02 INFORMATION ABOUT PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS/PROJECT DIRECTORS(PI/PD) andco-PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS/co-PROJECT DIRECTORS

Submit only ONE copy of this form for each PI/PD and co-PI/PD identified on the proposal. The form(s) should be attached to the originalproposal as specified in GPG Section II.C.a. Submission of this information is voluntary and is not a precondition of award. This information willnot be disclosed to external peer reviewers. DO NOT INCLUDE THIS FORM WITH ANY OF THE OTHER COPIES OF YOUR PROPOSAL ASTHIS MAY COMPROMISE THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE INFORMATION.

PI/PD Name:

Gender: Male Female

Ethnicity: (Choose one response) Hispanic or Latino Not Hispanic or Latino

Race: (Select one or more)

American Indian or Alaska Native

Asian

Black or African American

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

White

Disability Status: (Select one or more)

Hearing Impairment

Visual Impairment

Mobility/Orthopedic Impairment

Other

None

Citizenship: (Choose one) U.S. Citizen Permanent Resident Other non-U.S. Citizen

Check here if you do not wish to provide any or all of the above information (excluding PI/PD name):

REQUIRED: Check here if you are currently serving (or have previously served) as a PI, co-PI or PD on any federally fundedproject

Ethnicity Definition:Hispanic or Latino. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardlessof race.Race Definitions:American Indian or Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa,or other Pacific Islands.White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

WHY THIS INFORMATION IS BEING REQUESTED:

The Federal Government has a continuing commitment to monitor the operation of its review and award processes to identify and addressany inequities based on gender, race, ethnicity, or disability of its proposed PIs/PDs. To gather information needed for this importanttask, the proposer should submit a single copy of this form for each identified PI/PD with each proposal. Submission of the requestedinformation is voluntary and will not affect the organization’s eligibility for an award. However, information not submitted will seriously underminethe statistical validity, and therefore the usefulness, of information recieved from others. Any individual not wishing to submit some or all theinformation should check the box provided for this purpose. (The exceptions are the PI/PD name and the information about prior Federal support, thelast question above.)

Collection of this information is authorized by the NSF Act of 1950, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1861, et seq. Demographic data allows NSF togauge whether our programs and other opportunities in science and technology are fairly reaching and benefiting everyone regardless ofdemographic category; to ensure that those in under-represented groups have the same knowledge of and access to programs and otherresearch and educational oppurtunities; and to assess involvement of international investigators in work supported by NSF. The informationmay be disclosed to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers to complete assigned work; and to other governmentagencies in order to coordinate and assess programs. The information may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potentialcandidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/ProposalFile and Associated Records", 63 Federal Register 267 (January 5, 1998), and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records",63 Federal Register 268 (January 5, 1998).

Maria B Hartwig

02 INFORMATION ABOUT PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS/PROJECT DIRECTORS(PI/PD) andco-PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS/co-PROJECT DIRECTORS

Submit only ONE copy of this form for each PI/PD and co-PI/PD identified on the proposal. The form(s) should be attached to the originalproposal as specified in GPG Section II.C.a. Submission of this information is voluntary and is not a precondition of award. This information willnot be disclosed to external peer reviewers. DO NOT INCLUDE THIS FORM WITH ANY OF THE OTHER COPIES OF YOUR PROPOSAL ASTHIS MAY COMPROMISE THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE INFORMATION.

PI/PD Name:

Gender: Male Female

Ethnicity: (Choose one response) Hispanic or Latino Not Hispanic or Latino

Race: (Select one or more)

American Indian or Alaska Native

Asian

Black or African American

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

White

Disability Status: (Select one or more)

Hearing Impairment

Visual Impairment

Mobility/Orthopedic Impairment

Other

None

Citizenship: (Choose one) U.S. Citizen Permanent Resident Other non-U.S. Citizen

Check here if you do not wish to provide any or all of the above information (excluding PI/PD name):

REQUIRED: Check here if you are currently serving (or have previously served) as a PI, co-PI or PD on any federally fundedproject

Ethnicity Definition:Hispanic or Latino. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardlessof race.Race Definitions:American Indian or Alaska Native. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment.Asian. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.Black or African American. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa,or other Pacific Islands.White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

WHY THIS INFORMATION IS BEING REQUESTED:

The Federal Government has a continuing commitment to monitor the operation of its review and award processes to identify and addressany inequities based on gender, race, ethnicity, or disability of its proposed PIs/PDs. To gather information needed for this importanttask, the proposer should submit a single copy of this form for each identified PI/PD with each proposal. Submission of the requestedinformation is voluntary and will not affect the organization’s eligibility for an award. However, information not submitted will seriously underminethe statistical validity, and therefore the usefulness, of information recieved from others. Any individual not wishing to submit some or all theinformation should check the box provided for this purpose. (The exceptions are the PI/PD name and the information about prior Federal support, thelast question above.)

Collection of this information is authorized by the NSF Act of 1950, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1861, et seq. Demographic data allows NSF togauge whether our programs and other opportunities in science and technology are fairly reaching and benefiting everyone regardless ofdemographic category; to ensure that those in under-represented groups have the same knowledge of and access to programs and otherresearch and educational oppurtunities; and to assess involvement of international investigators in work supported by NSF. The informationmay be disclosed to government contractors, experts, volunteers and researchers to complete assigned work; and to other governmentagencies in order to coordinate and assess programs. The information may be added to the Reviewer file and used to select potentialcandidates to serve as peer reviewers or advisory committee members. See Systems of Records, NSF-50, "Principal Investigator/ProposalFile and Associated Records", 63 Federal Register 267 (January 5, 1998), and NSF-51, "Reviewer/Proposal File and Associated Records",63 Federal Register 268 (January 5, 1998).

Sara C Appleby

List of Suggested Reviewers or Reviewers Not To Include (optional)

SUGGESTED REVIEWERS:Not Listed

REVIEWERS NOT TO INCLUDE:Not Listed

COVER SHEET FOR PROPOSAL TO THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATIONFOR NSF USE ONLY

NSF PROPOSAL NUMBER

DATE RECEIVED NUMBER OF COPIES DIVISION ASSIGNED FUND CODE DUNS# (Data Universal Numbering System) FILE LOCATION

FOR CONSIDERATION BY NSF ORGANIZATION UNIT(S) (Indicate the most specific unit known, i.e. program, division, etc.)

PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT/SOLICITATION NO./CLOSING DATE/if not in response to a program announcement/solicitation enter NSF 10-1

EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN) ORTAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (TIN)

SHOW PREVIOUS AWARD NO. IF THIS ISA RENEWALAN ACCOMPLISHMENT-BASED RENEWAL

IS THIS PROPOSAL BEING SUBMITTED TO ANOTHER FEDERALAGENCY? YES NO IF YES, LIST ACRONYM(S)

NAME OF ORGANIZATION TO WHICH AWARD SHOULD BE MADE ADDRESS OF AWARDEE ORGANIZATION, INCLUDING 9 DIGIT ZIP CODE

AWARDEE ORGANIZATION CODE (IF KNOWN)

IS AWARDEE ORGANIZATION (Check All That Apply) SMALL BUSINESS MINORITY BUSINESS IF THIS IS A PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL(See GPG II.C For Definitions) FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION WOMAN-OWNED BUSINESS THEN CHECK HERE

NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION, IF DIFFERENT FROM ABOVE ADDRESS OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION, IF DIFFERENT, INCLUDING 9 DIGIT ZIP CODE

PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE (IF KNOWN)

TITLE OF PROPOSED PROJECT

REQUESTED AMOUNT

$

PROPOSED DURATION (1-60 MONTHS)

months

REQUESTED STARTING DATE SHOW RELATED PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL NO.IF APPLICABLE

CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX(ES) IF THIS PROPOSAL INCLUDES ANY OF THE ITEMS LISTED BELOWBEGINNING INVESTIGATOR (GPG I.G.2)

DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (GPG II.C.1.e)

PROPRIETARY & PRIVILEGED INFORMATION (GPG I.D, II.C.1.d)

HISTORIC PLACES (GPG II.C.2.j)

EAGER* (GPG II.D.2) RAPID** (GPG II.D.1)

VERTEBRATE ANIMALS (GPG II.D.6) IACUC App. Date

PHS Animal Welfare Assurance Number

HUMAN SUBJECTS (GPG II.D.7) Human Subjects Assurance Number

Exemption Subsection or IRB App. Date

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES: COUNTRY/COUNTRIES INVOLVED

(GPG II.C.2.j)

HIGH RESOLUTION GRAPHICS/OTHER GRAPHICS WHERE EXACT COLORREPRESENTATION IS REQUIRED FOR PROPER INTERPRETATION (GPG I.G.1)

PI/PD DEPARTMENT PI/PD POSTAL ADDRESS

PI/PD FAX NUMBER

NAMES (TYPED) High Degree Yr of Degree Telephone Number Electronic Mail Address

PI/PD NAME

CO-PI/PD

CO-PI/PD

CO-PI/PD

CO-PI/PD

Page 1 of 2

1061415SES - LAW AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

NSF 06-605 08/15/10

131988190

CUNY John Jay College of Criminal Justice

0026930000

CUNY John Jay College of Criminal Justice899 Tenth AvenueNew York, NY. 100193602

Doctoral Dissertation Research: Guilty Stereotypes: The Social Psychology of Race and Suspicion in Police Interrogations

9,343 12 02/01/11

psychology

212-237-8471

899 Tenth AvenueRoom 632BNew York, NY 100193602United States

Maria B Hartwig DPhil 2005 212-237-8449 mhartwig@jjay.cuny.edu

Sara C Appleby MA 2006 212-237-8449 s.c.appleby@gmail.com

04/13/10

620128863

Electronic Signature

08/16/2010 2 04050000 SES 1372 01/05/2011 3:19pm S

Corrected : 08/26/2010

CERTIFICATION PAGE

Certification for Authorized Organizational Representative or Individual Applicant:

By signing and submitting this proposal, the Authorized Organizational Representative or Individual Applicant is: (1) certifying that statements made herein are true and complete to the best of his/her knowledge; and (2) agreeing to accept the obligation to comply with NSF award terms and conditions if an award is made as a result of this application. Further, the applicant is hereby providing certifications regarding debarment and suspension, drug-free workplace, lobbying activities (see below), responsible conduct of research, nondiscrimination, and flood hazard insurance (when applicable) as set forth in the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide, Part I: the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG) (NSF 10-1). Willful provision of false information in this application and its supporting documents or in reports required under an ensuing award is a criminal offense (U. S. Code, Title 18, Section 1001).

Conflict of Interest Certification

In addition, if the applicant institution employs more than fifty persons, by electronically signing the NSF Proposal Cover Sheet, the Authorized Organizational Representative of the applicant institution is certifying that the institution has implemented a written and enforced conflict of interest policy that is consistent with the provisions of the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide, Part II, Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter IV.A; that to the best of his/her knowledge, all financial disclosures required by that conflict of interest policy have been made; and that all identified conflicts of interest will have been satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated prior to the institution’s expenditure of any funds under the award, in accordance with the institution’s conflict of interest policy. Conflicts which cannot be satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated must be disclosed to NSF.

Drug Free Work Place Certification

By electronically signing the NSF Proposal Cover Sheet, the Authorized Organizational Representative or Individual Applicant is providing the Drug Free Work Place Certification contained in Exhibit II-3 of the Grant Proposal Guide.

