Videotaped Confessions
Panacea or Pandora's Box
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6090780 |
|---|---|
| Authors | G Daniel Lassiter (Ohio University), Jennifer J Ratcliff (0000-0003-2105-6559, Ohio University), Lezlee J Ware (Ohio University), Clinton R Irvin (Ohio University) |
| Year | 2006 |
| Volume | 28 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 192-210 |
| Publication date | 2006-04-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Law & Policy (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0265-8240 • E-ISSN: 1467-9930 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9930.2006.00223.x |
| OpenAlex | W2115802338 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 43 |
Videotape is becoming an increasingly common means of recording and presenting confessions that are obtained during custodial interrogations. Many scientific, legal, and political experts view this procedural advance as a solution to the growing problem of some innocent people being induced to incriminate themselves when confronted by standard police interrogation tactics. We review a program of research that indicates, however, that the indiscriminate application of videotaping to solve the problem of coerced or false confessions slipping through the system could ironically exacerbate the situation
Criminology · Epistemology · Interrogation · Law and economics · Panacea (medicine · Political science · Politics · Rigour · Sociology · Deception detection and forensic psychology · Law · Medicine · Philosophy · Psychology · Stalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment · Torture, Ethics, and Law
Advances In Experimental Social Psychology
The ecological validity of jury simulations
Salience, Attention, and Attribution
The Intuitive Psychologist And His Shortcomings
The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion
The psychology of confession evidence
The relationship between social support and physiological processes
Accountability
Severity of prescribed penalty and mock jurors' verdicts
Structural models for the mediation of salience effects on attribution
Focus of attention and causal attributions of actors and observers
"How fundamental is "the fundamental attribution error
Point of view and perceptions of causality
Effects of group size, problem difficulty, and sex on group performance and member reactions
Matching words to phenomena
Attributional complexity
Videotape and the attribution process
Mental contamination and mental correction
Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation
Errors and mistakes
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,1 |
| Citation span | 2006 - 2010 (5) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |