A Snitching Enterprise: the Role of Evidence and Incentives on Providing False Secondary Confessions

Baylee D. Jenkins, Alexis M. Le Grand, Stacy A. Wetmore, Jeffrey S. Neuschatz, Jonathan M. Golding, Anne Lippert

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Jailhouse informants are thought to be one of the leading causes of wrongful convictions. The current studies examined community members’ (E1: N = 99; E2: N = 289) willingness to provide false testimony as a jailhouse informant. In E1, participants were all presented a first offer (1-year sentence reduction) to testify as a jailhouse informant. Those who declined were presented up to three additional offers (four total): a complete reduction in fines, total immunity, and financial support in exchange for testimony. In E2, participants were presented with one of two offers (levels 1 or 4). Notably, 27% (E1) and 17% (E2) of participants were willing to falsely testify against another inmate. Willing participants rated themselves as overall less credible and more interested in serving their own interests than unwilling participants. In addition, cognitive networks of participants’ decision-making revealed that participants were motivated primarily by self-interest. These findings provide novel insight into the decision-making of jailhouse informants and are discussed in terms of legal implications.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Police and Criminal Psychology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2022

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, Society for Police and Criminal Psychology.

Keywords

  • Behavior
  • Criminal justice system
  • Decision-making
  • Jail
  • Perceptions

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Applied Psychology
  • Law

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A Snitching Enterprise: the Role of Evidence and Incentives on Providing False Secondary Confessions'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this