Debarment and Suspension Certification (If answer "yes", please provide explanation.)

Is the organization or its principals presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency? Yes No

By electronically signing the NSF Proposal Cover Sheet, the Authorized Organizational Representative or Individual Applicant is providing the Debarment and Suspension Certification contained in Exhibit II-4 of the Grant Proposal Guide.

Certification Regarding LobbyingThe following certification is required for an award of a Federal contract, grant, or cooperative agreement exceeding $100,000 and for an award of a Federal loan or a commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan exceeding $150,000.

Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans and Cooperative AgreementsThe undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:(1) No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.(2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, ‘‘Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,’’ in accordance with its instructions.(3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not lessthan $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.

Certification Regarding Nondiscrimination

By electronically signing the NSF Proposal Cover Sheet, the Authorized Organizational Representative is providing the Certification Regarding Nondiscrimination contained in Exhibit II-6 of the Grant Proposal Guide.

Certification Regarding Flood Hazard Insurance

Two sections of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 USC §4012a and §4106) bar Federal agencies from giving financial assistance for acquisition or construction purposes in any area identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as having special flood hazards unless the: (1) community in which that area is located participates in the national flood insurance program; and(2) building (and any related equipment) is covered by adequate flood insurance.

By electronically signing the NSF Proposal Cover Sheet, the Authorized Organizational Representative or Individual Applicant located in FEMA-designated special flood hazard areas is certifying that adequate flood insurance has been or will be obtained in the following situations: (1) for NSF grants for the construction of a building or facility, regardless of the dollar amount of the grant; and(2) for other NSF Grants when more than $25,000 has been budgeted in the proposal for repair, alteration or improvement (construction) of a building or facility.

Certification Regarding Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) (This certification is not applicable to proposals for conferences, symposia, and workshops.)

By electronically signing the NSF Proposal Cover Sheet, the Authorized Organizational Representative of the applicant institution is certifying that, in accordance with the NSF Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide, Part II, Award & Administration Guide (AAG) Chapter IV.B., the institution has a plan in place to provide appropriate training and oversight in the responsible and ethical conduct of research to undergraduates, graduate students and postdoctoral researchers who will be supported by NSF to conduct research. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in any award documents for all subawards at all tiers.

AUTHORIZED ORGANIZATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE DATE

NAME

TELEPHONE NUMBER ELECTRONIC MAIL ADDRESS FAX NUMBER

fm1207rrs-07

* EAGER - EArly-concept Grants for Exploratory Research ** RAPID - Grants for Rapid Response Research

Page 2 of 2

Jacob Marini Aug 16 2010 3:15PMElectronic Signature

212-237-8449 jmarini@hera.jjay.cuny.edu 212-237-8471

Project Summary

English jurist William Blackstone argued that it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to send one innocent person to jail (Blackstone, 1826). This premise has been one of the main building blocks of our adversarial justice system (Volokh, 1997). Yet, to date, over 250 people have been exonerated by post conviction DNA testing, unequivocally proving their innocence (www.innocence project.org). Nearly 70% of these post conviction DNA exonerees are members of minority groups. As can be seen in the eyewitness identification literature, in addition to socio-economic factors, social-cognitive factors play a role in the overrepresentation of minorities among the wrongfully convicted (see Meissner & Brigham 2001 for a review). Yet, within the field of interrogation and confession research the of role race has been largely neglected. False confessions have been a contributing factor in approximately 25% of the DNA exoneration cases (www.innocenceproject.org). This implies that in a considerable number of cases convictions of innocent people have their origin in the interrogation room, a proposition that has received ample support from field and laboratory research (Baldwin, 1993; Bull & Milne, 2004; Gudjonsson, 2003; Hartwig, Granhag, & Vrij, 2005; Huff, Rattner, & Sagarin, 1996; Kassin, 2005; Victory, 2002). The evidence is overwhelming that misclassifications of innocent suspects occur largely due to police misinterpretations of behaviors that are unrelated to deception and guilt (Kassin, 2008; Vrij, 2004). The present research seeks to investigate the effects of suspect race on police pre-interrogation interviews.

Police often rely on nonverbal behaviors to detect deception (e.g. Inbau, Reid, Buckley, & Jayne,

2001), such as gaze aversion and fidgeting. However, research shows that these behaviors are not cues to deception (DePaulo, et al., 2003). Instead, they are typical signs of discomfort and anxiety. There are a number of reasons why a suspect may be anxious while talking to be police (deTurk & Miller, 1985; Winkel, Koppeleaar, & Vrij, 1988). One reason Black suspects may be particularly prone to stress and anxiety is their appraisal of the possibility that they fit the stereotype of a criminal. Indeed, the stereotypical association of African-Americans with criminality is wide-spread (Eberhardt, Goff, Purdie, & Davies, 2004) and surveys of African-Americans show that they are very aware of this stereotype (Sigelman & Tuch, 1997). Research on stereotype threat shows that being stereotyped is an anxiety provoking process (Marx & Staple, 2006; Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999). In this dissertation improvement grant, the PIs propose that police reliance on cues to anxiety when assessing credibility may make innocent African-American suspects especially vulnerable targets for misclassification as guilty. We hypothesize that Black suspects' appraisal of the stereotype threat may function as a self-fulfilling prophecy: awareness of the risk of being judged as guilty on the basis of one's race may give rise to anxiety, which in turn is interpreted as signs of guilt by an interviewer (Strömwall, Granhag, & Hartwig, 2004; Vrij, 2008).

Study 1 uses an experimental paradigm to examine race as a moderator of suspect behavior in a

pre-interrogation interview, the step during which police assess the likelihood that a suspect committed the crime and whether they should be subjected to a confession-oriented interrogation. Study 1 will seek to replicate Dutch research on how suspect race affects behavior during questioning. This study will also assess anxiety and willingness to cooperate among both innocent and guilty Black and White suspects, identified by self-report and observer ratings. Additionally, behavior will be coded by trained observers to assess objective differences in suspect behavior as a function of race and culpability. Study 2 will use the suspect interviews created in Study 1 to examine how racial differences in behavior affect police assessments of veracity. Study 3 seeks to control for any potential prejudice present in study 2 by separating the effect of the suspect’s race from racial differences in nonverbal behavior as indentified by the coding of nonverbal behaviors in Study 1. Specifically, police will evaluate actors displaying either race congruent or race incongruent behaviors (as identified in Study 1) in the pre-interrogation interview.

The intellectual merit of this proposed line of research lies in its novel application of stereotype threat to the interrogation setting, as well as its contribution to the nearly non-existent body of research on race and interviewing and interrogation. The broader impact lies in its potential to expand our understanding of the effects of race on suspect behavior and police decision-making, and thus, our ability to educate all players in the legal system (e.g., police officers, defense attorneys, and judges) about these mechanisms. This line of research will also further the goal of researchers to reduce wrongful convictions by identifying ways to improve police practices in the interrogation room. Finally, funding of this research will contribute to the education of a woman who is pursuing a career in academia.

TABLE OF CONTENTSFor font size and page formatting specifications, see GPG section II.B.2.

Total No. of Page No.*Pages (Optional)*

Cover Sheet for Proposal to the National Science Foundation

Project Summary (not to exceed 1 page)

Table of Contents

Project Description (Including Results from Prior

NSF Support) (not to exceed 15 pages) (Exceed only if allowed by aspecific program announcement/solicitation or if approved inadvance by the appropriate NSF Assistant Director or designee)

References Cited

Biographical Sketches (Not to exceed 2 pages each)

Budget (Plus up to 3 pages of budget justification)

Current and Pending Support

Facilities, Equipment and Other Resources

Special Information/Other Supplementary Docs/Mentoring Plan

Appendix (List below. )

(Include only if allowed by a specific program announcement/solicitation or if approved in advance by the appropriate NSFAssistant Director or designee)

Appendix Items:

*Proposers may select any numbering mechanism for the proposal. The entire proposal however, must be paginated.Complete both columns only if the proposal is numbered consecutively.

1

1

10

7

3

3

3

1

0

Project Description Proposal Objectives

To date, 255 people in the United States have been exonerated by post conviction DNA evidence. Nearly 70% of these are members of minority groups (www.innocenceproject.org). As the Innocence Project is only one of a number of organizations aiming to exonerate the wrongfully convicted, this figure represents the tip of an iceberg of miscarriages of justice (Drizin & Leo 2004, Gross et al. 2005, Kassin, 2008). The most common source of wrongful convictions is eyewitness misidentification, and there have been a number of eyewitness studies dedicated to discerning how race affects eyewitness identifications (Meissner & Brigham, 2001). Yet, very little research has been conducted on how race affects the second leading cause of wrongful conviction, the false confession. False confessions have been a contributing factor in approximately 25% of the DNA exoneration cases (www.innocenceproject.org). This implies that in a considerable number of cases, convictions of innocent people have their origin in the interrogation room, a proposition that has received ample support from field and laboratory research (Baldwin, 1993; Bull & Milne, 2004; Gudjonsson, 2003; Hartwig, Granhag, & Vrij, 2005; Huff, Rattner, & Sagarin, 1996; Kassin, 2005; Victory, 2002).

The standard police interrogation is a two-step process (Inbau, Reid, Buckley, & Jayne, 2001). First, police use the pre-interrogation interview, a non-confrontational process, to determine whether suspects are innocent or guilty. Once a suspect has been identified as guilty, the interrogation begins. The interrogation is an accusatorial process where investigators try to elicit a confession from suspects they already believe to be guilty. A false confession is thus the result of incorrect veracity assessments and the subsequent exposure of innocent suspects to manipulative and coercive interrogation techniques (Leo, 2001; Kassin, 2008). The effectiveness of commonly employed interrogation techniques in accomplishing the goal of eliciting confessions is undisputed. Unfortunately, the problem of coercion and manipulation is that even innocent people may offer confessions as a function of being exposed to such interrogation tactics (Kassin, 2005). The proponents of coercive interrogation defend the use of coercive and manipulative interrogation tactics by claiming that only guilty suspects are subjected to these techniques, and that innocent suspects are identified and released after the interview stages (Inbau et al., 2001). As will be described in detail below, this suggestion is flawed and has been disproved by a large body of empirical research (Meissner & Kassin, 2002; Vrij, 2008). The evidence is overwhelming that misclassifications of innocent suspects occur, largely due to police misinterpretations of behaviors that are unrelated to deception and guilt (Kassin, 2008; Vrij, 2004).

Even though police-suspect interactions play a critical role in miscarriages of justice (Gudjonsson, 2003), and minority groups are overrepresented in such cases of convictions of innocents, to date there has been little empirical research on the effects of race in police interviews and interrogations of suspects. Police officers often rely on nonverbal behavior to detect deception and willingness to cooperate to ascertain guilt (e.g. Inbau et al., 2001), but research has shown that these strategies are flawed, resulting in accuracy levels in line with the level of chance (Meissner & Kassin, 2002; Vrij, 2004). Police officers often rely on gaze aversion, fidgeting and speech errors, which have not been found to be indicative of deception (DePaulo et al., 2003). Instead, such behaviors are typical indicators of anxiety. Furthermore, African-Americans are less likely to cooperate with the police than Caucasians due to a lack of trust in police (Kennard & Kassin, 2009). Although guilty people may be anxious and uncooperative when being questioned by police, guilt is not the only reason for these behaviors (deTurk & Miller, 1985; Winkel, Koppeleaar, & Vrij, 1988). Because African-Americans are stereotyped as criminals (Eberhardt, Goff, Purdie, & Davies, 2004), and being stereotyped as been shown to increase anxiety levels (Marx & Staple, 2006; Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999), one potential cause of misclassifications of innocent suspects in the pre-interrogation interview may be suspect race.

