The judicial system often relies on confessions to determine a suspect’s guilt or innocence. And yet, factors such as social influences and pressures from the interrogation can impact the way one views one’s memory when presented with false evidence. For instance, the type of questions and methods the police use can alter the actual memories the subject has. As a result, a subject may become convinced that he or she is guilty when an internalized confession starts to form. In order to minimize accusations against the innocent, whether a confession was voluntary or forced should be emphasized in determining whether the confession is accurate. In this study, Kassin and Kiechel investigate whether false memories can make people believe they have
…show more content…
Subjects were randomly assigned to a group, which had either high or low vulnerability, which was measured in the pace of the computer task, whether or not a witness was present. First, the subjects filled out a questionnaire that asked about their typing background and skill. The subjects were asked to complete a reaction time activity on a computer. The witness, if present in the experiment room, would read a list of letters to the subject, who had to type these letters on the computer. Before doing so, the confederate explicitly instructed the subject not to press the ALT key, which would stop and damage the program. After 60 seconds, the computer was programmed to stop functioning. The experimenter then accused the subject of having pressed the ALT key, which the subject denied doing. The experimenter then turned to the witness and asked if she had seen the subject press the ALT key, which she said she had. In order to test for compliance, the experimenter asked the subject to sign a confession stating he or she had accidently hit the ALT key. To investigate the process of internalization, the experimenter recorded the way the subject described the experiment to a non-participant to determine whether the subject had internalized what had happened. Lastly, for confabulation, the experimenter reread the list of letters the subject had to type earlier and asked if they remember when he or she hit the ALT
Subjects were randomly assigned to a group, which had either high or low vulnerability, which was measured in the pace of the computer task, whether or not a witness was present. First, the subjects filled out a questionnaire that asked about their typing background and skill. The subjects were asked to complete a reaction time activity on a computer. The witness, if present in the experiment room, would read a list of letters to the subject, who had to type these letters on the computer. Before doing so, the confederate explicitly instructed the subject not to press the ALT key, which would stop and damage the program. After 60 seconds, the computer was programmed to stop functioning. The experimenter then accused the subject of having pressed the ALT key, which the subject denied doing. The experimenter then turned to the witness and asked if she had seen the subject press the ALT key, which she said she had. In order to test for compliance, the experimenter asked the subject to sign a confession stating he or she had accidently hit the ALT key. To investigate the process of internalization, the experimenter recorded the way the subject described the experiment to a non-participant to determine whether the subject had internalized what had happened. Lastly, for confabulation, the experimenter reread the list of letters the subject had to type earlier and asked if they remember when he or she hit the ALT