Holt, Glenys A.Palmer, Matthew A.2020-10-122020-10-12Holt, G. A., & Palmer, M. A. (2020). How downplaying or exaggerating crime severity in a confession affects perceived guilt. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.183702710.1080/13218719.2020.1837027http://hdl.handle.net/10034/623854This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Psychiatry, Psychology and Law on forthcoming, available online: doi to be added when publishedThis study investigated how judgments of guilt are influenced by factual errors in confessions that either amplified or downplayed the severity of the crime. Participants read a confession statement and a police report. Information in the confession statement either was consistent with the facts of the crime in the police report, the suspect admitted to a worse crime than described in the police report, or the suspect admitted to a lesser crime than described in the police report. Mediation analyses showed that, compared to consistent confessions, both types of directional errors reduced judgments of guilt. Inconsistencies that made the suspect look better—but not those that made the suspect look worse—also increased judgments of guilt via a direct effect. Confessions that contain errors that appear to exaggerate the severity of the crime prompt no higher judgments of suspect guilt than confessions that are consistent with the facts of the crime. However, errors in confessions that are perceived to downplay the severity of the crime can prompt an increased perception of suspect guilt, when compared to a consistent confession.Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internationalhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/wrongful convictioninconsistenciesjuror decision-makingfalse confessionattribution theoryArticle1934-1687Psychiatry, Psychology and Law