False-evidence ploys and interrogations: mock jurors' perceptions of false-evidence ploy type, deception, coercion, and justification

Abstract

We studied mock jurors' evaluations of police false-evidence ploys across two false-evidence ploy information conditions (true or false confession). Study 1 participants evaluated lists of demeanor, testimonial, and scientific ploys and rated testimonial false-evidence ploys as more coercive than demeanor false-evidence ploys. Participants in the false-confession condition rated false-evidence ploys as more deceptive than did participants in the true-confession condition. Study 2 participants evaluated false-evidence ploy types within interrogation transcripts. Participants rated testimonial false-evidence ploys as more deceptive and coercive than demeanor false-evidence ploys; participants in the true-confession condition rated false-evidence ploys as more justified. Across studies, participants reading realistic transcripts rated false-evidence ploys as more deceptive and coercive. We discuss implications for scholars, attorneys, and interrogators.