The proposed dissertation research investigates how police reliance on incorrect cues to deception interacts with the experience of being stereotyped as a criminal to disproportionately put innocent African-Americans at risk of being judged as likely to be guilty in a pre-interrogation interview. Study 1 will investigate race as a moderator of suspect behavior within the pre-interrogation interview by using a common experimental paradigm where half of the participants are guilty of a mock theft and half are innocent. All participants are then instructed to deny guilt when interviewed by a mock detective. Participants will fill out self-report measures of anxiety and willingness to cooperate. Additionally, observers will make objective ratings of anxiety and cooperation during the pre-interrogation interview. We hypothesize that the stereotype of the African-American as a criminal will create a situation where innocent Black participants will report feeling more anxious and be less willing to cooperate than innocent White participants, and will also be rated by observers as being more anxious, less cooperative, and display more

nonverbal cues to anxiety associated with deception than innocent White participants. Interviews will be videotaped and coded by trained observers to assess objective differences in suspect behavior, both minutely and globally, based on race and culpability.

Study 2 will use the interviews from study to examine how racial differences in behavior moderate police officers’ veracity assessments. Police will view two suspects from Study 1, make veracity judgments and indicate whether they would like to interrogate this suspect further. We hypothesize that police officers will rate innocent Black suspects as more nervous, less cooperative, and more likely to be guilty than innocent White suspects. We also predict that, due to their reliance on stereotypical cues to guilt, they will endorse continuing to question innocent Black suspects for the crime at higher rates than innocent White suspects. Study 3 seeks to control for any potential prejudice present in Study 2 by separating the effect of the suspect’s race from racial differences in nonverbal behavior by having police evaluate actors displaying racially prototypical and racially atypical behaviors within the pre-interrogation interview as identified in Study 1. We hypothesize that police officers will rate the suspect displaying the typical Black behaviors as more deceptive and more likely to be guilty regardless of the actual race of the suspect based on the incorrect stereotype that that these behaviors are cues to deception. Relation of the Proposed Work to the State of the Field False Beliefs about Deceptive Behavior.

Police Rely on Nonverbal Behavior. The ability to detect deception in legal settings is crucial, and the consequences of a misjudgment are serious. Police do not want to wrongfully accuse an innocent person, yet they also do not want to let a guilty person get away. Hence, many police interrogation training programs spend a great deal of time training police in deception detection strategies (e.g. John Reid and Associates). Consequently, most criminal investigators are confident in their ability to detect deception. A survey of police officers showed that, on average, the officers estimated that they were 77% accurate in distinguishing between truth and lies (Kassin et al., 2007). The large body of research on deception detection shows that police officers’ confidence in their ability to classify truthful and false denials of crime is inflated (Vrij, 2003). Lay people achieve hit rates around or slightly above chance level when facing the task of distinguishing between truthful and deceptive statements (Bond & DePaulo, 2006). Although exhibiting higher confidence levels, police officers have, similar to lay people, been found to obtain near chance hit rates (e.g., Meissner & Kassin, 2002; Vrij, 2004). Not only have police officers been found to be unable to correctly classify truthful and deceptive statements on the basis of video-taped material, but highly experienced criminal investigators obtain chance-level hit rates even when allowed to question a guilty or innocent mock suspect according to the approach of their own choice (Hartwig, Granhag, Strömwall, & Vrij, 2004). In sum, police officers’ lie detection skills are limited.

Much empirical research supports the notion that lie catching is flawed partly due to incorrect beliefs about the cognitive, emotional and behavioral patterns of liars and truth tellers. For example, people expect those who deceptively deny guilt regarding a transgression to experience nervousness, anxiety and arousal, and that such experiences will leave visible traces in demeanor (Strömwall, Hartwig & Granhag, 2004). This assumption has been shown to be invalid by ample research on liars and truth tellers, showing that demeanor cues are largely non-diagnostic (DePaulo, Lindsey, Malone, Muhlenbruck, Charlton, & Cooper, 2003). In contrast to this, Inbau, Reid, Buckley, and Jayne (2001) (a.k.a John Reid and Associates) train police officers that 70% of a message is communicated thought non-verbal channels and instruct police officers to focus on non-verbal cues such as gaze aversion, fidgeting, posture shifts, hand gestures, and grooming behavior (Inbau et al., 2001), none of which have been shown to be indicative of deception (DePaulo et al., 2003). Surveys of police officers have found that the majority endorse these behaviors as reliable indicators of deception. These findings are robust, as they have been replicated across a number of police forces in a number of different countries throughout the last decade (Akehurst, Köhnken, Vrij, & Bull, 2006; Strömwall & Granhag, 2003, Vrij, Akehurst, & Knight, 2006; Vrij & Semin, 1996). It seems the belief that liars are fidgety and gaze aversive is a global cultural myth. A worldwide investigation into people’s beliefs about deception found that these beliefs were expressed with striking consistency across a number of cultures (Global Deception Research Team, 2006; see Gilovich, 1991 for a discussion on the emergence and persistence of false beliefs).

Additionally, John Reid and Associates, the most popular police interrogation training program (www.reid.com), argue that people trained in the use of their Behavioral Analysis Interview (BAI) are 85% accurate in distinguishing between truth and lies. The evidence cited for these hit rates is flawed (see Kassin, 2008). In fact, recent experimental investigation has found that only three of the fifteen items on the

BAI are actually associated with veracity (Blair & Kooi, 2004) and the behavioral patterns of liars and truth tellers elicited by the interview to be directly opposite of the predictions of the BAI (Vrij et al., 2006). Recently, one study demonstrated that the BAI is simply a constellation of commonly known, but inaccurate, notions about deceptive behavior (Masip, Herrero, Garrido, & Barba, 2010). Furthermore, the Reid interrogation model has been shown to be counterproductive in that lie-catchers trained to rely on it achieve lower accuracy rates in detecting true and false denials than naïve participants (Kassin & Fong, 1999).

As the research reviewed above shows, people hold a stereotype that liars are nervous about getting caught and will show signs of such nervousness (Anderson, DePaulo, Ansfield, Tickle, & Green, 1999). In reality, innocent and guilty suspects can be plagued by similar negative experiences, which could stem from several sources (deTurk & Miller, 1985; Winkel, Koppeleaar, & Vrij, 1988). A source of anxiety and arousal for both innocent and guilty people suspected of a transgression is often fear of the consequences if the attempt to convince is unsuccessful. First, the suspected transgressor might experience anxiety due to the unpleasant and threatening nature of the accusation. An accusation of guilt, whether related to a social transgression (e.g., cheating on a partner) or a criminal transgression, represents a threat proportional to the severity of the offense. In the case of the criminal transgression, an ultimate assessment of guilt carries potentially severe and life-altering consequences. This is a form of motivational anxiety, which is related to an individual’s subjective assessment of the current state in comparison to a desired state (Carver & Scheier, 1998). Both innocent and guilty suspects are strongly motivated to work towards the goal of being believed to be innocent. In line with self-regulation theory, negative feedback on this performance would induce anxiety related to the discrepancy between the current state (one is assessed unfavorably) and the desired state (to be believed to be innocent). Again, due to the accusatory and explicitly guilt-assuming nature of many investigative questioning tools (Gudjonsson, 2003; Kassin, 2008), experiences of and cues to motivational anxiety might be pronounced for the innocent person as well as for the guilty: they receive feedback that they are far from their desired state, eliciting effortful behavior to eliminate the threat and reach the desired goal. In sum, being suspected of a crime is likely to elicit anxiety in both guilty and innocent suspects.

Police Believe Truth Tellers Always Cooperate. Police do not rely solely on non-verbal behavior when making judgments about deception. Vrij et al. (2006) found that police believe liars are less likely to cooperate with them than truth tellers. Additionally, Reid and Associates teach that truthful suspects are more cooperative with police. Some common “indicators” of cooperation are willingness to waive Miranda rights, willingness to take a polygraph test, and willingness to keep talking as long as necessary to resolve the situation (Inbau et al., 2001). While research has shown that innocent people are more likely to waive their Miranda rights (Kassin & Norwick, 2004), it does not mean that willingness to waive Miranda rights is an unequivocal indicator of innocence. Often individuals who have had prior experience with the legal system are less likely to waive their rights (Leo, 1996). Moreover, an experimental study found that liars were in fact more cooperative than truth tellers when cooperation was operationally defined as the willingness to repeat their statement (Vrij, 2005). Thus, although willingness to cooperate with police is connected to truthfulness and deception in a complicated way, police still heavily, and often mistakenly, rely on it in a heuristic-like fashion to make judgments of deception. Police Strategies May Disproportionately Jeopardize African-Americans.

Racial Differences in Nonverbal Behavior. In addition to individual differences in non-verbal behavior, there are cultural differences in non-verbal behavior. One reason for these differences is that there are context- and culture-dependent rules, called display rules, which regulate aspects of communication and non-verbal behavior (Matsumoto, Yoo, & Nakagawa, 2008). While much of the cross-cultural research has compared eastern and western cultures, a smaller subset of cultural research has focused on nonverbal communication differences between the racial and ethnic groups within the United States itself.

Evidence of racial differences in nonverbal behavior in naturally occurring settings is mixed (Ikes, 1984; La France and Mayo, 1976, Smith, 1983). There is, however, evidence of context-dependent racial differences in nonverbal behavior. Within the employment interview context, Black applicants have been found to be more gaze aversive and to have more speech hesitations than White applicants (Fugita, Wexley, & Hillery, 1974). There is also evidence of a self-fulfilling prophecy in interracial interactions: Word, Cooper, and Zanna (1974) found that Black job interviewees were treated with less immediacy than White interviewees. This treatment lead interviewees to make more speech errors, and to be viewed to be less calm, composed and friendly compared to White interviewees (Word et al., 1974). As previously noted,

people who appear nervous, as the participants in the Word et al. study did, are often judged to be deceptive by both police officers and lay people.

Another context in which racial differences in nonverbal behaviors have been evident are police citizen interactions. In a recent naturalistic observation study, videotapes from the TV show COPS were analyzed for racial differences in non-verbal behavior. There were racial differences in gaze aversion, hand gestures, and smiling (Johnson, 2006). Importantly, these are all behaviors which police officers and lay people rely on when attempting to establish the veracity of a statements (Strömwall et al., 2004). A systematic examination of nonverbal behavior patterns in simulated police-citizen interactions in the Netherlands also found differences in the nonverbal behavior of Black and White suspects. Specifically, Black suspects had more speech disturbances, made less eye contact, smiled more often, and moved more than White suspects (Vrij, 1991; Vrij, Winkel, & Koppelaar, 1988; Vrij & Winkel, 1990, 1991). Using these differential patterns of behavior, Vrij and colleagues then had actors portray either racially typical behavior or racially atypical behavior in the context of a police interview and then measured police officers’ perceptions of the suspect. Interestingly Black nonverbal behavior was judged more negatively and as more suspicious than White nonverbal behavior, regardless of the actor’s actually race (Vrij, Koppelaar, & Dragt, 1991; Vrij, Peters, & Winkel, 1991;c.f. Vrij & Winkel, 1992).

