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).

中文翻译：

---

基于归因理论的模拟陪审员关于胁迫供词的审议的内容分析。

目标 由于供词有时不可靠，因此了解陪审员如何评估供词证据很重要。我们进行了内容分析，测试了模拟陪审员在确定判决时讨论逼供证据的归因理论模型。假设 我们测试了关于模拟陪审员讨论供词的归因和要素的探索性假设。我们预计陪审员的辩护陈述、外部归因（将供述归因于胁迫）和无法控制的归因（将供述归因于被告的天真）会比起诉案件的判决更有利于辩护。我们还预计，作为男性、政治上保守且支持死刑的人会预测起诉声明和内部归因，这反过来会预测有罪判决。方法 模拟陪审员（N = 253，法师 = 47 岁；65% 是女性；88% 是白人，10% 是黑人，1% 是西班牙裔，1% 列为“其他”）阅读谋杀案审判概要，观看真实的被迫虚假供词，完成案件判决，并在最多 12 名成员的陪审团中进行审议。我们对审议进行了录像、转录和可靠编码。结果 大多数模拟陪审员 (53%) 作出有罪判决。参与者做出的辩护声明多于起诉声明，外部归因多于内部归因，内部归因多于无法控制的归因。参与者很少提到审讯的各种因素（警察胁迫、污染、宽大的承诺、审讯时间）和对被告的心理影响。起诉陈述和内部归因预测了起诉案件的判决。女性比男性做出更多的防御和外部归因陈述，这反过来又预示着内疚感会减少。政治保守派和死刑支持者分别比他们的同行做出更多的起诉声明和内部归因，这反过来又预示着更大的罪恶感。结论 一些陪审员在商议过程中识别出虚假供述的胁迫因素，并对被告人的虚假供述进行外部归因（将供述归因于胁迫性讯问）。然而，许多陪审员进行了内部归因，将被告的虚假供词归因于他的有罪归因，这种归因预测了陪审员和陪审团倾向于判无辜被告有罪的倾向。