Legal interactions with officers of the justice system can be a daunting experience for adolescents who are suspected of committing a crime. During these interactions, justice authorities, such as law enforcement, probation officers, and judges, attempt to piece together what truly occurred during a suspected crime using data available from different sources, including adolescents’ own testimonies. From the adolescents’ perspective, there may be a tension, and even confusion, in navigating whether to speak the truth and risk the consequences (including not being believed), or to tell a lie to protect themselves or another individual, given typical societal values for honesty (Bok, 1978), but also a societal, and indeed developmental, proclivity toward lying for personal gain, to avoid consequences, and protect oneself and others (DePaulo et al., 1996; Steingrimsdottir et al., 2007; Warr, 2007).

We know very little about the characteristics of adolescents who are likely to be forthcoming versus deceptive about minor offenses with which they have been charged. Yet, both their individual characteristics as well as the situational characteristics of their putative offenses are likely related to the way that they engage with the legal system in terms of how they share their account of the offense. In this study, we examine the relation between developmental characteristics, situational specifics (i.e., type of offense being processed), and the legal interactions of adolescents involved with the juvenile justice system due to an arrest for a first offense.

Concealment and Disclosures

Even though the majority of adolescents conceal information from parents at times (Darling et al., 2006; Lavoie & Talwar, 2022), many endorse sharing and providing information in a forthcoming manner (Cumsille et al., 2010; Smetana et al., 2006). There are specific types of information that adolescents are more likely to conceal, specifically from parents, such as issues they believe are their own, or their friends’, personal matters (Smetana et al., 2006). Adolescents are also likely to hide from parents their pastimes that involve illegal activities (Frijns et al., 2010; Keijsers, 2016; Keijsers et al., 2010; Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Tilton-Weaver, 2014), which can be out of fear of parents’ disapproval and potential resulting consequences (Metzger et al., 2013; Smetana et al., 2009; Yau et al., 2009). For adolescents interacting with legal authorities for the first time, it is possible that they may carry the same behavioral responses of disclosure generally.

Disclosures to Legal Authorities

Adolescents’ interactions with an officer of the justice system are often characterized by high-pressure interrogations (Feld, 2006, 2013; Malloy et al., 2014). In the United States, suspects are typically presumed guilty (Redlich, 2010), and for adolescent suspects, this presumption affects how they are interviewed (Redlich & Kassin, 2009). For example, in a sample of police interviews with adolescent suspects of crime in the USA, Feld (2006) found that police regularly included one or more maximization or minimization approaches (i.e., in brief, interrogation tactics that either overplay the severity of the crime or evidence available in order to push a confession, or tactics that underplay the severity or provide moral justification in order to make the suspect feel secure to confess; outlined in-depth in Inbau et al., 1986). In fact, responses from a sample of law enforcement officers suggest that they do perceive that adolescents can be interrogated in the same way as adults (Meyer & Reppucci, 2007). Further, Cleary and Warner (2016) found that police officers in the United States do interrogate adolescent suspects in the same way as adult suspects, despite their differing developmental needs and status as minors. Overall, these findings raise questions about how such interactions might impact adolescents’ tendencies to be truthful and forthcoming with police officers.

During interactions with police officers, adolescents may confess or deny (truthfully or falsely) participation in illegal activity. Previous studies have found some individual differences in how adolescents respond. For example, being of a younger age (i.e., adolescence) and male are associated with a higher likelihood of making a false confession during a police interrogation (Gudjonsson et al., 2016). Further, substance abuse, a history of being bullied or experiencing violence, having committed a crime of burglary, and, for boys, a history of extra-familial sexual abuse are all associated with a higher likelihood of making a false confession (Gudjonsson et al., 2009). The results of one study speak to the possible motivations for which adolescents may give a false confession. Specifically, the results of a study with Danish college-age students (M = 19 years, range 16–25 years) who had been interrogated or questioned by police about a suspected offense, indicated that the primary reason they provided a true confession was to be able to leave the police station or because they believed that the police had evidence of their involvement (Steingrimsdottir et al., 2007). These findings highlight some important developmental considerations, in particular that adolescents may say what they feel they need to, in part driven by a desire to avoid any immediate discomfort, despite potential future consequences, as well as a higher potential for being vulnerable to suggestible or leading interrogation techniques (e.g., as outlined in Scott-Hayward, 2007) Overall, these findings outlined in this section suggest that adolescents’ disclosures to legal authorities are likely influenced by feelings of pressure, potentially shifting their typical disclosure tendencies away from what they might typically be to other forms of authority.

Psychosocial Maturity and Disclosures

One of the reasons why adolescents highly endorse disclosures overall (Cumsille et al., 2010) may be because there is a social benefit to being truthful and forthcoming (Levine et al., 1999). Consequently, adolescents with greater maturity and psychosocial skills that facilitate open communication may also be more forthcoming. At the same time, in the context of a legal disclosure of wrongdoing, the consequences to truthfully disclosing guilt are high and likely to influence adolescents’ futures, which adolescents tend to underestimate relative to adults (Redlich & Shteynberg, 2016).

Psychosocial maturity can be understood as a combination of three key factors: temperance, perspective, and responsibility (Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000). Temperance refers to the ability to control impulses and suppress aggressive responses, perspective encompasses empathic understanding of others and future-oriented thinking, and responsibility captures a sense of personal responsibility and ability to make decisions independent of peer influences (Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000; Steinberg & Cauffman, 1996). Psychosocial maturity tends to increase with age (Icenogle et al., 2019) and is associated with less antisocial decision-making (Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000), and desistance from engaging in illegal activity (Monahan et al., 2009). Cognitive ability, including decision-making and reasoning, and psychosocial capability, including self-restraint, are both important abilities in legal decision-making (Steinberg & Icenogle, 2019). In fact, in a seminal work, Grisso (1989) argued that even simply age and IQ (potentially both as proxies, or correlated to aspects of psychosocial maturity, but not completely overlapping) were important factors in determining whether an adolescent could be considered competent for the purposes of legal-decision-making, for example waiving his or her rights. Considering the above findings, psychosocial maturity may also be associated with adolescents’ initial likelihood of disclosing information about illegal activities.

Disclosures and Perceptions of Procedural Justice

Perceptions of what will occur after one discloses help to determine whether to share information. According to the social information processing theory (Crick & Dodge, 1994), social cues about the acceptability of a behavior are retained and are key in processing how to behave in future similar situations. Based on this model of processing, adolescents who have disclosed sensitive information and have had a negative response–for example, being punished for the activity they disclosed–may be hesitant to disclose in the future. Adolescents who have been detained for committing a first offense may not have prior experience that determines whether or not they share information. However, preconceived thoughts about the fairness and legitimacy of legal actors (Tyler, 1990), and about the validity of the legal system may influence willingness to disclose versus conceal details of their illegal activities. In fact, the result of a systematic review of youth contact with legal authorities suggests that increased contact with legal authorities is associated, and perhaps even leads to, poorer perceptions of the law and legal authorities (Massez et al., 2023; see also Del Toro et al., 2019). Youths’ perceptions of police legitimacy, for instance, derive from believing the authority treats individuals fairly and justly (Fine & Tom, 2023; Tyler & Trinkner, 2018). When adolescents perceive legal authorities to be fair and legitimate sources of authority, there is a strong foundation to the relationship that may facilitate cooperation (Hamm et al., 2017; Hinds, 2007; Bolger & Walters, 2019). As part of this, adolescents may be more likely to be forthcoming. Further, because youth who report higher levels of legal cynicism typically reject the social norms foundational to the law (Sampson & Bartusch, 1999), legal cynicism may differentiate willingness to report truthfully to legal authorities.

Current Study

The purpose of the current study was to explore differences in age and psychosocial maturity of adolescents who truthfully versus falsely communicated about their guilt to justice system personnel. We also assessed whether the type of offense (i.e., violent or non-violent) was associated with adolescents’ truthful versus deceptive responses, given that motivations to conceal could be higher among adolescents who were charged with a violent offense due to potentially more severe consequences (a strong motivator for lying, e.g., Talwar and Lee, 2011). Finally, we compared adolescents’ perceptions of police legitimacy and legal cynicism to determine whether adolescents were more likely to be forthcoming with legal authorities when they perceived them to be fair and legitimate as sources of authority.

We expected that adolescents who truthfully admitted to committing a crime would be young, immature, and perceive police as more legitimate, based on the social value and acceptability of being honest (e.g., Levine et al., 1999). We anticipated that adolescents who truthfully denied committing a crime would have relatively high psychosocial maturity as well as positive perceptions of police as legal authorities for the same reasons; that is, they would feel safe to tell the truth and deny involvement, anticipating a fair response. We expected that adolescents who falsely denied committing a crime would be more mature and more likely to perceive police negatively, using a false denial to protect themselves from consequences (e.g., Gudjonsson et al., 2004). Finally, we expected that adolescents who provided a false admission of guilt would be relatively lower in psychosocial maturity and more likely to perceive police legitimacy negatively (e.g., Cauffman et al., 2010; Cleary, 2014).

