An attribution theory-based content analysis of mock jurors' deliberations regarding coerced confessions.

OBJECTIVE: Because confessions are sometimes unreliable, it is important to understand how jurors evaluate confession evidence. We conducted a content analysis testing an attribution theory model for mock jurors' discussion of coerced confession evidence in determining verdicts. HYPOTHESES: We tested exploratory hypotheses regarding mock jurors' discussion of attributions and elements of the confession. We expected that jurors' prodefense statements, external attributions (attributing the confession to coercion), and uncontrollable attributions (attributing the confession to defendant naivety) would predict more prodefense than proprosecution case judgments. We also expected that being male, politically conservative, and in support of the death penalty would predict proprosecution statements and internal attributions, which in turn would predict guilty verdicts. METHOD: Mock jurors (N = 253, Mage = 47 years; 65% women; 88% White, 10% Black, 1% Hispanic, 1% listed "other") read a murder trial synopsis, watched an actual coerced false confession, completed case judgments, and deliberated in juries of up to 12 members. We videotaped, transcribed, and reliably coded deliberations. RESULTS: Most mock jurors (53%) rendered a guilty verdict. Participants made more prodefense than proprosecution statements, more external than internal attributions, and more internal than uncontrollable attributions. Participants infrequently mentioned various elements of the interrogation (police coercion, contamination, promises of leniency, interrogation length) and psychological consequences for the defendant. Proprosecution statements and internal attributions predicted proprosecution case judgments. Women made more prodefense and external attribution statements than men, which in turn predicted diminished guilt. Political conservatives and death penalty proponents made more proprosecution statements and internal attributions than their counterparts, respectively, which in turn predicted greater guilt. CONCLUSIONS: Some jurors identified coercive elements of a false confession and rendered external attributions for a defendant's false confession (attributing the confession to the coercive interrogation) during deliberation. However, many jurors made internal attributions, attributing a defendant's false confession to his guilt-attributions that predicted juror and jury inclinations to convict an innocent defendant. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Does the affirmative consent standard increase the accuracy of sexual assault perceptions? It depends on how you learn about the standard.

OBJECTIVE: Colleges and universities are increasingly adopting affirmative consent standards of sexual assault, in which consent is defined as conscious and voluntary "yeses" given throughout a sexual interaction. We examined the impact of affirmative consent standards on perceptions of assault and consent. HYPOTHESES: We hypothesized that in sexual assault scenarios involving physical force or verbal coercion, exposure to the consent standard would increase perceptions of assault and decrease perceptions of consent relative to not being exposed to the standard. We then explored whether dehumanization of the perpetrator or the victim mediates the association between assault type and sexual assault perceptions and how this relation changes on the basis of exposure to the affirmative consent standard. METHOD: We exposed 909 participants (predominantly women: n = 574; predominantly White: n = 677; age: M = 28.61 years, SD = 11.10; students: n = 363, Mechanical Turk workers: n = 546) to an affirmative consent standard in a written policy, a video using a "cup-of-tea" metaphor to describe the consent standard, or no information on the standard. Participants rated perceptions of assault, consent, and dehumanization of a man and woman involved in a sexual interaction involving physical force, verbal coercion, or a consensual agreement. RESULTS: Participants who saw the affirmative consent video were more likely to perceive physical assault as assault compared with participants in the no-exposure control condition. Participants who read the affirmative consent definition were no more or less likely to perceive physical assault as sexual assault compared with participants in the control condition. Participants exposed to the text definition perceived the consensual interaction as more assaultive than did participants in the video and control conditions. Perpetrator dehumanization also emerged as a mediator of the relation between assault type and assault perceptions. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that exposure to consent standards sometimes aids sexual assault decision-making but also leads to confusion, even in scenarios in which consent is normally discernable. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).