It is important to note that the most consistent finding regarding context-dependent racial differences in nonverbal behavior is that African-Americans are more gaze aversive. Although gaze aversion is not reliably linked to deception, it is by far the most prominent subjective (i.e., believed) indicator of deception for professionals and lay people.

The effects of being stereotyped. One plausible explanation for context-dependent racial differences

in nonverbal behavior is African-American concerns about racism (Dovidio, Hebl, Richeson, & Shelton, 2006). Research has shown that ethnic minorities are concerned about being stereotyped during interracial interactions (Shelton, Richeson, & Vorauer, 2006). Moreover, stereotype concerns increase anxiety and stress (Marx & Staple, 2006; Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999), hinder inter-racial interactions (Shelton et al., 2006), and affect nonverbal communication by increasing behaviors associated with anxiety (Shelton, 2003). Within the context of a police interaction Black suspects may be concerned about being stereotyped as a criminal. The stereotype of African-Americans as criminals is robust (Eberhardt, Goff, Purdie, & Davies, 2004), and can have pervasive effects: they can induce people to see criminality when it is not present (Correll, Park, Judd, & Wittenbrink, 2002), and they can alter people’s memories for a criminal event to be consistent with the stereotype (Allport & Postman, 1947, c.f., Eberhardt et. al., 2004). Additionally, certain crimes are more stereotypical of African-Americans than others. For example, African-Americans are perceived as more likely to engage in various blue-collar crimes such as assaults, muggings, and car theft, while Caucasians are perceived as more likely to engage White-collar crimes such as embezzlement, counterfeiting, and fraud (Sunnafrank & Fontes, 1983). Surveys of African-Americans show that they are very aware of these stereotype (Sigelman & Tuch, 1997).

A great deal of research over the last twenty years has focused on how members of stereotyped groups deal with the possibility of being judged or treated stereotypically (Nguyen & Ryan, 2008). One argument for what may be driving context-dependent racial differences in non-verbal behavior is that they are the result of stereotype threat. Stereotype Threat refers to the fear that one’s behavior in a given situation might confirm a cultural stereotype of the group to which the person identifies and the person’s performance in that situation suffers as a consequence (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Effects have been found for a wide variety of stereotyped groups in a number of settings. (Nguyen et al., 2008, Steele et al., 1995, Steele, 1997, Steele, Spencer, & Aaronson, 2002).

Both cognition and emotion have been shown to play a key role in how stereotype threat impacts behavior (Schmader, Johns, & Forbes, 2008). In the proposed project, we will focus on the affective component of stereotype threat, since it is likely to be linked to behaviors that put individuals at risk for unfavorable veracity assessments and for being the target of guilt-presumptive and coercive interrogation techniques. For example, individuals in stereotype threat situations report feeling more apprehensive and anxious (Marx et al., 2006; Spencer et al., 1999). Moreover, even when people did not self-report feeling anxiety during the situation, analysis of their nonverbal behaviors showed more signs of anxiety (Bosson, Haymovitz, & Pinel, 2004). Finally, physiological measures have shown increased indicators of anxiety (e.g. increased heart rate, blood pressure, and galvanic skin response) in stereotype threat situations (Blascovich, Spencer, Quinn, & Steele, 2001; Croizet et. al., 2004; Osborne, 2007; Vick, Seery, Blascovich, & Weisbuch, 2008). Thus, it appears that stereotype threat increases anxiety levels.

Although the stereotype of the African-American as a criminal is pervasive, and the interrogation

room is a setting where African-Americans have to worry about being stereotyped, there has been little research on how suspect race affects police interviewing and interrogation, and none of the research has examined these interactions within the context of stereotype threat. We argue that in police-citizen interrogation situations, innocent Black suspects may be concerned about being stereotyped as a criminal. Similar to previous stereotype threat research, innocent Black suspects should fear confirming this stereotype, consequently increasing their anxiety and stress levels. As noted earlier, because police often use behaviors that are indicative of anxiety as cues to deception, it is plausible that an African-American suspect will be at risk of being judged as deceptive as a function of the increased anxiety levels due to the stereotype threat.

Racial Differences in Trust in Police. In addition to meta-perceptions, another reason we believe that the interrogation process may cause African-Americans to display behaviors that put them at risk for unfavorable judgments is because they may be less trusting and more suspicious of the criminal justice system than Caucasians (Hurwitz & Peffley, 2001; c.f., Hurwitz & Peffley, 2005). Nearly 30% of African-Americans report being treated unfairly by police because of their race (Hurwitz et al., 2005). Additionally, 74% of African-Americans felt that the justice system treated people unfairly, compared to only 44% of Caucasians, and 61% of African-Americans did not trust the courts to give a fair trial, compared to only 26% of Caucasians (Hurwitz et al., 2005). Additionally, when interviewed about general discrimination, 57% of African-American respondents spontaneously mentioned encounters with police, while only 11% of Caucasians did (Dottolo and Stewart, 2008). That the criminal justice system is biased against Black people is not a mere illusion; it very often corresponds with reality. Even when controlling for a number of non-racial factors, Black defendants are more likely to receive the death penalty than white defendants (Baldus, Woodworth, Zuckerman, Weiner, & Broffitt, 1998). Personal experiences and witnessing of other’s experiences may have led African-Americans to see the criminal justice system as an unfair institution (Hurwitz et al., 2005).

This disbelief in the criminal justice system is contradictory not only to the way Caucasians think about the criminal justice system, but to the way most people think about the way the world functions. People in general hold a belief in a just world, meaning that the world is fair, that good things happen to good people and bad things to bad people (Lerner, 1980). This attributional bias helps people avoid anxious thoughts about one’s own well being by believing that because they are good people, bad things will not happen to them (Hafer & Bègue, 2005). Importantly, racial and ethnic differences have been observed with regards to the belief in a just world, with Whites generally scoring higher than Blacks on instruments measuring this belief (such as the Just World Scale, Hunt, 2000; Smith & Green, 1984).

In the criminal justice system, the belief in a just world often manifests itself as the belief in the power of truth to prevail, particularly for innocent suspects. In a study of why people waive their Miranda rights, 72% of innocents who waived their rights did so because they believed in the power of their innocence to protect them against misjudgment (Kassin & Norwick, 2004). Not surprisingly, racial differences have been found in suspects’ trust in police and willingness to waive their rights to silence: In one study, White participants were significantly more likely than Black to expect police to comply with a suspect’s request to retain his rights, showing a greater trust in police from White than Black participants. Additionally, innocent Black participants were less likely to waive their rights to silence than innocent White participants, while there was no difference in waiver rates between guilty Black and White suspects (Kennard and Kassin, 2009). As previously mentioned, a suspect who retains his rights to silence may be seen as uncooperative, and consequently at risk of being classified as guilty. In sum, a less pronounced belief in a just world may have the self-fulfilling effect of eliciting guilt judgments.

Taken together, these findings suggest that the process of being questioned by the police is more

anxiety-provoking for African-Americans than Caucasians. Thus, in a police-citizen interaction African-Americans may be more likely than Caucasians to display anxious behavior and less likely to cooperate by waiving their rights to silence. Since the overlap between cues to anxiety and stereotypical cues to deception is well established in the empirical literature, it is likely that that innocent African-American suspects appear more deceptive to police compared to Caucasians. Because police do not rely solely on non-verbal cues to determine whether a suspect is innocent or guilty, but also rely on cues such as a suspect’s willingness to cooperate, this lack of trust in police compound the problem, putting innocent Black suspects at risk of being misclassified as guilty when interviewed by the police.

General Plan of Work Racial differences in non-verbal behavior and willingness to cooperate will be evaluated to determine

if police strategies to detect deception disproportionately put African-Americans at risk of being classified as deceptive in a pre-interrogation interview. The purpose of these studies will be to expand the literature on deception in investigative interviews with suspects, in particular with regards to the role of race and race-related risks for misclassifications of guilt, as well as the role of stereotype threat within the context of the interrogation room. We will investigate the likely pattern that 1) African-Americans are more likely to display non-verbal and uncooperative behaviors which perceivers tend to associate with guilt; and that 2) police officers will rely heavily on these indicators when trying to detect deception and discern guilt in an investigative interview.

Study 1 will examine how the race of the suspect affects his/her behavior in a pre-interrogation interview. This study seeks to replicate the findings of Vrij and colleagues on how race affects nonverbal behavior during police questioning, as well as assess suspect anxiety and willingness to cooperate. Mock detectives will interview both innocent and guilty Black and White participants about their involvement in a mock crime (theft of money). Anxiety and willingness to cooperate will be measured via self-reports. Moreover, we will code behavior to create objective measures of overt signs of anxiety and cooperation. Study 1 will also create the stimulus materials for studies 2 and 3. The goal of this study is to test the hypothesis that being questioned about a theft is more anxiety provoking for innocent Black suspects than innocent white suspects consequently causing innocent Blacks suspects to act more consistent with a guilty stereotype than innocent white suspects. The purpose of study 2 is to examine how police officers evaluate the behaviors of the Black and White suspects from Study 1 with the expectation that innocent Black suspects’ stereotype-consistent behaviors will be associated with more guilt judgments compared to innocent White suspects. Study 3 is designed to tease apart the effect of race from racial differences in nonverbal behavior. In Study 1 we will code the nonverbal behaviors of the mock suspects, both minutely (e.g., gaze behavior, smiling, fidgeting, posture shifts) and globally (ratings of impressions of anxiety, motivation, cooperation). Based on these, four interviews scenarios will be created. Two actors, one of each race, will be hired to play suspects in an interrogation video. Each actor will display race congruent behavior in one video and race incongruent behavior in the other, creating 4 conditions (see Vrij & Winkel, 1992). Study 1: Race & Suspect Behavior

For this study we will aim to create a situation where Black suspects feel that stereotyping as a criminal is both: 1) possible - targets feel that a negative stereotype can be applied in the current social setting; and 2) probable – targets feel there is a high likelihood of being stereotyped (Wout, Shih, Jackson, & Sellers, 2009). As previously noted, African-Americans are often stereotyped as criminals (Eberhardt et al., 2004), and are very aware of this stereotype (Sigelman et. al., 1997). Thus, we believe that having a White detective (stereotype probable) question African-Americans about their involvement in a crime (stereotype possible) will produce a situation sufficient to induce anxiety and reduce willingness to cooperate. We have pilot tested this paradigm with 21 undergraduates. Black and White students were asked to either steal a wallet or complete an innocent act. They were then approached by a White male posing as college security and told they were suspected in the theft of a wallet from a briefcase, after which they were questioned about their recent activity. Self-report measures confirm that these manipulations are sufficient to create more pronounced anxiety in innocent Black suspects than in innocent White suspects. Participants rated how nervous they felt during the interview on a 1-10 scale (1= not at all, 10 = extremely). There was a trend towards innocent Black suspects reporting feeling more nervous during the interview (M = 4.00, SD = 2.74), than innocent White suspects (M = 2.5, SD = 1.38), F (1, 17) = 2.16, p = .14.

Pilot results also show tentative support for our predictions. There was a trend towards observers rating Black suspects as more tense (M = 4.15, SD = 1.69) than White suspects (M = 3.15, SD = 1.16), F (1, 13) = 2.27, p = .16 on a 10 point scale (1 = not at all, 10 = very). Observers also rated Black suspects as less cooperative (M = 8.64, SD = 1.11) than White suspects (M= 9.30, SD = .35), F (1, 13) = 28.2, p <. 001 on a 10 point scale (1 = not at all, 10 = very). Additionally, When presented with the option, Black suspects (M = 1.47, SD = .53) were less likely to say they would like to waive their right to silence than White suspects (M = 1.9, SD =. 30), F (1, 15) = 4.69, p= .05.

