Testing the Forensic Confirmation Bias: How Jailhouse Informants Violate Evidentiary Independence

Baylee D. Jenkins, Alexis M. Le Grand, Jeffrey S. Neuschatz, Jonathan M. Golding, Stacy A. Wetmore, Jodi L. Price

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Scopus citations

Abstract

Research has demonstrated that primary confessions corrupt perceptions of forensic evidence, such as handwriting evidence. Additionally, research on secondary confessions indicates that statements made by jailhouse informants influence juror decision making to the same degree as primary confessions. The goal of the current study was to investigate whether jailhouse informant statements bias perceptions of forensic evidence. Participants were presented with a brief case summary about a bank robbery along with confession evidence from a jailhouse informant, in which both reliability and incentive presence were manipulated. Participants were then asked to examine a pair of either matching or mismatching handwriting samples before making case-relevant judgments. Results indicated that participants exposed to the reliable jailhouse informant were more likely to believe the samples were matching as well as rate them higher in similarity. These findings suggest that participants fell prey to the forensic confirmation bias.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Police and Criminal Psychology
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2021

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, Society for Police and Criminal Psychology.

Keywords

  • Forensic confirmation bias
  • Forensic evidence
  • Jailhouse informants
  • Jury decision making

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Applied Psychology
  • Law

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Testing the Forensic Confirmation Bias: How Jailhouse Informants Violate Evidentiary Independence'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this