Lay perceptions of interrogation techniques: Identifying the role of Belief in a Just World and Right Wing Authoritarianism

Abstract

AbstractFalse confessions due to overtly coercive interrogation techniques have led to the development of more ethically‐minded alternative techniques. Several studies have surveyed the public about their perceptions of confession‐oriented techniques (e.g., Leo & Liu, ), although none have examined the use of information gathering and strategic interviewing techniques or individual differences in such perceptions. Thus, the current study assessed public perceptions of a wide variety of techniques by recruiting a total of 332 participants. Results indicated that our participants would rather risk releasing a guilty person than convicting an innocent. Overall, confession‐oriented techniques were rated the least acceptable and effective across participants. However, perceptions of these techniques varied as a function of Belief in a Just World (BJW; Lipkus, ) and Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA; Zakrisson, ). Specifically, those higher in these two individual differences found confession‐oriented techniques to be both more acceptable and effective than those scoring lower on these measures. The results speak to the importance of individual differences and the potential for such differences to bias juror decision‐making when interrogation evidence is at stake.