Redlich, Allison, Goodman, Gail. “Taking Responsibility for an Act Not Committed: The Influence of Age and
Suggestibility” Law and Human
Behavior. Vol. 27 No. 2 141-156
Introduction:
There have been several concerns in recent years about the
interrogation techniques used on juveniles.
Many of these concerns stemmed from a high-profile case against two boys
(7 and 8 years of age) accused of murdering an 11 year old girl. After using certain interrogative
techniques, the boys confessed to a murder they did not commit. Though it is unclear to researchers why
people confess to crimes they were not responsible for, researchers believe
that it could have something to do with the vulnerability of a suspect and the
interrogative methods.
Kassin describes vulnerability as “one whose memory is
malleable by virtue of his or her youth, interpersonal trust, naiveté,
suggestibility, lack of intelligence, stress, fatigue, alcohol, or drug use”
(142). He believes that the less
cognitively and psychologically developed a person is, the more vulnerable to
false confessions they are, thus, placing children at higher risk than
adults. Kassin is also concerned about
the admission of false evidence in interrogative interviews.
One other feature that can sway false confessions is
suggestibility. Suggestibility can be
described as “similar to compliance”.
When an interrogator suggests that a suspect is guilty because there is
no one else who could have possibly committed the crime, the person
internalizes this and begins to believe that they truly did commit a
crime. This is called a
“coerced-internalized false confession”.
These types of alter beliefs are found to be negatively related to age
and positively related to false confessions.
The Present Study:
The present study elaborates on a study conducted by Kassin
and Kiechel in 1996. In the present
study participants of three different age groups (12-13, 15-16, and young
adults) are presented with a “computer-based reaction time experiment”. During the course of the “experiment”
participants are told that they caused a computer crash. Participants are also
told that the experimenter can print a list of all the keys they touched. Researchers predicted three hypotheses. 1) Younger participants will assume
responsibility more times than adults, 2) False evidence will increase the rate
of assuming responsibility, and 3) participants who are more suggestible will
comply, internalize and confabulate more often than less suggestible
participants.
Methods:
48 males and 48 females were divided into the three age
groups. The participants did not differ
significantly from one another when it came to race, socioeconomic status, and
other demographic measures. Half of
each age group was divided into the false evidence condition. Young children were given $10.00 for their
participation, and young adults were given course credit.
Measures and
Procedures:
A demographics questionnaire was distributed to all participants. The Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale (GSS)
was also used to measure suggestibility of the participants. Participants arrived at the testing site and
were given the demographic survey.
After this the participants were given the GSS. The narrative part GSS was read aloud; then
participants were asked to tell the experimenter everything he/she remember
about the passage. Then the self-report
was completed. After the self-report,
participants were asked to freely recall about the GSS narrative and asked the
sets of GSS questions. The “reaction
time” portion of the experiment was completed next. Participants were seated at a computer and told to type the
letters the experimenter was reading without hitting the ALT keys. The words were presented at a rate of 55
letters per minutes. After 115 letters
had passed the computer “crashed”. The
experimenter proceeded to try and fix the computer. When they were unsuccessful, they asked the participant if they
touched the ALT key. After the
participants responses were obtained, the experimenter went to print out a list
of all the keys that had been touched in the last 10 minutes. To complete the “reaction-time test”
participants finished the study with pencil and paper. In the false-evidence condition the
experimenter returned with a printout, in the no-false-evidence condition the
experiment claimed that the crash had also messed up the printers and will not
be able to produce the list after all.
Compliance was obtained by asking the participant to sign a
paper stating that they caused the crash and would re-enter the data. If they did not comply the first time they
were asked again to sign the “confession”.
Internalization was measured by a confederate of the study coming in to
ask what happened. If the participant
stated that they must have hit the
ALT key and caused the crash, this is graded as total internalization, if they
stated that they could have hit the
ALT key this is graded as partial internalization, and if they don’t say
anything about hitting the ALT key this is graded as no internalization. Confabulation was obtained by asking the
participant to retrace their steps. The
list of letters is re-read and the participant tries to figure out how they hit
the ALT key. There were three types of
confabulation coded for: 1) did not confabulate of hypothesize, 2) hypothesized
a scenario of how the ALT key might have been hit, or 3) clear
confabulation. After this, the
participants were debriefed and sent home with their money or credit.
Results:
As predicted the rate of compliance was significantly
correlated with the age of the child, where younger children were more likely
to take responsibility for crashing the computer. There was also a significant difference in the number of young adults
vs. children that were willing to comply after the false evidence was
introduced. Only 50% of young adults
were willing to admit hitting the ALT key, where 73% or 12-13 year olds and 88%
of 15-16 year olds were willing to comply after the introduction of false
evidence. There was also a significant
effect in the number of 15-16 year olds willing to comply in the false-evidence
vs. the no false-evidence condition.
Participants in the false-evidence condition were more likely to admit
to pushing the ALT key. The other two
age groups showed no significance in this area. Participants who were more likely to yield to misleading
questions on the GSS were more likely to sign the statement taking
responsibility.
The only significant predictor concerning internalization
was whether or not the participant signed the “confession”. Participants were more likely to completely
internalize guilt if they signed the confession. Age, condition, and suggestibility did not significantly relate
to internalization.
The only significant predictor concerning confabulation was
whether or not the participant internalized guilt. The participant was more likely to hypothesize about how he/she
pushed the ALT key if he/she first internalized guilt. Age, condition and suggestibility had no
significant relation to confabulation.
One final test was done in this study. The researches tallied how many questions or
comments were made before the participant did or did not sign the
confession. It was found that young
adults asked more questions or made more comments than the 12-13 year olds, but
did not differ from the 15-16 year olds.
The two child age groups did not differ significantly. The fact that the 12-13 year olds made the
fewest comments and asked the fewest question implies that they are more
willing to comply with an authoritative figure, such as the adult
experimenter.
There were two other notable findings. The first, none of the participants
initially said that they pressed the ALT key.
74% of participants said “No, they did not press the key”, while the
remaining 26% claimed they “did not think they hit the ALT key”. The other interesting finding is the more
computer experience a person had, the more likely they were to comply that they
hit the ALT key.
General Discussion:
The authors of this study found similar results to the study
done by Kassin and Kiechel in 1996.
Though this study did produce reliable and valid data, it will be a hard
task for scientists to develop ethical ways to measure false confessions to
actual crimes due to the inherent difference in the two circumstances.