The Role of Admitting Guilt Versus Maintaining Innocence on Moral Judgments and Desire to Punish the Accused

open_access
Open Access
Author:
Pulkowski, Emma
Area of Honors:
Psychology
Degree:
Bachelor of Science
Document Type:
Thesis
Thesis Supervisors:
Kenneth N. Levy, Thesis Honors Advisor
Sean Laurent, Thesis Supervisor
Keywords:
Admitting guilt
Maintaining innocence
Punishment
Abstract:
Moral and legal judgments are shaped by both objective evidence and individuals’ responses to allegations. The present research examines how admissions versus denials of guilt influence perceptions of moral character, remorse, strategic motivation, and punishment across varying levels of evidence strength. In three studies, participants evaluated hypothetical transgressors who either admitted guilt or maintained innocence under weak, ambiguous, or strong evidence conditions. Maintaining innocence was generally associated with higher moral character and remorse ratings, but these advantages diminished as evidence against the accused strengthened. Though admitting guilt lowered moral standing, it mitigated punishment, suggesting that accountability influences punitive decisions. Stronger evidence increased certainty of guilt but did not necessarily shift categorical guilt judgments. These findings challenge the assumption that admissions of guilt are always viewed as remorseful, highlighting the complex interplay between evidence, perception, and accountability.