Sensitivity to Psychologically Coercive Interrogations: A Comparison of Instructions and Expert Testimony to Improve Juror Decision-Making

Abstract

ABSTRACT Confession evidence is powerful to jurors, even when obtained using psychologically coercive means. To assist jurors in evaluating confession evidence, courts may provide instructions or expert testimony. The current study examined the relative effectiveness of these two safeguards. Participants were randomly assigned to read about a confession that either did or did not result from the use of psychologically coercive (but legal) tactics and received either instructions, expert testimony, or no safeguard. Jurors were sensitive to psychologically coercive interrogation tactics on their own, reducing perceptions of guilt, evidence strength, detective credibility, and confession voluntariness when interrogation pressure was high. Instructions made jurors skeptical of both confessions relative to expert testimony, and in some cases, compared to the absence of any safeguard. Sensitivity was not observed for either safeguard. Results suggest jurors’ knowledge of psychologically coercive interrogation tactics is improving, but effective safeguards are still needed.