Participants: Participants will be 90 American citizen African-American and Caucasian community members in the New York City area recruited through online advertising and flyers. With 90 participants we can expect power of .95 (alpha = .05) to detect a medium (.385) effect size. Community members are vital to the

completion of this study as the current student population at our institution is primarily Hispanic and recruitment of both Black and White participants often proves difficult. Moreover, it will provide a more representative sample than the use of college students. Participants will be pre-screened to confirm their citizenship and their race. Participants will be paid $15 for their time. Each session is expected to take no more than an hour. Design and manipulations:

Study 1 will employ 2 (Race: Black v. White) x 2 (Culpability: Innocent v. Guilty) factorial between subjects design.

Race: Race of suspect, assessed by participant self-report will be a quasi-experimental variable of key

focus of our analyses. Culpability: Participants will be randomly assigned to commit a mock crime (taking an envelope

containing $100) or an innocent act (looking for a book). It is important to include both guilty and innocent participants so that the diagnosticity, or probative value, of non-verbal behaviors and indicators of cooperation can be calculated. Procedure:

Participants will be recruited to participate in a study on legal decision-making. To manipulate innocence and guilt (and consequently truthfulness and deceptiveness during the interview), participants will be asked to commit either a mock crime or similar but innocent act. The mock crime will consist of participants stealing an envelope containing $100 from a briefcase from another room in the building. They will then be instructed to hide the money on their person to increase the psychological realism during the interview. The innocent act will consist of participants looking for a specific book in a crate containing books in the same vicinity as the briefcase containing the wallet. A White detective will approach all participants on their way back from the task and inform them that they are suspected of stealing the money from the briefcase. Participants will then be taken to a mock interrogation room for questioning. This mock crime paradigm has been used in previous studies and has been found to adequately induce sufficient feelings of discomfort and anxiety in participants, yet to not go as far as to be unethical (Hartwig, Granhag, Strömwall, & Kronkvist, 2006; Kassin, 2008). Our pilot testing revealed similar results, producing sufficient, ethical, levels of task nervousness (M=4.10) and discomfort (M=5.40). All previous studies have been subjected to and approved by ethical review boards and there has never been an instance reported in which a participant became overly upset.

Moreover, there is evidence that this paradigm has some external validity. Previous studies have found self-reported motivation to be believed as innocent to be quite high (Ms > 8 on 10-point scale) (e.g. Hartwig et al., 2004; Hartwig, Granhag, Strömwall, & Vrij, 2005; Hartwig et al., 2006). Pilot testing revealed similar results with the student participants reporting being highly motivated to be believed with a mean motivation rating of 7.70 on a 10-point scale. In the proposed study, participants will be incentivized to maintain innocence by being informed that they will have a chance to be entered in a lottery to win $100 if they convince the detective of their innocence. Previous research using this monetary incentive has shown that it results in high motivation to be believed (e.g. Hartwig et al., 2004; Hartwig et al., 2005; Hartwig et al., 2006).

After completing the guilty or innocent task, all participants will be taken to a mock interrogation room, in which they receive instructions for the upcoming questioning. Guilty participants will be instructed to deny having taken the envelope and innocent participants will be instructed to tell the truth about the fact that they did not steal it. In other words, half of the participants will provide deceptive denials while the other half will provide truthful denials. Also, participants will be given a short questionnaire to assess their anxiety levels (see self-report measures below). After five minutes the detective will return and assert that the participant is under suspicion for money that was recently stolen from the building. The detective, blind as to participant’s guilt, will question each participant about the missing money in accordance with a predefined script. Participants will be asked directly if they took the money and then to provide a description in as much detail as possible of where they were and what they did in the previous 15 minutes. They will then be asked if they were in the room where the theft occurred, if they saw a briefcase, if they looked inside the briefcase, and if they took the money from the briefcase. Interviews will be videotaped and coded by trained observers (see Nonverbal Behavior measures below). Each interview will take no more than 10 minutes. After the interview is over, all participants will be told (fictitiously) that the detective thought they were

lying. They will then be given a series of questions about what they would like their next course of action to be (see Willingness to Cooperate measures below) as well as a number of self-report measures detailed below. Finally, participants will be thoroughly debriefed and researchers will make sure that each participant leaves the study feeling comfortable with the procedure. Measures:

Self-report measures: Before the interview, participants will be given a short questionnaire to assess their pre-interview anxiety. After the interview, anxiety will be reassessed. Anxiety will be measured using ratings of how agitated, anxious, nervous, uneasy, and worried respondents feel on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). This method has been used in previous stereotype threat studies to measure state anxiety ( = .86) (Johns et al., 2008). Then, participants will be asked how they think they will be perceived. Specifically they will be asked: 1) Do you think the person who interviewed you thought you were innocent or guilty? Why or why not? 2) Do you think the person who interviewed you is biased against you in some way (1 = not at all, 10 = very much)? How so? 3) How easy do you think it will be for an observer to determine if you were lying or telling the truth? (1 = extremely easy, 10 = extremely difficult); 4) Do you think an observer will think you are lying or telling the truth? Why? Finally, participants will complete the Belief in a Just World Scale (Dalbert, 1999), a modified version of the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity to assess racial identity (Sellers et al., 1997), and they will be asked if they have ever been questioned by the police, as experience has been shown to predict Miranda waiver rates (Leo, 1996).

Willingness to cooperate: After completing the self-report measures, participants will be told that the

detective thought they were lying. They will be asked whether they would like to: 1) take a polygraph; 2) consult a defense attorney; 3) invoke their Miranda rights; and 4) speak with another detective, in order to asses willingness to cooperate. All questions will use a dichotomous yes or no metric and then ask participants to elaborate on why they did or did not choose that option.

Non-verbal behavior: Suspect behavior will be coded both minutely by analyzing the duration and

frequency of a number of cues, and will also be coded on the basis of global impressions. These are the two most commonly employed approaches to coding nonverbal behavior (DePaulo et al., 2003). For the minute level coding, two independent raters, blind to the hypotheses and conditions, will code the behaviors of the mock suspects. These codings will be based on both commonly held views of deceptive behavior ascertained by previous research (Global Deception Research Team, 2006) and nonverbal indications of deception taught by John Reid and Associates. These behaviors include the number and duration of gaze aversions, number of hand gestures or movements, number and length of smiles and nervous laughter, number and length of fidgeting behaviors (such as leg/foot shaking or finger tapping), posture (coded as slouched, straight, or normal), body orientation to interviewer, number of body or posture shifts and number of self-grooming or touching behaviors. For the global impression ratings, two independent raters, blind to the hypotheses and conditions will code the demeanor of the suspects on a 1-10 scale on the dimensions of uncomfortable, tense, anxious, motivated, cooperate, and unsure. All coders will be trained by one of the PIs who has previous experience of conducting conducted of behavioral cues to deception.

Manipulation checks: All suspects will be asked to rate how nervous and uncomfortable they were

during the completion of the task, how deceptive their statement was (to ensure that guilty suspects lied and innocent suspects told the truth), and how motivated they were to tell the truth.

Hypotheses:

H1: We expect a main effect for race on self-reported and behavioral measures of anxiety and willingness to cooperate. We hypothesize that overall, Black suspects will be more anxious, display more non-verbal behaviors subjectively associated with guilt and deceit, and engage in fewer cooperative behaviors subjectively associated with innocence than White suspects.

H2: Most importantly, we expect a race by culpability interaction on self-reported and behavioral

measures of anxiety and willingness to cooperate. We predict that innocent African-American suspects will be more anxious and display more nonverbal behaviors subjectively associated with guilt and deceit, and engage in fewer cooperative behaviors subjectively associated with innocence than innocent White suspects.

Study 2: Police Perceptions Participants:

Participants will be 45 New York City police detectives recruited to participate in a study on police decision-making. The detectives will be paid $35 for their time. The study is expected to take approximately one hour per participant. Race of police officers will be assessed, but we do not expect any differences because all police are trained in similar deception detection methods, which is what we believe to be a key component in these effects. In other words, we expect police training to supersede racial in-group identification. Both the PI and another member of the dissertation committee have extensive contacts within the New York City area and have successfully recruited police officers for a number of experiments and surveys. Thus, we do not anticipate recruiting police officers to pose any major problems to data collection. Materials and Procedure:

All lie-catchers will watch two randomly selected interviews. Thus, 45 participants serving as lie-catchers are needed to ensure that all suspects are shown. The tapes will last about 10 minutes and will show the full body of the suspect and a partial view of the interrogator. In addition to the tape, police officers will receive a report labeled “other information about the suspect.” This report will contain information about what cooperative behaviors the suspect endorsed on the wiliness to cooperate measure as well as some irrelevant demographic to counter any demand characteristics. After viewing each suspect, officers will answer a series of questions about their impressions of the suspect. Participants will be incentivized to be accurate by being told if they are correct they will be entered into a lottery to win $100. Measures:

For each suspect, officers will be asked to determine whether or not the suspect was lying (1 = no, absolutely not, 10 = yes, absolutely) and how confident they are in their decision (1 = not at all, 10 = very). They will then be asked whether they thought the suspect was innocent or guilty, how confident they are in their decision (1 = not at all, 10 = very), and to describe the main reasons for their decision. Participants will also be asked to what extent the suspect’s body language impacted their decision (1 = not at all, 10 = very), to what extent the suspect’s statement influenced their decision (1 = not at all, 10 = very), and how cooperate the suspect was 1 = not at all, 10 = very). Finally participants will be asked, “If possible would you like to interrogate this suspect further for this crime?” (1 = no, absolutely not, 10 = yes, absolutely). As a manipulation check officers will be asked to recall the race of the suspect.

Hypotheses:

H1: We expect a main effect for race: police officers will rate African-American suspects to be more deceptive, less cooperative, and more likely to be guilty than White suspects.

H2: More importantly, we predict a race by culpability interaction. Specifically, we expect

police officers to rate innocent Black suspects as more deceptive and less cooperative than innocent White suspects.

H3: Additionally, we predict that police officers will be more likely to erroneously judge innocent Black

suspects guilty than innocent white suspects.

Study 3: Controlling for Prejudice Participants:

Participants will be 92 New York City police detectives recruited to participate in a study on police decision-making. With 92 participants we can expect power of .95 (alpha = .05) to detect a medium (.38) effect size. The detectives will be paid $25 for their time. Design:

The design is a 2 (Actor race: White vs. Black) x 2 (Nonverbal style: White vs. Black) factorial design. Materials:

Based on Vrij and Winkel (1992), four videotapes of suspect interviews will be created to examine to what extent judgments of deception and guilt by lie-catchers is based on race itself, on nonverbal differences in race, or a combination of the two. First, a Black and a White actor will display racially prototypical

nonverbal behavior (as identified in Study 1) so that the Black actor displays the nonverbal behavior typically displayed by the Black participants while the White actor displays nonverbal behavior in line with the White participants’ behavior. The same actors will then display the opposite demeanor, yielding a Black suspect displaying the typical nonverbal behavior displayed by White suspects and a White suspect displaying the typical nonverbal behavior displayed by the Black suspects. We are conducting this study in New York City, where actors are inexpensive and easy to find, and thus do not foresee any difficulties in producing accurate stimulus materials.

Procedure:

Each participant will be randomly assigned to watch one of the four suspect videotapes. Thus, each actor will be viewed by a total of 20 police detectives. Otherwise, the methods will be the same as Study 2. The study is expected to take approximately half an hour. Measures:

The measures for this study will be the same as the measures employed in Study 2. Hypotheses:

H1: We hypothesize a main effect for nonverbal style. Specifically, we hypothesize that officers will rate suspects who exhibit prototypically Black behaviors (regardless of their actually race) to be less truthful and less cooperative than those exhibiting prototypically White behaviors.

Intellectual Merit of Propose Activities The proposed research applies the theoretical concept of stereotype threat to a novel situation. Also, this research furthers our understanding of the factors that lead to the overrepresentation of minorities within the DNA exoneree population by examining how race affects a suspect’s behavior in the interrogation room and the subsequent veracity judgments by police officers. To this date, there are only a few published studies on the impact of suspect race on deception detection, conducted in the Netherlands close to two decades ago. The proposed research will attempt to replicate these findings in the United States, and increase our theoretical understanding of these findings by addressing the role of stereotype threat in this context. Finally, because of the paucity of research on race in the area of interviewing an interrogation, these results will be informative to both the state of the field and current public policy. Broader Impact

Race is still a very important issue in America today. Social psychology has done a great deal to advance the knowledge of how stereotypes form, and how they affect thoughts, feelings, and behaviors Yet, despite the wide application of this research in other areas of psychology, research on interrogations has largely neglected the effects of race on suspect behavior and police decision-making. We believe these studies will shed light on the role of stereotypes in the context of interrogations, with the ultimate goal of understanding how African-Americans might be at risk of being wrongfully convicted. With this knowledge in hand, we can work to educate all players in the legal system (specifically police officers, defense attorneys, and judges) in an effort to move towards better practices and fewer wrongful convictions. Moreover, further understanding of what affects a minority suspect’s behavior in the interrogation room can help us develop and research remedies to reduce any negative effects. It is possible that additions to police training programs could help increase awareness of the risks of misjudgments of minority suspects in the interrogation room. The PI often works with police departments and other legal professionals to modify training procedures, ensuring that the findings of this proposed research will fall into the correct hands.

Funding of the proposed line of research will also have an impact on teaching and help NSF add diversity to the field of scientific research. The institution where this research will take place is comprised of mostly racial and ethnic minority students, and this study will provide to these students with valuable research and educational experiences, as well as added exposure to the field of psychology, and specifically forensic psychology. Additionally, results of these and future studies on the topic, will be disseminated at national conferences for organizations like the American Psychology-Law Society (AP-LS), the American Psychological Association (APA), and the Association for Psychological Science (APS), and published in peer-reviewed journal publications (e.g., Law and Human Behavior, Psychology Public Policy, and the Law, Psychological Science) hopefully encouraging other researchers to further examine the role of race in interview and interrogation settings. Finally, funding of the proposed research will advance the education of a female graduate student who is preparing for a career in academia.

References Akehurst, L, Köhnken, G., Vrij, A., Bull, R. (1996). Lay persons’ and police officers’ beliefs

regarding deceptive behavior. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 10, 461-471. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199612)10:6<461::AID-ACP413>3.0.CO;2-2

Anderson, D.E., DePaulo, B.M., Ansfield, M.E., Tickle, J.J, Greene, E. (1999). Beliefs about

cues to deception: Mindless stereotypes or untapped wisdom. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 23, 67-89. doi:10.1023/A:1021387326192

Baldus, D.C., Woodworth, G., Zuckerman, D., Weiner, N.A., & Broffitt, B. (1998). Racial

discrimination and the death penalty in the post-Furman era: An empirical and legal overview, with recent findings from Philadelphia. Cornell Law Review, 83, 1638–1770.

Baldwin, J. (1993). Police interview techniques: Establishing truth or proof? The British Journal

of Criminology, 33, 325-352. Bull, R., & Milne, B. (2004). Attempts to improve the police interviewing of suspects. In G. D.

Lassiter (Ed.), Interrogations, confessions, and entrapment (pp. 181-196). New York: Kluwer. Bond, C.F., Jr.,& DePaulo, B.M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social

Psychology Review,10, 214-234. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2 Bond, C.F., Jr.,& DePaulo, B.M. (2008). Individual differences in judging deception: Accuracy and bias.

Psychological Bulletin, 134, 477-492. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.477 Bosson, J., Haymovitz, E., & Pinel, E. (2004). When saying and doing diverge: The effects of

stereotype threat on self-reported versus non-verbal anxiety. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 247-255. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00099-4

Blackstone, W. (1765-1769). Commentaries on the Laws of England. First Edition, Oxford:

Printed at the Clarendon Press, 1765-1769. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/blackstone/blacksto.htm

Blair, J. P., & Kooi, B. (2004). The gap between training and research in the detection of deception. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 6, 77–83. doi:10.1350/ijps.6.2.77.34465

Blasovich, J. Spencer, S.J., Quinn, D., & Steele, C. (2001). African Americans and high blood

pressure: The role of stereotype threat. Psychological Science, 12, 225-229. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00340

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press. Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. W. (2002). The police officer’s dilemma:

Using ethnicity to disambiguate potentially threatening individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83,1314–1329. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1314

Croizet, J., Després, G., Gauzins, M., Huguet, P., Leyens, J., & Méot, A. (2004). Stereotype

Threat Undermines Intellectual Performance by Triggering a Disruptive Mental Load. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 721-731. doi:10.1177/0146167204263961

Dalbert, C (1999). The world is more just for me than generally: About the personal belief in a

just world scale's validity. Social Justice Research, 12, 79-98. doi:10.1023/A:1022091609047 DePaulo, B. M., Lindsay, J. J., Malone, B. E., Muhlenbruck, L., Charlton, K., & Cooper, H.

(2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 74-112. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74 de Turck, M. & Miller, G. (1988). Deception and arousal: Isolating the behavioral correlates of

deception. Human Communication Research, 12, 181-201. Dottolo, A., & Stewart, A. (2008). Don’t ever forget now, you’re a black man in America”:

Intersections of race, class and gender in encounters with the police. Sex Roles, 59, 350-364. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9387-x

Dovido, J. Hebl, M, Richeson, J, & Shelton, J. (2006). Nonverbal communication, race, and

intergroup interaction. The Handbook of Nonverbal Communication. California: Sage. p.481-500.

Drizin S.A.,& Leo R.A. (2004). The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. North Carolina

Law Review, 82, 891–1007 Eberhardt, J., Davies, P, Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Johnson, S. (2006). Looking deathworthy:

Perceived stereotypicality of black defendants predicts capital-sentencing outcomes. Psychological Science, 17, 383-386. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01716.x

Eberhardt, J.L., Goff, P.A., Purdie, V.J., & Davies, P.G. (2004). Seeing Black: Race, crime, and

visual processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 876–893. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.876

Fugita, S.S., Wexley, K.N., Hillery, J.M. (1974). Black-white differences in nonverbal behavior

in an interview setting. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4, 343-350. Gross S.R., Jacoby K., Matheson D.J., Montgomery N., & Patel S. (2005). Exonerations in the United

States, 1989 through 2003. J. Criminal Law and Criminology, 95, 523–553. Gilovich, T. (1991). How we know what isn’t so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life.

New York: The Free Press. Global Deception Research Team (2006). A world of lies. Journal of Cross Cultural

Psychology, 37, 60-74. doi:10.1177/0022022105282295 Gudjonsson, G.H. (2003). The psychology of interrogations and confessions: A handbook.

Chichester: Wiley. Ikes, W. (1984). Compositions in black and white: Determinants of

interaction in interracial dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 330-341. Hafer, C.L., & Bègue, L. (2005). Experimental research on justworld theory: Problems,

developments, and future challenges. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 128–167. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.1.128

Hartwig, M., Granhag, P.A., Strömwall, L.A., & Kronkvist, O. (2006). Strategic use of evidence

during police interviews: When training to detect deception work. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 603-619. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9053-9

Hartwig, M., Granhag, P.A., Strömwall, L.A., & Vrij, A. (2004). Police officers’ lie detection accuracy: Interrogating freely versus observing video. Police Quarterly, 7, 429-456. doi:10.1177/1098611104264748 Hartwig, M., Granhag, P.A., & Vrij, A. (2005). Police interrogation from a social psychology perspective. Policing and Society, 15, 379-399. doi:10.1080/10439460500309956 Huff, C.R., Rattner, A., & Sagarin, E. (1996). Convicted but innocent: Wrongful conviction and

public policy. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Hunt, M.O. (2000). Status, religion and the “belief in a just world”: Comparing African-

Americans, Latinos, and Whites. Social Science Quarterly, 81, 321-343. Hurwitz, J., & Peffly, M. (2005). Explaining the great racial divide: Perceptions of fairness in the

U.S. criminal justice system. Journal of Politics, 67, 762-783. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00338.x

Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B.C. (2001). Criminal Interrogation and

Confessions (5th edition). Boston: Jones & Bartlett. doi: 10.2307/1140860 www.innocenceproject.org Johnson, R. (2006). Confounding influences on police deception of suspiciousness. Journal of

Criminal Justice, 34, 435-442. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.05.009 Kassin, S.M. (2005). On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence put innocent at risk?

American Psychologist, 60, 215-228. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.3.215 Kassin, S.M. (2008). False confessions: Causes, consequences, and implications for reform. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 249-253. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00584.x Kassin, S.M., Fong, C. (1999). "I'm innocent!": Effects of training on judgments of truth and

deception in the interrogation room. Law and Human Behavior, 5, 499-516. doi:10.1023/A:1022330011811

Kassin, S.M., Leo, R.A., Meissner, C.A., Richman, K.D., Colwell, L.H., Leach, A., & La Fon, D. (2007).

Police interviewing and interrogation: A self-report survey of police practices and beliefs. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 381-400. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9073-5

Kassin, S.M., & Norwick, R. (2004). Why people waive their Miranda rights: The power of

innocence. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 211-221. doi:10.1023/B:LAHU.0000022323.74584.f5 Kennard, J.B., & Kassin, S.M. (2009). Unpublished data.

LaFrance, M., & Mayo, C. (1976). Racial differences in gaze behavior during conversations: Two systematic observational studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 547-552. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.33.5.547

Leo, R.A. (1996). Inside the interrogation room. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,

86, 266–303. doi:10.2307/1144028 Leo, R.A. (2001). False confessions: Causes, consequences, and solutions. In S.D. Westervelt &

J.A. Humphrey (Eds.), Wrongly convicted: Perspectives on failed justice. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Lerner, M.J. (1908). The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion. New York: Plenum. J.S. Levine (ed.).

Mann, S., Vrij, A., & Bull, R. (2004). Detecting true lies: Police officers’ ability to detect suspects’ lies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 137–149. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.137

Marx, D. & Staple, D. (2006). It’s all in the timing: Emotional reactions o stereotype threat

before and after taking a test. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 787-89.

Masip, J., Herroro, C., Garrido, E., & Barba, A. (2010). Is the behavior analysis interview just common sense? Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). doi: 10.1002/acp.1728

Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S., & Nakagawa, S. (2008). Culture, emotion regulation, and adjustment.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(6), 925-937. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.925

Meissner, C.A., & Brigham, J. (2001). Thirty years of investigation of the own-race bias in memory for faces. Psychology, Policy, & Law, 7, 3-35.

Meissner, C.A., & Kassin, S.M. (2002). ”He’s guilty!”: Investigator bias in judgments of truth

and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 469-480. Miranda v. Arizona, 348 U.S. 336, (1966). Nguyen, H.D., & Ryan, A.M. Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and

women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1314-1334.

Osborne, J.W. (2007). Linking stereotype threat and anxiety. Educational Psychology, 27, 135-

154. doi:10.1080/01443410601069929 Parsons, C., & Liden, R. (1984). Interviewer perceptions of applicant qualifications: A

multivariate field study of demographic characteristics and nonverbal cues. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 557-568. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.4.557

www.reid.com Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. (2008). An Integrated Process Model of Stereotype Threat

Effects On Performance. Psychological Review, 115, (2), 336-356. doi:10.1037/0033- 295X.115.2.336

Sellers, R.M., Rowley, S.A.J., Chavous, T.M., Shelton, J.N., & Smith, M.A. (1997). Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity: A preliminary investigation of reliability and construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 805-815. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.805

Sigelman, L. & Tuch, S.A. (1997). Metastereotypes: Blacks' perceptions of Whites' stereotypes of

Blacks. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 87-101. doi:10.1086/297788 Shelton, J. (2003). Interpersonal concerns in social encounters between majority and minority

group members. Group Processes and Inter-group Relations, 6, 171-185. doi:10.1177/1368430203006002003

Shelton, N. J., Richeson, J. A., & Vorauer, J. D. (2006). Threatened identities and interethnic

interactions. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 321−358. doi:10.1080/10463280601095240

Smith, A. (1983). Nonverbal communication among black female dyads: An assessment of

intimacy, Gender, and Race. Journal of Social Issues, 39, 55-67. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1983.tb00155.x

Smith, K.B., & Green, D.N. (1984). Individual correlates of the belief in a just

world." Psychological Reports, 45, 435-38. Spencer, S., Steele, C., & Quinn, D. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4-28. doi:10.1006/jesp.1998.1373 Steele, C. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613 Steele, C. & Aaronson, J (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of

African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797

Steele, C., Spencer, S., & Aaronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The psychology of

stereotype and social identity threat. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 379- 440). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Strömwall, L.A., & Granhag, P. A. (2003). How to detect deception? Arresting the beliefs of police

officers, prosecutors, and judges. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 9, 19-36. doi:10.1080/10683160308138

Strömwall, L.A., Granhag, P.A., & Hartwig, M. (2004). Practitioners’ beliefs about deception. In

P.A. Granhag & L.A. Strömwall (Eds.). The detection of deception in forensic contexts (pp. 229–250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511490071.010

Strömwall, L.A., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P.A. (2006). To act truthfully: Nonverbal behavior and strategies during a police interrogation. Psychology, Crime and Law, 12, 207-219. doi:10.1080/10683160512331331328 Sunnafrank, M., & Fontes, N. E. (1983). General and crime related stereotypes and influence on

juridic decisions. Cornell Journal of Social Relations, 17, 1–15.

Vick, S., Seery, M., Blasovich, J., Weisbuch, M. (2008). The effect of gender stereotype

activation on challenge and threat motivation states. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 624-630. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2007.02.007

Victory, P. (2002). Justice and truth: The Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven. London: Sinclair-Stevenson.

Volokh, A. (1997). n Guilty men. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 173.

doi:10.2307/3312707 Vrij, A. (2008). Detecting lies and deceit: Pitfalls and opportunities (2nd ed.). Chichester: John Wiley &

Sons. Vrij, A. (2003). We will protect your wife and child, but only if you confess. In P.J. van Koppen

& S.D. Penrod (Eds.), Adversarial versus inquisitorial justice: Psychological perspectives on criminal justice systems (pp. 55-79). New York, NJ: Kluwer Academic.

Vrij, A. (2004). Why professionals fail catch liars and how they can improve. Legal and

Criminological Psychology, 9, 159-181. doi:10.1348/1355325041719356 Vrij, A. (2005). Cooperation of liars and truth tellers. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 39-50.

doi:10.1002/acp.1050 Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., & Morris, P. (1997). Individual differences in hand movements during

deception. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 21, 2, 87-103. doi:10.1023/A:1024951902752 Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., & Knight, S. (2006). Police officers’, social workers’, teachers’ and the

general public’s beliefs about deception in children, adolescents and adults. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 297-312. doi:10.1348/135532505X60816

Vrij, A., Mann, S., & Fisher, R.P. (2006). An Empirical Test of the Behaviour Analysis Interview.

Law and Human Behavior, 30(3), 329-345. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9014-3 Vrij, A. & Semin, G.R. (1996). Lie experts’ beliefs about nonverbal indicators of deception.

Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 20, 65-80. doi:10.1007/BF02248715 Vrij, A., Winkel, F.W. (1991) Cultural patterns in Dutch and Surinam nonverbal behavior: An

analysis of simulated police/citizen encounters. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 15, 169- 184. doi:10.1007/BF01672219

Vrij, A., & Winkel, F.W. (1992). Crosscultural police-citizen Iiteractions: The influence of race,

beliefs, and nonverbal communication on impression formation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1546-1559. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00965.x

Winkel, F. W., Koppelaar, L., & Vrij, A. (1988). Creating suspects in police-citizen encounters:

Two studies on personal space and being suspect. Social Behaviour: An International Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 4, 307-318.

Winkel, F.W., & Vrij, A. (1990) Interaction and impression formation in a cross-cultural dyad:

Frequency and meaning of culturally determined gaze behaviour in a police interview-

setting. Social Behaviour, 5, 335-350. Word, C.O., Zanna, M.P., Cooper, J. (1974). The nonverbal mediation of self-fulfilling

prophecies in interracial interaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 10, 109–120. Wout, D., Shih, M., Jackson, S., & Sellers, R. (2009). Targets as perceivers: How people

determine when they will be negatively stereotyped. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 349-362. doi:10.1037/a0012880

iii

Maria Hartwig

Göteborg University, Sweden Equivalence of BSc Psychology 2002 Professional Preparation:

Göteborg University, Sweden Lic in psychology, equivalence of MSc 2004 Göteborg University, Sweden PhD in psychology 2005

2007 – present: Doctoral faculty at the Graduate Center, CUNY (Doctoral program in Forensic psychology & Doctoral program in Criminal justice)

Appointments:

2006 September – present: Assistant professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY 2006 January – August 2006: Post doctoral fellow at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY 2004 July – 2005 December: Psychology Department funded PhD position 2002 February – 2004 July: PhD position funded by the Swedish Research Council 2001 January – 2002 January: Research assistant at The Department of Psychology, Göteborg University

Hartwig, M., Granhag, P.A., Strömwall, L.A., Wolf, A., Vrij, A., Roos af Hjelmsäter, E. (in press). Detecting deception in suspects: Verbal cues as a function of interview strategy. Psychology, Crime, & Law.

Most Relevant Publications:

Clemens, F., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., Vrij, A., Landström, S., Roos af Hjelmsäter, E., & Hartwig, M. (in press). Skulking around the dinosaur: Eliciting cues to children’s deception via

strategic disclosure of evidence. Applied Cognitive Psychology. Hartwig, M. (in press). Methods in deception research. In Barry Rosenfeld and Steven Penrod (Eds.)

Research Methods in Forensic Psychology. Chichester: Wiley. Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Kronkvist, O. (2006). Strategic use of evidence during

police interviews: When training to detect deception work. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 603-619. Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Vrij, A. (2005). Deception detection via strategic

disclosure of evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 469-484. Other Significant PublicationsGranhag, P. A., & Hartwig, M. (2008). A new theoretical perspective on deception detection: On the

psychology of instrumental mind reading. Psychology, Crime and Law, 14, 189-200.

:

Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2007). Guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies during a police interrogation. Psychology, Crime and Law, 13, 213-227.

Strömwall, L. A., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2006). To act truthfully: Nonverbal behaviour and strategies during a police interrogation. Psychology, Crime and Law, 12, 207-219.

Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Andersson, L. O. (2004). Suspicious minds: Criminals’ ability to detect deception. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 10, 83-95.

Hartwig, M., Granhag, P. A., Strömwall, L. A., & Vrij, A. (2004). Police officers’ lie detection accuracy: Interrogating freely versus observing video. Police Quarterly, 7, 429-456.

Synergistic Activities: Reviewer

Funding agency reviewer: Social Sciences Humanities Research Council (Canada); National Science Foundation

: Editorial board member: Law and Human Behavior; Ad hoc journal reviewer (selected): Applied Cognitive Psychology, Psychology, Crime and Law; Legal and Criminological Psychology; Police Quarterly; Social Psychology; Journal of Personality and Social Psycholology

Editorial activities: Associate editor of the American Psychology-Law Society Newsletter Popular science: Hartwig, M. (2008). Vetenskapliga perspektiv på lögn och förhör [Scientific perspectives on deception and interrogation]. Politiforum; Hartwig, M. (2007). Sanning och osanning om lögn [True and

iv

untrue about deception]. Fakta eller fantasier. Stockholm: Leopard förlag; Hartwig, M. (2003). Sanning och osanning om lögn [True and untrue about deception]. Folkvett, 4. Consulting/training: Department of Defense committee on Credibility Assessments: Honts, C. R., Hartwig, M., Kleinman, S. M., & Meissner, C. A. (2009). Credibility assessment at portals: Portals committee report. Final report of the Portals Committee to the Defense Academy for Credibility Assessment / U. S. Defense Intelligence Agency. Continuous collaboration with European police agencies including national criminal police and central training of criminal investigators in Sweden and Norway. Training of district and appeal court professionals in Sweden.

Karl Ask, Göteborg University, Sweden; Charles Bond, Texas Christian University; Ray Bull, University of Leicester, UK; Sven Christianson, Stockholm University, Sweden; Graham Davies, University of Leicester, UK; Pär Anders Granhag, Göteborg University, Sweden; Clive Hollin, University of Leicester, UK; Saul Kassin, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, USA; Steven Penrod, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, USA; Emma Roos af Hjelmsäter, Göteborg University, Sweden; Barry Rosenfeld, Fordham University; Kenneth Sandnabba, Åbo Akademi, Finland; Pekka Santtila, Åbo Akademi, Finland; Leif A. Strömwall, Göteborg University, Sweden; Ghitta Weizmann-Henelius, Vaanha Vaasa Hospital, Finland; Ann Wolf, Maastricht University, the Netherlands; Aldert Vrij, University of Portsmouth, UK.

Collaborators:

Graduate AdvisorsTommy Gärling, Göteborg University, Sweden; Pär Anders Granhag, Göteborg University, Sweden (primary); Aldert Vrij, University of Portsmouth, UK

:

Thesis students:Nicole Doering, Sarah Jordan, Jason Mandelbaum, Joseph Toomey, Brian Wallace, Sara Appleby (doctoral students at CUNY Graduate Center)

Donal E.J. MacNamara Junior Faculty Award, 2010 Awards:

John Jay Scholarly Excellence Award, 2010, 2008 European Association of Psychology and Law Early Career award, July 2008 The Royal Swedish Academy Sciences, Swedish National Committee for Psychology: Nominee for early

career award 2008 Best PhD of 2005, Department of Psychology, Göteborg University Markussen’s Researcher Award 2005

Sara Appleby

Professional Preparation Rhodes College Psychology B.A. 2003 Boston University Psychology M.A. 2006 City University of New York Forensic Psychology Ph.D. Expected 2012 Appointments Adjunct Instructor, Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, (2009 – Present) Honors and Awards 2009 Scholarly Achievement Award, John Jay College, CUNY 2009 American Psychology and Law Society Student Travel Award 2008 Scholarly Achievement Award, John Jay College, CUNY 2007 – Present Chancellor’s Fellowship, City University of New York Most Relevant Publications Appleby, S.C., Hasel, L.E., & Kassin, S.M. (2010). But he said he did it: An empirical analysis of the

content and impact of false confessions. Manuscript in preparation.