Method

Participants

Participants were 1,216 adolescent males ages 13–18 years old charged with a first-time offense of moderate severity. Approximately 77.81% of the sample (N = 947; M = 15.30 years, SD = 1.29 years) youth had complete data on the key study measures, with no significant differences between the included and excluded samples on key measures (see “Missing data” section below). Participants were part of the first wave of the Crossroads Study (Cauffman et al., 2020), which is a longitudinal study of adolescent males in three states (Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and California) who had committed a first offense at the point of contact for the research study (see https://sites.uci.edu/crossroadsinfo/). Adolescents self-identified as Latino (46%), Black (38%), White (14%), and other (2%). Approximately 84% of offenses were non-violent in nature (i.e., there was no intent to harm another individual and there was no assault or attack on another individual, as defined by the US Department of Justice, 2004), and included offenses such as possession, use of marijuana, theft, and vandalism.

Measures

IQ

Participants completed two subtests of the Weschler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI) to generate an approximate value for their intelligence quotient (IQ), which was included as a control measure. The Vocabulary and Matrix Reasoning subtests were used, and participant’s scores were normed and standardized.

Psychosocial Maturity

Psychosocial maturity was assessed as a combination of temperance, perspective, and responsibility (Steinberg & Cauffman, 1996). Sores were a combined mean of the z-scores on six measures, consistent with previous research (e.g., Fine et al., 2018; Monahan et al., 2013), specifically the Psychosocial Maturity Inventory (Greenberger et al., 1975); the Future Outlook Inventory (Cauffman & Woolard, 1999), the Resistance to Peer Influence 10-item questionnaire (Steinberg & Monahan, 2007); and the Impulse Control, Suppression of Aggression, and Consideration of Others subscales in the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory (Weinberger & Schwartz, 1990).Each of the measures assessed an aspect of psychosocial maturity and were standardized and combined to index the construct. Temperance was assessed using the Impulse Control and Suppression of Aggression subscales in the Weinberger; perspective was assessed using the Consideration of Others subscale in the Weinberger and the Future Outlook Inventory; and responsibility was assessed using the Resistance to Peer Influence and Psychosocial Maturity Inventory (measuring personal responsibility). Scores ranged from − 1.76 to 1.68 (M = 0.00, SD = 0.59), and higher scores represent higher psychosocial maturity.

Legal Sanctions

Participants were asked a series of questions about their legal history and about the offense for which they were being charged. Questions were developed for the Crossroads study, based on previous measures as well as a literature review of relevant factors to consider regarding legal sanctions. Specific questions relevant for this analysis included (1) whether they had committed the offense for which they were being charged (“Did you do the offense that you were charged with?”), and (2) what they had told an officer of the justice system regarding their involvement (“Did you admit (plead guilty) to any of the charges?”). Responses included “yes”, “no”, “sort of”, “don’t know”, or “not applicable (i.e., adolescent had not gone to court yet). Adolescents who responded “sort of” (n = 130) or “don’t know” (n = 1) in response to “did you do the offense that you were charged with,” and adolescents who responded “not applicable – hasn’t gone to court yet” (n = 155) or “don’t know” (n = 8) in response to “did you admit (plead guilty) to any of the charges?” were ineligible for inclusion in analyses due to the uncertainty of their responses as we were not able to confidently put them into respondent groups based on their answers.

Police Legitimacy

Tyler’s four-item scale (Tyler, 2006) was used to assess youths’ perceptions of police legitimacy. Using a 4-point Likert (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree), youth responded to four items: “I have a great deal of respect for the police”; “Overall, the police are honest”; “I feel proud of the police”; and “I feel people should support the police.” Higher mean values indicated more positive perceptions of police legitimacy (M = 2.35, SD = 0.83, range = 1–4, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86).

Legal Cynicism

Youths’ legal cynicism was assessed using Sampson and Bartusch’s (1999) five-item scale. Items reflected an agreement that it was acceptable to behave outside of the norms of society and the law, for example “Laws were made to be broken” and “It’s okay to do anything you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone,” rated on a Likert scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). Higher mean scores indicated more cynicism (M = 2.04, SD = 0.57, range 1–4, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.63).

