Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

From whose perspective? Differences between actors and observers in determining the voluntariness of guilty pleas

Bibliographic Data

ID21454804
AuthorsMelanie B Fessinger (0000-0002-5170-189X, The Graduate Center, CUNY), Margaret Bull Kovera (0000-0002-2551-8434, The Graduate Center, CUNY)
Year2022
Volume46
Issue5
Pages353-371
Publication date2022-10-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueLaw and Human Behavior (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0147-7307 • E-ISSN: 1573-661X
PublisherAmerican Psychological Association (APA) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1037/lhb0000501
PMID36227320
OpenAlexW4304957656
LanguageEN
Citations received2

OBJECTIVE: Valid guilty pleas must be made voluntarily, yet most defendants report that they did not feel part of the decision-making process or responsible for the decision. Defendants and judges both play a role in determining whether guilty pleas are voluntary. The actor-observer bias suggests that defendants and judges perceive the decision-making process differently given the nature of their roles. The present studies applied this framework to assess the complexity of voluntary plea decision-making. HYPOTHESES: We expected observers would rate pleas as more voluntary than would actors. We also expected participants to rate pleas made by guilty defendants as more voluntary than those made by innocent defendants and to view pleas made with voice as more voluntary than those made without voice. Finally, we expected the effect of guilt and voice on voluntariness to differ for actors and observers. METHOD: Participants were Amazon's Mechanical Turk workers (Study 1: N = 202, Study 2: N = 626) who had a history of high-quality performance on past tasks, were roughly evenly split between men (Study 1: 52%, Study 2: 53%) and women (Study 1: 48%, Study 2: 47%), and were primarily White/non-Hispanic (Study 1: 84%, Study 2: 75%). They watched video-recorded materials about a criminal case in which a defendant decided how to plead. The materials varied the participant's role (actor, observer), the defendant's guilt (innocent, guilty), and whether the defendant had a voice in the decision-making process (no voice, voice). Participants then rated the voluntariness of the decision-making process. RESULTS: In both studies, actors rated pleas as more voluntary than did observers. Participants rated guilty pleas as more voluntary when the defendant was guilty compared with innocent. Participants also rated pleas as more voluntary when the defendant had a voice in the decision-making process compared with when the defendant did not have a voice, but the difference was bigger for observers than for actors. CONCLUSIONS: Defendants and judges both determine whether a guilty plea is made voluntarily. These decision-makers are likely to perceive the plea decision-making process differently given their differing perspectives. There was also a large effect of voice on whether decisions were perceived to be voluntary. Individuals who play a role in the plea decision-making process should ensure that defendants have a proper opportunity to express their opinions and preferences about the decision. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

Coercion (linguistics) · Innocence · Plea · Political science · Voluntariness · Deception detection and forensic psychology · Free Will and Agency · Law · Psychology · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment · Social Psychology

  • Emphasizing Miranda's Importance Promotes Procedurally Just Decisions

    Open Access•Patricia A Ferreira, Christian A Meissner•Applied Cognitive Psychology•2026

  • Judicial Settlement Conferences and Defendant Plea Decision-Making

    Open Access•Kelsey S Henderson•Criminal Justice and Behavior•2025

Citations per year2
Citation span2025 - 2026 (2)
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae