Law and Human Behavior最新文献

{"title":"The effects of implicit bias interventions on mock jurors' civil trial decisions and perceptions of the courts.","authors":"Megan L Lawrence, Kristen L Gittings, Valerie P Hans, John C Campbell, Jessica M Salerno","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000610","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000610","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>In an attempt to reduce juror bias, courts across the United States are educating jurors about how implicit bias impacts decision making. We tested whether novel implicit bias interventions-in the form of educational videos or judicial instructions-reduce the relationship between mock jurors' explicit racial biases and their case decisions for Black plaintiffs and/or increase mock jurors' trust in the courts to deliver fair outcomes.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We predicted that mock jurors' increased explicit racial biases would predict less favorable case outcomes for Black plaintiffs but not for White plaintiffs (Studies 1 and 2). We presented competing hypotheses about whether an implicit bias intervention would mitigate, exacerbate, or have no effect on this relationship and explored whether they improved mock jurors' trust in the courts' ability to produce fair outcomes (Study 2).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In Study 1 (<i>N</i> = 407) and Study 2 (<i>N</i> = 1,016), White mock jurors were randomly assigned to judge a civil case with a Black or White plaintiff and then completed measures capturing their implicit and explicit racial biases. In Study 2, mock jurors were also randomly assigned to watch an implicit bias educational video, watch a video of a judge delivering implicit bias instructions, or neither (i.e., control condition).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>As hypothesized, mock jurors' increased explicit racial biases predicted less favorable verdicts for Black plaintiffs but not for White plaintiffs. Implicit bias judicial instructions increased pro-plaintiff verdicts and mock jurors' trust in the courts in cases with Black plaintiffs. However, we did not find evidence that educational videos impacted these outcomes, which warrants further study. Neither intervention reduced the relationship between explicit racial bias and verdicts for Black plaintiffs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Anti-bias judicial instructions might hold some promise but need further testing; implicit bias videos had no impact. In the meantime, court systems must explore additional remedies to achieve an impartial jury. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144182199","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"How chatbot communication styles impact citizen reports to police: Testing procedural justice and overaccommodation approaches in a survey experiment.","authors":"Callie Vitro,Erin M Kearns,Joel S Elson","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000613","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000613","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEWe developed and tested a chatbot for reporting information to police. We examined how chatbot communication styles impacted three outcomes: (a) report accuracy, (b) willingness to provide contact information, and (c) user trust in the chatbot system.HYPOTHESESIn police-citizen interactions, people respond more positively when police officers use a combination of power and solidarity in their communication. We expected that this would hold for citizen-reporting chatbot interactions.METHODWe conducted an online survey experiment with 950 U.S. adults who approximated the population on key demographics. Participants watched a video of a suspicious scenario and reported the incident to a chatbot. We manipulated and programmed the communication style of a generative pre-trained transformer chatbot to include elements of the power-solidarity framework from linguistics to create a 2 (power: low vs. high) × 2 (solidarity: low vs. high) design. We then compared three outcomes across conditions.RESULTSThe high power-high solidarity condition yielded the most positive responses. Relative to high power-high solidarity reports, low power-low solidarity reports were less accurate about the individual involved. Trust in the chatbot and willingness to provide contact information did not vary across conditions.CONCLUSIONFindings contributed to criminological, linguistic, and information technology literatures to show how communication styles impact user responses to and perceptions of a chatbot for reporting to police. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"121 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144087832","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"\"I do not have an opinion about that yet\": Qualitative research on perceived procedural justice of self-represented litigants in early stages of small claims procedures in the Netherlands.","authors":"Anne A A Janssen,Kees van den Bos,Kim G F van der Kraats","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000612","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000612","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEBuilding on recent suggestions that there are, thus far, unnoticed levels of increased polarization and decreased perceived legitimacy of the judiciary within the Netherlands, we studied the experiences of self-represented litigants in early stages of Dutch small claims procedures. Our objective was to assess by means of qualitative interviews (a) whether litigants would mention experiences of perceived procedural justice during these court procedures and, (b) if so, what elements of perceived procedural justice they would mention, (c) how they form judgments of trust in judges, and (d) whether interviewees would mention spontaneously that in these early stages of court procedures, with limited information available, they do not know (yet) whether they perceive a judge as fair or can trust a judge handling their case.RESEARCH QUESTIONWhat role, if any, do judgments of procedural justice, trust in judges, and informational uncertainty play in early stages of civil procedures?METHODWe held 115 interviews with self-represented litigants about their experiences with prehearings in Dutch small claims procedures. We asked respondents in various ways about procedural justice and trust in judges. We coded whether litigants mentioned spontaneously that they did not have enough information to answer these questions.RESULTSRespondents mentioned procedural fairness perceptions spontaneously when asked directly about fair treatment and when interviewed about specific procedural justice components. Interestingly, almost half of the respondents indicated that they did not have an opinion about at least one procedural justice component. When asked about trust in judges, various respondents also indicated that they did not have an opinion yet.CONCLUSIONSThese results suggest that (a) perceived procedural justice matters to self-represented litigants in civil procedures, and (b) in early stages of court procedures, people may not know whether they perceive a judge as fair or can trust judges and may indicate this spontaneously in interviews. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"52 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144087833","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Experts, commercial software, and the internal revenue service: American taxpayer perceptions of trust and procedural justice.","authors":"Krystia Reed,Morgan Wagner,Saeid Tizpaz-Niari,Ashutosh Trivedi","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000600","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000600","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEThe complexity of tax laws makes manual preparation difficult, leading more taxpayers to use software or accountants. This study presents an experimental analysis comparing taxpayer perceptions of trust and procedural justice when filing with tax experts versus using tax software. The study addressed four questions: (1) How do perceptions of human tax experts compare to tax software? (2) Do perceptions vary among different types of tax software? (3) Do trust and procedural justice predict filing decisions? (4) Can taxpayers effectively oversee tax preparation software?HYPOTHESESWe hypothesized that participants would favor professional tax experts over commercial and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) software (Hypothesis 1). We also expected higher procedural justice to correlate with greater satisfaction (Hypothesis 2), self-identified knowledge to correlate with accurate expectations (Hypothesis 3), and filing decisions to be predicted by trust in the method (Hypothesis 4a) or outcome (Hypothesis 4b). We anticipated that higher trust in software would increase the likelihood of filing with software (Hypothesis 5) and that inconsistency across methods would decrease filing likelihood (Hypothesis 6).METHODIn the experiment, 146 taxpayers (64% women; 88% Hispanic; 75% White; Mage = 27.55 years) prepared their taxes using three methods: a tax professional, commercial software, and IRS software. Participants rated and ranked the trustworthiness of each method and indicated their preference.RESULTSAs predicted, participants had the most favorable perceptions of the tax expert, followed by commercial software and IRS software (Hypothesis 1). Trust in the method, not the outcome, predicted filing decisions (Hypothesis 4a). Participants with higher trust in software were more likely to file with software (Hypothesis 5). Contrary to expectations, procedural justice did not correlate with satisfaction (Hypothesis 2), and knowledge did not correlate with accurate expectations (Hypothesis 3). Consistency across methods did not predict filing (Hypothesis 6).CONCLUSIONSParticipants generally preferred human experts, but trust in software could override this preference. Future research directions and implications are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144065754","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Does meeting in person matter? Examining youths' perceived support on juvenile probation.","authors":"Kelsey E Tom,Savanna Allen,Allison R Cross,Adam D Fine","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000606","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000606","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEBeyond traditional in-person meetings, contemporary juvenile probation officers (JPOs) leverage modern technology to interact with youth via videoconferencing, phone calls, and text messaging. It is plausible that youth feel more-or less-supported by JPOs depending on the format of their interactions. Simultaneously, the procedural justice literature suggests that the quality of JPOs' interactions with youth may be as much or more influential on JPO-youth relationships than interaction format. Given that more positive supervisory relationships are associated with better probation outcomes, it is critical to understand what may shape youths' regard for JPOs. This study examined youths' perceived support from JPOs across four interaction formats. Then, this study examined how two supervisory experiences (interaction quality and frequency) were associated with youths' perceived support from JPOs through each interaction format.HYPOTHESESWe hypothesized that youth would feel similarly supported by JPOs across all four interaction formats. Per procedural justice theory, we expected that youth who perceived better quality relationships with their JPO (i.e., more procedurally just) would be more likely to feel supported by JPOs across all interaction formats. Last, we hypothesized that youth interacted with JPOs more often digitally, rather than in person, would be more likely to feel supported.METHODYouth (N = 529) on juvenile probation were surveyed to assess their probation experiences and perceptions of JPOs.RESULTSYouth felt similarly supported by JPOs across all four formats. Youth were more likely to feel supported the more often they interacted with JPOs and were much more likely to feel supported by JPOs they viewed as more procedurally just.CONCLUSIONSThis study suggests that digital interactions are prevalent in juvenile probation supervision and well received by youth. Results highlight the potential of two supervisory practices that may help JPOs build better relationships with youth on probation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143921019","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Statistical reporting practices within forensic psychology: Is anything changing?","authors":"Joseph Eastwood,Kirk Luther,Tianshuang Han,Valerie Arenzon,Quintan Crough,Ashley Curtis,Hannah de Almeida,Kelsey Janet Downer,Cassandre Dion Larivière,Jessica Lundy,Funmilola Ogunseye,Mark D Snow,Brent Snook","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000611","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000611","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEWe examined the evolution of statistical reporting practices within forensic psychology across two decades (2000-2020) to assess their adherence to recommended best practices.METHODWe conducted a comprehensive analysis of articles published in six prominent forensic psychology journals, including every empirical article published in each journal in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020 (N = 813). We then evaluated the use and interpretation of null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), effect sizes (ESs), confidence intervals (CIs), and Bayesian statistics for each article in the sample.RESULTSWe found a persistent reliance on NHST, with nearly all articles employing it for data analysis and interpretation. Encouragingly, the reporting of ESs and CIs has increased substantially; their interpretative use, however, remains limited. Bayesian methods were rarely used for analysis or interpretation of data.CONCLUSIONSThese findings suggest a slow uptake of reforms advocated by statistical guidelines, with forensic psychology researchers continuing to prioritize NHST over recommended approaches. Although the increase in ES and CI reporting is encouraging, the continued reliance on NHST means that both the scientific literature and important applied decision making in the forensic psychology field are impacted by the shortcomings of this statistical reporting approach (e.g., simplistic dichotomous decisions, lack of reproducibility, potential for p-hacking). We call for journals in the field to encourage further use of statistical best practices within their manuscripts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143914840","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Politics in policy: An experimental examination of public views regarding sentence reductions via second chance mechanisms.","authors":"Isabella Polito,Colleen M Berryessa","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000605","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000605","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEThis research examined how the cost of incarceration to the state and type of offense affect public support for different levels of sentence reductions (10%, 25%, 50%) via policies called \"second chance\" mechanisms that reduce incarcerated populations as well as whether political ideology or affiliation predicts such support.HYPOTHESES(a) Across different levels of sentence reductions, participants were expected to show significantly decreased support for the use of second chance mechanisms for violent compared with nonviolent crimes (b) but also to show significantly increased support when exposed to cost information to the state, compared with not receiving that information. (c) Political ideology and affiliation were expected to moderate support across different levels of sentence reductions.METHODA 6 (offense type) × 2 (cost of incarceration to the state) experiment with a national sample of the U.S. public (N = 419) was used to assess support for using second chance mechanisms to achieve different levels of sentence reductions. Moderation analyses assessed how participants' political ideology and affiliation impacted support.RESULTSParticipants did not show significantly less support for the use of second chance mechanisms to achieve sentence reductions for violent compared with nonviolent crimes. Providing cost information did not significantly impact support for any level of sentence reduction. Across sentence reductions, political ideology significantly moderated support for the use of second chance mechanisms; being more conservative predicted decreased support for a 10% sentence reduction when cost information was also provided.CONCLUSIONSCrime type and political ideology, but not fiscal costs, appear in some way to bear on public support for sentence reductions via second chance mechanisms. Overall, evidence suggests that public support for the use of second chance mechanisms presents an opportunity to advance reforms that reduce incarcerated populations and enhance the public's perceptions of the justice system's legitimacy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143872031","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Public opinion about judicial roles and considerations: A latent profile analysis.","authors":"Sarah L Desmarais,Samantha A Zottola,John Monahan","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000607","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000607","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVETo inform policies and practices that reflect the values and expectations of the communities that judges serve, we fielded a national survey of public perceptions regarding judicial roles and factors that could be considered in decision making.HYPOTHESESWe had four questions: (1) What is public opinion on the importance of various judicial roles and considerations? (2) Can distinct groups of respondents be identified on the basis of their views? (3) Do the groups differ in terms of their sociodemographic characteristics and beliefs? (4) If so, can they be distinguished by their characteristics and beliefs?METHODWe surveyed 4,861 jury-eligible adults through Qualtrics Online Panels. About half identified as men, and about two thirds as White; the mean age was 45 years. Respondents rated the importance of judicial responsibilities and considerations using 10 items adapted from a survey of trial court judges. We employed latent profile analysis to identify subgroups on the basis of their ratings and conducted univariate and multivariable analyses to examine differences across sociodemographic characteristics.RESULTSA four-group model was the best-fitting and most interpretable solution. The largest profile (47.4%) demonstrated the highest ratings, suggesting that they valued due process, legal standards, expert knowledge, public safety, helping the accused, and community input. The second largest profile (39.5%) also valued legal standards, expert knowledge, and public safety but not public interests and community input. The next group (7.8%) generally rated all items as neither important nor unimportant, suggesting an ambivalence, lack of opinion, or limited interest in the issues. The smallest group (5.4%) rated all items as unimportant.CONCLUSIONSFindings highlight areas of consensus and divergence and reveal distinct opinion profiles that can inform policy and practice. They also support the use of sophisticated measurement and analytic approaches that go beyond descriptive examinations of a single item or index to assess public opinion. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2025-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143836551","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Behavioral detection of emotional, high-stakes deception: Replication in a registered report.","authors":"Leanne Ten Brinke, Samantha Sprigings, Cameo Brown, Chloe Kam, Hugues Delmas","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000596","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000596","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We replicated research by ten Brinke and Porter (2012), who reported that a combination of four behavioral cues (word count, tentative words, upper face surprise, lower face happiness) could accurately discriminate deceptive murderers from genuinely distressed individuals, pleading for the return of a missing relative.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We hypothesized that each of the four behavioral cues identified in the original study would be similarly related (i.e., size, direction, significance) to veracity in a novel set of pleaders. With these cues as predictors, we also hypothesized that logistic regression models-separately testing the original and replication samples-would produce similar accuracy rates exceeding chance in discriminating genuine from deceptive pleaders.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We gathered a new sample of public appeals, including 82 genuine and 14 deceptive pleaders. After establishing ground truth, we transcribed video-recorded pleas and coded them for the presence of upper face surprise and lower face happiness. We used Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count to determine word count and the proportion of tentative words in each appeal.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found support for several hypotheses. Tentative words were used significantly more by deceptive (vs. genuine) pleaders in both the original and replication samples. Deceptive pleaders used significantly fewer words in both samples, although this relationship was significant only in the original sample. Liars in both samples smiled more than truth-tellers, although this relationship was statistically significant only in the replication sample. However, predictive accuracy was poor and did not differ from chance in the replication sample.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings do not provide a tidy picture of the reliability of behavioral cues to deception. Although some behavioral cues did replicate across samples, others did not. More research will be necessary to understand the factors that produce variable findings across samples, despite using the same methods of investigation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"173-181"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143732418","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The psychological allure of Alford: Does wanting to appear innocent put innocents at risk?","authors":"Johanna Hellgren, Annmarie Khairalla, Miko M Wilford, Rachele J DiFava, Saul M Kassin","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000599","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000599","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The Alford plea allows defendants to maintain innocence while pleading guilty, but this option is largely unknown to the public, and its effects are unknown to researchers and practitioners. Some legal scholars have argued that the Alford plea may attract innocent defendants who may not otherwise accept a plea, whereas others have asserted that it offers a beneficial alternative for those wanting to preserve their reputations and avoid the more severe consequences of a trial conviction. Applying a social psychological lens, we examined how the Alford plea influences innocent and guilty mock defendants' plea decision making.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We predicted that whereas guilty mock defendants would be more likely to accept a plea overall, the Alford variant would increase the rate at which innocent mock defendants accept pleas.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted two studies: In Study 1, 406 Prolific Academic participants read a vignette in which they were either innocent or guilty of involuntary manslaughter; in Study 2, we used an interactive simulation of legal procedures in which 367 innocent Testable Minds participants were accused of larceny. In both studies, participants were offered either a traditional plea requiring them to admit guilt or an Alford plea allowing them to maintain innocence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>As predicted, we found that guilty participants were more likely to accept a plea overall in Study 1 (<i>OR</i> = 10.16, 95% CI [6.38, 16.19]), but we did not observe an effect of Alford. In Study 2, innocent participants who rejected an initial plea were more likely to accept a second plea (<i>OR</i> = 3.61, 95% CI [1.28, 10.20]) if it was an Alford (and allowed them to maintain innocence). Additionally, many participants in both studies cited self-presentation-related reasons for their plea decisions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings suggest that the Alford plea may increase the risk of false guilty pleas, a finding that has important implications for criminal defendants and the attorneys who advise them. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"121-139"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143755111","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}