Procedure

Ethics Approval was obtained from each of the three university sites. Participation involved meeting with a research assistant within six weeks of the offense disposition to complete a face-to-face and screen-facilitated interview. Adolescent’s parents or guardians provided consent and adolescents gave assent to participate. To encourage honest reporting, youth were informed they could skip any question they desired. Participants’ responses were protected by a Privacy Certificate from the Department of Justice, and participants were given a detailed explanation about the Privacy Certificate and how it protected their responses from involuntary disclosures (e.g., court subpoenas). This explanation was also repeated before sensitive questions. Participants were able to enter their own responses so that the researcher would not see how they responded, to encourage forthcoming responses.

Coding

Adolescents were grouped on two dimensions: (a) whether they actually committed the crime, as self-reported to study personnel; and (b) whether they told an officer of the justice system that they committed the crime. There were four groups: true confessors, who did the crime and said they did the crime; false confessors, who did not do the crime, but said they did; true deniers, who did not do the crime and said they did not; and false deniers, who did the crime, but said they did not.

Analytic Approach

We tested for age differences according to respondent type using multivariate multinomial logistic regression models to allow for robust statistical testing of the associations between multiple predictor variables and our multi-category outcome variable (respondent groups, n = 4). We then tested for global psychosocial maturity differences, controlling for age and IQ, using multinomial regression models. Finally, we analyzed respondents’ perspectives of the validity of procedural justice, as well as the severity of offenses according to respondent grouping, using multinomial regression models.

Results

Missing Data

Approximately 77.81% of the sample (N = 947) youth had complete data on the key study measures. There were no differences by age (p = .66), police legitimacy (p = .07), psychosocial maturity (p = .90), or cynicism (p = .62). Youth with complete data had slightly lower IQs (diff = 2.52, 95% CI = 0.39, 4.64, SE = 1.08, p = .02). Altogether, the missing data patterns indicated that missingness was not systematically related to variables of interest and was not likely to impact results. The sample of youth with complete data on several of the sub-analyses was slightly higher (between 1 and 4 participants more), as such, we have included those additional participants in sub-analyses.

Respondent Type

The majority of adolescents were true confessors (n = 675; 71%), followed by false confessors (n = 111; 12%), true deniers (n = 93; 10%), and false deniers (n = 72; 8%; combined percentages exceed 100 due to rounding). Table 1 contains descriptive information and Figs. 1 and 2 contain a visual depiction on each of our key measures.

Test of Potential Covariates

IQ differed between the types of respondents, based on a multinomial logistic regression that tested the association between IQ and respondent type, χ²(3, N = 950) = 8.92, p = .030, pseudo-R² = 0.01. Specifically, false deniers (M = 87.29, SD = 17.0) had higher IQ scores than false confessors (M = 81.88, SD = 15.38), p = .021, and true deniers (M = 81.47, SD = 16.28), p = .017. There were no IQ differences between true confessors (M = 84.68, SD = 15.15) and any of the other three groups.

We also tested for age differences between the types of respondents using a multinomial regression, controlling for IQ, and found significant differences in age across respondent groups, χ²(6, N = 950) = 14.93, p = .021, pseudo-R² = 0.01. We found that true confessors (M = 15.32 years, SD = 1.27 years) were significantly older than true deniers (M = 14.99, SD = 1.43), p = .025, and that false deniers (M = 15.46, SD = 1.32) were significantly older than true deniers, p = .032. As a result of these analyses, age and IQ were controlled in all subsequent analyses.

We further tested for race differences between the types of respondents using multinomial regression and found no significant differences, χ²(3, N = 951) = 5.55, p = .136, pseudo-R² = 0.00. Consequently, race was not considered further in analyses.

Psychosocial Maturity

We used a multinomial regression to examine whether differences in psychosocial maturity would emerge between the types of respondents, while also accounting for age and IQ. The model was significant, χ²(9, N = 948) = 27.59, p = .001, pseudo-R² = 0.02. In comparison to true confessors (M = -0.04, SD = 0.58), false confessors (M = 0.08, SD = 0.61) and true deniers (M = 0.11, SD = 0.66) had higher psychosocial maturity, p = .027 and p = .004 respectively. Table 2 contains model details for this model and models reported below.

