Moffa Morgan S, Platania Judith
Roger Williams University, One Old Ferry Road, Bristol, RI 02809, USA.
Psychol Rep. 2007 Apr;100(2):563-70. doi: 10.2466/pr0.100.2.563-570.
Evidence obtained through the process of interrogation is frequently undermined by what can be perceived as overzealous interrogation tactics. Although the majority of psychologically oriented tactics are legally permissible, they nonetheless contribute to innocent suspects confessing to crimes they did not commit. The present study examined the effect of expert testimony and interrogation tactics on perceptions of a confession. 182 undergraduates read a transcript of a homicide trial that varied based on interrogation tactic: implicit threat of punishment (maximization) or leniency (minimization) and expert witness testimony (presence or absence of expert testimony). Analysis indicated that the type of interrogation tactic used in obtaining the confession affected participants' perceptions of the coerciveness of the interrogation process.
通过审讯过程获取的证据常常会因被视为过于激进的审讯策略而受到削弱。尽管大多数以心理为导向的策略在法律上是允许的，但它们仍然导致无辜的嫌疑人承认自己没有犯下的罪行。本研究考察了专家证词和审讯策略对供述认知的影响。182名本科生阅读了一份杀人案审判的文字记录，该记录因审讯策略而异：惩罚的隐性威胁（最大化）或宽大处理（最小化）以及专家证人证词（有无专家证词）。分析表明，获取供述时所使用的审讯策略类型会影响参与者对审讯过程强制性的认知。
