminate the bias. Study 4 showed that using a lengthier, case-based confession also did not eliminate the bias. Taken together, this research clearly indicates that the legal system needs to be concerned with the potential for bias that exists in videotaped confessions.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</description><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Confessions</subject><subject>Criminal investigations</subject><subject>Evidence</subject><subject>Law</subject><subject>Trials</subject><issn>0737-8262</issn><issn>1046-1310</issn><issn>1936-4733</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNotkMFKxDAURYMoWEc_wF1wH83LS5t0KYOjAwNudB3SNsEM2tSkHfHvbamrC5fDvXAIuQV-D5yrhwwCpGScCwYcNFNnpIAaKyYV4jkpuELFtKjEJbnK-chnUEosyH43pfHDJepOoXN962j01NIUmymPdIihH1n07BTcD22CzTT0dCHjaAfX0Tb23uUcYp-vyYW3n9nd_OeGvO-e3rYv7PD6vN8-HliLWI2sklBqqTVqFM6DbataWHQW5qLstFa1UF1jS9FwlNZCCc7X1noQKDTvOtyQu3V3SPF7cnk0xzilfr40uuQaeYlihmCF2hRzTs6bIYUvm34NcLMIM6swM3swizCj8A9E2F0o</recordid><startdate>20020901</startdate><enddate>20020901</enddate><creator>Lassiter, G. Daniel</creator><creator>Beers, Melissa J.</creator><creator>Geers, Andrew L.</creator><creator>Handley, Ian M.</creator><creator>Munhall, Patrick J.</creator><creator>Weiland, Paul E.</creator><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20020901</creationdate><title>Further evidence of a robust point-of-view bias in videotaped confessions</title><author>Lassiter, G. Daniel ; Beers, Melissa J. ; Geers, Andrew L. ; Handley, Ian M. ; Munhall, Patrick J. ; Weiland, Paul E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c336t-641584883832ef1ac692a3ea13835d887927dba52b034aa151ef9aaf123280dd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Confessions</topic><topic>Criminal investigations</topic><topic>Evidence</topic><topic>Law</topic><topic>Trials</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lassiter, G. Daniel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beers, Melissa J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geers, Andrew L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Handley, Ian M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Munhall, Patrick J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weiland, Paul E.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Current Psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lassiter, G. Daniel</au><au>Beers, Melissa J.</au><au>Geers, Andrew L.</au><au>Handley, Ian M.</au><au>Munhall, Patrick J.</au><au>Weiland, Paul E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Further evidence of a robust point-of-view bias in videotaped confessions</atitle><jtitle>Current Psychology</jtitle><date>2002-09-01</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>265</spage><epage>288</epage><pages>265-288</pages><issn>0737-8262</issn><issn>1046-1310</issn><eissn>1936-4733</eissn><abstract>Four experiments were conducted to test possible limits on the previously demonstrated point-of-view bias in videotaped confessions. Study 1 showed that deliberation did not eliminate the bias. Study 2 showed that forewarning did not eliminate the bias. Study 3 showed that directing greater attention to the content of the confession did not eliminate the bias. Study 4 showed that using a lengthier, case-based confession also did not eliminate the bias. Taken together, this research clearly indicates that the legal system needs to be concerned with the potential for bias that exists in videotaped confessions.[PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer Nature B.V</pub><doi>10.1007/s12144-002-1018-7</doi><tpages>24</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0737-8262 |
| ispartof | Current Psychology, 2002-09, Vol.21 (3), p.265-288 |
| issn | 0737-8262 1046-1310 1936-4733 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_850830532 |
| source | Springer Link |
| subjects | Bias Confessions Criminal investigations Evidence Law Trials |
| title | Further evidence of a robust point-of-view bias in videotaped confessions |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T02%3A13%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Further%20evidence%20of%20a%20robust%20point-of-view%20bias%20in%20videotaped%20confessions&rft.jtitle=Current%20Psychology&rft.au=Lassiter,%20G.%20Daniel&rft.date=2002-09-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=265&rft.epage=288&rft.pages=265-288&rft.issn=0737-8262&rft.eissn=1936-4733&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s12144-002-1018-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2262777991%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c336t-641584883832ef1ac692a3ea13835d887927dba52b034aa151ef9aaf123280dd3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=850830532&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |