
NSF Org: |
SES Division of Social and Economic Sciences |
Recipient: |
|
Initial Amendment Date: | July 2, 2018 |
Latest Amendment Date: | December 13, 2018 |
Award Number: | 1823661 |
Award Instrument: | Standard Grant |
Program Manager: |
reginald sheehan
SES Division of Social and Economic Sciences SBE Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences |
Start Date: | September 1, 2018 |
End Date: | August 31, 2021 (Estimated) |
Total Intended Award Amount: | $250,855.00 |
Total Awarded Amount to Date: | $250,855.00 |
Funds Obligated to Date: |
|
History of Investigator: |
|
Recipient Sponsored Research Office: |
341 PINE TREE RD ITHACA NY US 14850-2820 (607)255-5014 |
Sponsor Congressional District: |
|
Primary Place of Performance: |
Ives Hall Ithaca NY US 14850-2820 |
Primary Place of
Performance Congressional District: |
|
Unique Entity Identifier (UEI): |
|
Parent UEI: |
|
NSF Program(s): | LSS-Law And Social Sciences |
Primary Program Source: |
|
Program Reference Code(s): |
|
Program Element Code(s): |
|
Award Agency Code: | 4900 |
Fund Agency Code: | 4900 |
Assistance Listing Number(s): | 47.075 |
ABSTRACT
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution aims to protect the public from unreasonable search and seizure by requiring authorities to have probable cause before conducting a search. However, the vast majority of police searches today are authorized by citizens' voluntary consent. Consent searches do not require probable cause, which means that an individual can be singled out based on an officer's hunch, or for no reason at all. The legality of these consent searches rests on the "voluntariness test," an assessment of whether a reasonable person would feel free to refuse the officer's request or walk away. This test requires third-party decision-makers to engage in a perspective-taking task. They must determine how it would feel to be approached by a police officer and confronted with a search request. A key insight from social psychology is that people tend to perform such tasks poorly. In particular, people underappreciate the role of situational pressure and feelings of discomfort when judging others' behavior. This insight suggests that outside observers may not fully recognize the distress citizens are likely to experience when considering the prospect of saying "no" to a police officer. In a series of experiments, the current research will assess whether these perspective-taking errors cause outside observers to systematically overestimate how free a reasonable person would feel to refuse a search request, and, accordingly, whether the voluntariness test is biased against citizens who have consented to a search.
This research will introduce and validate a new experimental paradigm through which to examine the psychological task of assessing voluntariness. In this paradigm, one group of participants will be asked an intrusive and consequential search request, while another group of participants predicts how a reasonable person would respond to this request. It is hypothesized that participants in the "prediction" condition will underestimate compliance rates, despite having access to all the same information as participants in the "actual search" condition. In pilot studies, this paradigm generated large differences between predicted and observed compliance, indicating its promise for addressing long-standing questions related to the perceived and actual voluntariness of consent search. In addition to testing for main effects, the current research will test for moderation by features of the search request that might reduce the gap between perceived and actual voluntariness. Notifying participants that they could refuse a search without penalty, a frequently proposed solution by critics of consent search sometimes referred to as "Miranda-for-search," was not found to be effective at reducing this gap in pilot studies. Thus, the current research will explore alternative possible solutions, such as seeking written consent. Identifying features of the search request that effectively decrease the gap between perceived and actual voluntariness is essential for developing empirically supported policy recommendations related to changes to the law and/or to the practices used by law enforcement agents to obtain consent from citizens.
This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.
PUBLICATIONS PRODUCED AS A RESULT OF THIS RESEARCH
Note:
When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external
site maintained by the publisher. Some full text articles may not yet be available without a
charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from
this site.
PROJECT OUTCOMES REPORT
Disclaimer
This Project Outcomes Report for the General Public is displayed verbatim as submitted by the Principal Investigator (PI) for this award. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this Report are those of the PI and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation; NSF has not approved or endorsed its content.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution aims to protect the public from unreasonable search and seizure by requiring authorities to have probable cause before conducting a search. However, the vast majority of police searches today are authorized by citizens' voluntary consent. Consent searches do not require probable cause, which means that an individual can be singled out based on an officer's hunch, or for no reason at all. The legality of these consent searches rests on the "voluntariness test," an assessment of whether a reasonable person would feel free to refuse the officer's request or walk away. This test requires third-party decision-makers to engage in a perspective-taking task. They must determine how it would feel to be approached by a police officer and confronted with a search request. A key insight from social psychology is that people tend to perform such tasks poorly. In particular, people underappreciate the role of situational pressure and feelings of discomfort when judging others' behavior. This insight suggests that outside observers may not fully recognize the distress citizens are likely to experience when considering the prospect of saying "no" to a police officer.
We assessed in a series of experiments whether outside observers would systematically overestimate how free a reasonable person would feel to refuse a search request. Using an experimental paradigm in which one group of participants was asked an intrusive and consequential search request, while another group of participants predicted how a reasonable person would respond to this request, we found, as hypothesized, that participants in the "prediction" condition underestimated compliance rates, despite having access to all the same information as participants in the "actual search" condition. This paradigm consistently generated large differences between predicted and observed compliance, indicating its promise for addressing long-standing questions related to the perceived and actual voluntariness of consent search, and accomplishing the objective of successfully validating an experimental paradigm for examining the psychological task of assessing voluntariness. We further tested the robustness of this paradigm to different conditions (i.e., searching a bag instead of a phone, and conducting a higher-stakes search by claiming to search participants’ web search history), as well as diverse participant populations. We found the general finding to be highly robust to varying features of the request and to different participant populations.
In addition to testing for main effects, we also tested moderation by features of the search request that might reduce the gap between perceived and actual voluntariness. Contrary to predictions, notifying participants that they could refuse a search without penalty, a frequently proposed solution by critics of consent search sometimes referred to as "Miranda-for-search," was not found to be effective at reducing this gap, nor was seeking written consent with a consent form.
The robustness of this overall tendency for observers' to overestimate the voluntariness suggests this is important evidence to consider when assessing whether the standard voluntariness test is biased against citizens who have consented to a search.
Last Modified: 10/04/2021
Modified by: Vanessa K Bohns
Please report errors in award information by writing to: awardsearch@nsf.gov.