This body of research focused on discovering the underlying motives that drive a person to give partial confessions when given the opportunity to confess about lying. The researchers (Peer, Acquist, and Shalvi) theorized that partial confessions may be used to reduce the extent to which one is punished for lying about what they did. They also believe that people will use partial confessions as a way to relieve some of their own guilt in relation to their lying. The researchers hypothesized that partial confessions allowed people to feel better about doing a bad thing, and feel worse about not doing a better thing (confessing fully). The previous research done in the field had little connection to partial confessions; they mainly focused on whether a person confessed to doing a wrong thing or did not confess, with no middle ground. One study (Pearse et al. (1998)) mentioned worked to discover the different ways in which criminals confessed to their behaviors based on the presence of different factors, however their full-versus-partial confession information was combined and did not test the results the way Peer, Acquist, and Shalvi aimed to. Sternglanz (2009), however, studied the strategies people used to relieve their guilt when accused of wrongdoing. One of these strategies was confessing to something of lesser offense, which ultimately resulted in the person looking less guilty at the end. The strengths of this current study are they extent to which they examined the evidence, and the persistence with which they tried to corroborate the conclusions they drew from each sub-study. I did not think this study had many weaknesses because it was done so thoroughly; however, it could have investigated the reasons for people’s partial confessions to a fuller extent.
There were five studies done within this overall study, used to meta-analyze the results and draw two conclusions by creating studies that overlapped and strengthened the conclusions drawn by each. They were done with participants of varying sample sizes, and some participants were promised monetary compensation in certain studies.
Study 1 aimed to seek out the relationship between the extent to which one cheats and the likelihood that they would confess to all or some of this cheating. Participants had to predict the outcome of 10 coin tosses and report how many of the predictions they made were correct (receiving money that corresponded to how many of their predictions were correct). They self-reported this, and thus had the ability to lie. There were 2,113 participants in the study, and they had to complete a forecasting skills survey that asked them to predict the outcome of 10 coin tosses, and then complete this task on a random coin tossing site, receiving a 10-cent bonus for each correct guess. They were asked how many they got correct, and then given an opportunity to confess to changing their report without any punishment. It was found that 35.16% of participants gave a larger report of correct guesses by about 3.10, and 10.09% of these people cheated to the full extent (reporting 10 correct guesses). 18.79% of participants confessed to cheating, and of this sample 40.44% only partially confessed. These results drew the following conclusions: (1) the more people cheated, the more likely it was that they gave a confession to doing so, (2) people who cheated to the fullest extent possible were more likely to confess only partially, and (3) people who cheated to a lesser extent were more likely to give a full confession.
Study 2 aimed to uncover if people saw people that confessed to their wrongdoings felt good after confessing even after they still did this bad thing. 518 Participants were given a hypothetical situation modeling study 1 and asked to imagine they were a part of the experiment. They were told they correctly guessed four, but reported eight. They were then asked to imagine that they had the opportunity to confess and say how many correct guesses they actually had, and 1/3 told to imagine fully confessing (only 4 correct), 1/3 told to imagine partially confessing (only 6 correct), and 1/3 told to imagine not confessing at all. These participants were asked to imagine how they would feel in this situation using a PANAS and indicate how likely they think it was that the researcher would believe their confession. They thought a partial confession would be more credible than no confession, and a full confession would be more credible than both. They did not think that confessing or not would affect their emotions/negative feelings. These results drew the following conclusions: (1) people do think partial confessions make them appear more credible, and (2) people do not think that confessing will make them feel a different way than if they did not confess.
Study 3 aimed to see if partial confessions would increase or decrease negative feelings after the confession. 719 participants were asked to either complete a PANAS right after they reported how many correct guesses they had or after they confessed. The study was then run in a similar way to study 1. The results of the study show that there were similar rates of cheating. Regarding confessions, 24.6% of people confessed and of that sample 55.84% of people confessed the full extent to which they cheated. Also, people who only partially cheated where more likely to confess to the full extent to which they cheated. People felt most negative about cheating to the full extent than those who only partially cheated when asked right after they cheated. Of those who were asked after they confessed, those who partially confessed felt the most negative out of all the groups. This study drew the following conclusions: (1) people who cheat to the fullest extent feel worse than those who cheat less or do not cheat, and (2) the emotional cost associated with partial confessions is higher.
Study 4 aimed to examine if the way people thought others regarded the credibility of partial confessions was accurate. 460 participants had to evaluate a hypothetical situation in which a person took part in one of the studies 1-3, and then rolled a die to determine their pay. They were told of a person who rolled a die and reported they got a 6, and was then asked what they actually rolled after being compensated according to their roll. Participants were assigned to one of 3 conditions: (1) the condition in which the person fully confessed to rolling a 1, (2) the condition in which the person partially confessed to rolling a 5, and (3) the condition to which a person did not confess. Participants were then asked to rate whether they believed the person or not. People who were told the person partially confessed found it more believable than the one who did not, and found the one who fully confessed most believable. This study drew the following conclusion: people perceive partial confessions more credible and believable than non-confessions.
Study 5 aimed to examine whether or not the emotional findings people felts in relation to partial confessions in previous experiments actually held up in daily life. 357 participants were asked to think of any event in their life when they confessed to something wrong that they had done. They were split into three groups: (1) the full-confession group, which had to tell of a time in which they gave a full confession, (2) the partial-confession group, which had to tell of a time in which they gave a partial confession, and (3) the open-ended confession group in which they had to tell of a time in which they gave either a full or partial confession. After telling what they did wrong, they were asked to rate how severe they thought what they did was, how hard it was to confess, and how hard it was to recall and discuss the confession. They then filled out a GCQ-R which rated their fear of consequences, and the extent of their confession. Their confessions were then labeled as one of multiple classifications, ranging from law-breaking to violence. This study ended up finding that people in the full-confession group found their wrongdoings worse than those in the partial-confession group, and thought it was harder to remember their confession. People in the partial-confession group feared consequences more than the full-confession group, but showed that they felt their guilt relieved less. This study drew the following conclusions: (1) partial-confessions are very common in real life, (2) people who partially confess regret their confession more than those who fully confess.
The overall conclusions the researchers drew from this study were that partial confessions do exist in the real world, and that people may utilize this confession “tool” in order to seem more credible in the eyes of others. People may not think they will feel negative feelings after a partial confession, but studies demonstrated that this is actually not true, and people experience more negative feelings after a partial confession.
I thought this research was extremely thorough and well-done. It shed an interesting light on a previously rarely studied phenomenon: the partial confession. Using 5 different studies to cross-examine and strengthen conclusions drawn by each helped to further corroborate the conclusions and ultimate results reported, and added to the credibility of the study.