Kassin, S. M., Appleby, S. C., & Perillo, J. T. (2010). Interviewing suspects: Practice, science, and future directions. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 39-55.

Synergistic Activities 1. Served as a student reviewer for the 2009 American Psychology-Law Society Conference 2. Served as a student reviewer for the 2010 American Psychology-Law Society Conference 3. Student member of the American Psych-Law Society. Collaborators Darly Wout (John Jay College of Criminal Justice) and Lisa Hasel (University of Florida) Graduate Advisers Maria Hartwig (John Jay College of Criminal Justice), Saul Kassin (John Jay College of Criminal Justice), and Margaret Bull Kovera (John Jay College of Criminal Justice)

SUMMARYPROPOSAL BUDGET

FundsRequested By

proposer

Fundsgranted by NSF

(if different)

Date Checked Date Of Rate Sheet Initials - ORG

NSF FundedPerson-months

fm1030rs-07

FOR NSF USE ONLYORGANIZATION PROPOSAL NO. DURATION (months)

Proposed Granted

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR / PROJECT DIRECTOR AWARD NO.

A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PI’s, Faculty and Other Senior Associates (List each separately with title, A.7. show number in brackets) CAL ACAD SUMR

$ $1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. ( ) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET JUSTIFICATION PAGE)

7. ( ) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1 - 6)

B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)

1. ( ) POST DOCTORAL SCHOLARS

2. ( ) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.)

3. ( ) GRADUATE STUDENTS

4. ( ) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

5. ( ) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)

6. ( ) OTHER

TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)

C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS)

TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)

D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)

TOTAL EQUIPMENT

E. TRAVEL 1. DOMESTIC (INCL. CANADA, MEXICO AND U.S. POSSESSIONS)

2. FOREIGN

F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT COSTS

1. STIPENDS $

2. TRAVEL

3. SUBSISTENCE

4. OTHER

TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS ( ) TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS

G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS

1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES

2. PUBLICATION COSTS/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION

3. CONSULTANT SERVICES

4. COMPUTER SERVICES

5. SUBAWARDS

6. OTHER

TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS

H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)

I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)(SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)

TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)

J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + I)

K. RESIDUAL FUNDS

L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K) $ $

M. COST SHARING PROPOSED LEVEL $ AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT $

PI/PD NAME FOR NSF USE ONLYINDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION

ORG. REP. NAME*

*ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR REVISED BUDGET

1YEAR

1

CUNY John Jay College of Criminal Justice

Maria

Maria

Maria

B

B

B

Hartwig

Hartwig

Hartwig - PI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Sara C Appleby - Co-PI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00 00 00 00 0

00

0

000

000

7,225

227 7,225

2,11800000

2,118 9,343

0 (Rate: , Base: )

9,3430

9,3430

Jacob Marini

SUMMARYPROPOSAL BUDGET

FundsRequested By

proposer

Fundsgranted by NSF

(if different)

Date Checked Date Of Rate Sheet Initials - ORG

NSF FundedPerson-months

fm1030rs-07

FOR NSF USE ONLYORGANIZATION PROPOSAL NO. DURATION (months)

Proposed Granted

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR / PROJECT DIRECTOR AWARD NO.

A. SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PI’s, Faculty and Other Senior Associates (List each separately with title, A.7. show number in brackets) CAL ACAD SUMR

$ $1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. ( ) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON BUDGET JUSTIFICATION PAGE)

7. ( ) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1 - 6)

B. OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)

1. ( ) POST DOCTORAL SCHOLARS

2. ( ) OTHER PROFESSIONALS (TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.)

3. ( ) GRADUATE STUDENTS

4. ( ) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS

5. ( ) SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED DIRECTLY)

6. ( ) OTHER

TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)

C. FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS)

TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A + B + C)

D. EQUIPMENT (LIST ITEM AND DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH ITEM EXCEEDING $5,000.)

TOTAL EQUIPMENT

E. TRAVEL 1. DOMESTIC (INCL. CANADA, MEXICO AND U.S. POSSESSIONS)

2. FOREIGN

F. PARTICIPANT SUPPORT COSTS

1. STIPENDS $

2. TRAVEL

3. SUBSISTENCE

4. OTHER

TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS ( ) TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS

G. OTHER DIRECT COSTS

1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES

2. PUBLICATION COSTS/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION

3. CONSULTANT SERVICES

4. COMPUTER SERVICES

5. SUBAWARDS

6. OTHER

TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS

H. TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)

I. INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)(SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)

TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)

J. TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + I)

K. RESIDUAL FUNDS

L. AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K) $ $

M. COST SHARING PROPOSED LEVEL $ AGREED LEVEL IF DIFFERENT $

PI/PD NAME FOR NSF USE ONLYINDIRECT COST RATE VERIFICATION

ORG. REP. NAME*

*ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES REQUIRED FOR REVISED BUDGET

Cumulative

C

CUNY John Jay College of Criminal Justice

Maria

Maria

Maria

B

B

B

Hartwig

Hartwig

Hartwig - PI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0Sara C Appleby - Co-PI 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

0.00 0.00 0.00 02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

0 0.00 0.00 0.00 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00 00 00 00 0

00

0

000

000

7,225

227 7,225

2,11800000

2,118 9,343

0

9,3430

9,3430

Jacob Marini

Budget Justification Total Budget Request: $9,343 F. Participant Support Costs: $7,225.

1. Payments to Human Subjects: Funds are needed to pay human subjects to participate in all three studies. In Study 1, community members will be paid $15 each (approximately 45 minutes of participation). For Study 2, police officers will be paid $35 each (approximately one hour of participation. For Study 3, police officers will be paid $25 each (approximately 30 minutes of participation). Additionally, in each study participants will be incentivized to complete their tasks accurately with a $100 lottery (3 lotteries total). This results in a request for $5,525 for payment to human subjects.

2. Professional Personnel: Funds are needed to pay an actor to play the mock detective in Study 1 at a rate of $15 an hour (approximately 100 hours of work). In study 3, two actors are needed to portray suspects. To ensure that we get quality actors, we would like to pay each actor $100 for his time (2 actors total, about 5-7 hours of work each). The results in request for $1,700 for payment to actors necessary to complete the studies.

G. Other Direct Costs: $2,118

3. Other Direct Costs: Study 1 must be videotaped for coding purposes and the creation of stimulus materials for studies 2 and 3. Properly capturing participants’ behavior in Study 1 requires the use of multiple high-resolution video cameras (such as the Canon HG10 HD Camcorder, $799 +$150 tax and shipping). To get a complete and accurate assessment of the minute nonverbal behaviors we are interested in, suspects will need to be taped from two angles. Also, a hard drive will be required to store the suspect interviews from Study 1 (such as a 1 Terabyte hard drive for the storage of raw and edited footage, $250). Finally, DVD-R disks will be required to create the stimulus materials for use in studies 2 & 3. We estimate the need for 180 DVD-R disks. They are approximately $30 for a pack of 50 (see Staples.com) for a total of $120. The total other direct cost request is $1,170.

Hartwig Pending & Current Support Title: Scientific Leadership Award for Minority Serving Institutions, Homeland Security Scholarship Program Source: Department of Homeland Security Location: John Jay College, NY, NY Total Award Amount: $597,000 Status: Awarded Starting Date: 09/01/2010 Ending Date: 08/31/2013 Person-months Calendar person-months: Academic person-months: 2 month/year Summer person-months: 0.5 Title: Doctoral Dissertation Research: Interrogating Psychopathic Suspects: Confessions, Deception and Cues to Guilt Location: John Jay College (NY, NY) Total Award Amount: $8,000 Status: Pending Starting Date: 02/15/2009 Ending Date: 01/31/2011 Person-months Calendar person-months: 0.0 Academic person-months: 0.0 Summer person-months: 0.0 Title: Doctoral Dissertation Research: Detecting Guilty Knowledge and Malintent with Eyetracking Source: NSF Location: John Jay College (NY, NY) Total Award Amount: $12,964 Status: Pending Starting Date: 03/01/2011 Ending Date: 02/28/2012 Person-months Calendar person-months: 0.0 Academic person-months: 0.0 Summer person-months: 0.0 Title: Detecting Guilty Knowledge and Malintent with Eyetracking Source: NSF Location: John Jay College (NY, NY) Total Award Amount: $174,734 Status: Pending Starting Date: 03/01/2011 Ending Date: 02/28/2012 Person-months Calendar person-months: 0.0 Academic person-months: 2.6

Summer person-months: 0.0 Title: CUNY collaboration grant; Improving credibility judgments in counterterrorism settings: Experimentally testing a new approach to law enforcement training Source: CUNY Location: John Jay College, NY, NY Total Award Amount: $55,000 Status: Pending Starting Date: 09/01/2010 Ending Date: 08/31/2012 Person-months Calendar person-months: Academic person-months: 1.7 months/year Summer person-months: 0.5 month/year Title: Scientific Leadership Award for Minority Serving Institutions, Homeland Security Doctoral Research Fellowship program Source: Department of Homeland Security Location: John Jay College, NY, NY Total Award Amount: $400,000 Status: Pending Starting Date: 09/01/2010 Ending Date: 08/31/2013 Person-months Calendar person-months: Academic person-months: 2.8 month/year Summer person-months: 0.5 Title: Doctoral Dissertation Research: Guilty Stereotypes: The Social Psychology of Race and Suspicion in Police Interrogations Source: National Science Foundation Location: CUNY - John Jay College of Criminal Justice (NY, NY) Total Award Amount: $9,343 Status: Pending Starting Date: 02/01/2011 Ending Date: 01/31/2012 Person-months Calendar person-months: 0 Academic person-months: 0 Summer person-months: 0

Appleby Pending & Current Support None

FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT & OTHER RESOURCES

FACILITIES: Identify the facilities to be used at each performance site listed and, as appropriate, indicate their capacities, pertinent

capabilities, relative proximity, and extent of availability to the project. Use "Other" to describe the facilities at any other performance

sites listed and at sites for field studies. USE additional pages as necessary.

Laboratory:

Clinical:

Animal:

Computer:

Office:

Other:

MAJOR EQUIPMENT: List the most important items available for this project and, as appropriate identifying the location and pertinent

capabilities of each.

OTHER RESOURCES: Provide any information describing the other resources available for the project. Identify support services

such as consultant, secretarial, machine shop, and electronics shop, and the extent to which they will be available for the project.

Include an explanation of any consortium/contractual arrangements with other organizations.

The PI has several dedicated offices to house graduate students, researchassistants, and store supplies. The PI also has adequate laboratory spacefor conducting her line of research.

The PI and Co-PI both have University provided computers that aresufficient for performing all necessary word processing and statisticaltasks.

The PI and Co-PI have been provided offices by John Jay.