Date of Award
2025
Document Type
Thesis
Degree Name
Master of Science (MS)
Department
Psychology
Committee Chair
Jeffrey Neuschatz
Committee Member
Jonathan Golding
Committee Member
Jodi Price
Research Advisor
Jeffrey Neuschatz
Abstract
The present study asked jurors to explain why they believe jailhouse informant (JI) testimony, and investigated the role of prosecutorial vouching (i.e., the assumption that any witness called by the prosecution is credible) in jurors’ decision-making. A total of 89 juryeligible participants read a trial summary in which the JI was either absent, reliable (i.e., testified to consistent and accurate crime facts), or unreliable (i.e., accurate facts during trial, but inaccurate facts in initial statement). Primary results were that (a) in open-ended responses, participants assumed that the prosecution would not allow a dishonest or uncredible JI to testify (i.e., prosecutorial vouching), (b) the unreliable JI reduced conviction rates (vs the reliable JI), but these rates were still higher than the no-JI condition, and (c) in open-ended responses, participants across reliability conditions believed the JI because of details in the JI’s testimony, despite acknowledging the unreliable JI’s inconsistencies.
Recommended Citation
Geoghagan, Libbi A., "Why believe an unreliable jailhouse informant? : the role of prosecutorial vouching in juror decision-making" (2025). Theses. 733.
https://louis.uah.edu/uah-theses/733