We also tested for differences across the three domains of psychosocial maturity, specifically temperance, perspective, and responsibility, using a multinomial regression, while accounting for age and IQ. Regarding temperance, the overall model was significant, χ²(9, N = 950) = 29.40, p = .001, pseudo-R² = 0.02. Both false confessors (M = 0.18, SD = 0.80) and true deniers (M = 0.18, SD = 1.0) had higher temperance scores than true confessors (M= -0.06, SD = 0.85), p = .004 and p = .007 respectively. We also conducted the model with perspective, but the model was not significant, χ²(9, N = 950) = 16.21, p = .063, pseudo-R² = 0.01. The model with responsibility was significant, χ²(9, N = 948) = 25.02, p = .003, pseudo-R² = 0.01. True deniers (M = -0.002, SD = 0.93) had higher responsibility scores than true confessors (M = -0.01, SD = 0.82), p = .003.

Perceptions of Police Legitimacy and Legal Cynicism

We used a multinomial regression to compare differences in adolescents’ perceptions of police legitimacy or legal cynicism according to respondent type, and accounting for age and IQ. The model assessing perceptions of police legitimacy was significant, χ²(9, N = 949) = 28.33, p < .001, pseudo-R² = 0.02. Significant differences were found between true confessors and false confessors, as well as between true confessors and true deniers. True confessors (M = 2.39, SD = 0.82) perceived police as more legitimate than did false confessors (M = 2.18, SD = 0.82), p = .018. In other words, youth who falsely admitted to committing the crime reported worse perceptions of police legitimacy than did youth who admitted that they had committed the crime and had actually committed that crime. Further, true confessors perceived police as more legitimate than did true deniers (M = 2.16, SD = 0.89).There were significant differences in the perceived levels of legal cynicism according to respondent type, χ²(9, N = 949) = 20.41, p = .016, pseudo-R² = 0.01. False confessors (M = 2.15, SD = 0.57) had higher scores on legal cynicism than true deniers (M = 1.95, SD = 0.59), p = .024.

Violent Versus Non-Violent Offenses

As some of the adolescents’ offenses were violent in nature, we compared respondent types according to violent versus non-violent offenses using a multinomial regression. The overall model with violent versus non-violent offense as the predictor and respondent type as the outcome was significant, χ²(3, N = 951) = 17.96, p < .001, pseudo-R² = 0.01. The group of true deniers (32% violent offenses) were overall more likely to have been adjudicated as delinquent for committing a violent offense than true confessors (14% violent offenses), p < .001. To determine if this difference in offending across groups might have influenced our other study results, we reran all analyses controlling for type of offense and there were no changes in any significant findings.

Discussion

Summary

Overall, the findings indicate that within this sample of male adolescents who were arrested for the first time and for an offense of moderate severity, the vast majority truthfully disclosed their involvement and guilt (approximately 71%; figure includes both true confessors and true deniers). There were also groups of adolescents who were not truthful about their alleged offences, again based on whether they had committee the offense, some of whom lied about committing a crime (false confessors) and others lied about not committing a crime (false deniers). Most importantly, given the relative strength of the findings, we found significant differences across these groups in terms of psychosocial maturity, with true confessors demonstrating the lowest psychosocial maturity of the four groups. We also found differences across the four groups in perceptions of police legitimacy, with true deniers and false confessors indicating a lower trust in legal authorities in general. Finally, true deniers were more likely to have been charged with a violent offense than true confessors.

True Confessors as Psychosocially Immature but Trusting Legal Authorities

True confessors were the most psychosocially immature (but not the youngest) of the four groups, and they perhaps lacked the psychosocial maturity to act differently. Given that confessing to a crime (truthful or not) is most always associated with being found guilty (e.g., Fisher and Rosen-Zvi, 2008; Kassin & Neuman, 1997), individuals are more likely to say the right approach is to remain silent (e.g., the young adult sample in Grisso et al., 2003). However, younger adolescents are more likely to believe that they will be treated well if they confess (Grisso et al., 2003), which is not generally the case (Redlich, Yan, Norris, & Bushway, 2018), perhaps because their parents have used the disciplinary approach that they will be more lenient with their child, and not punish them, if their child tells them the truth. For example, as one study found, adolescents do not generally endorse lying to conceal a misdeed from a parent (Perkins & Turiel, 2007). In sum, younger adolescents, in general, likely do not realize that their parents may not punish them if they tell the truth, but that legal authorities will not respond similarly.

Turning to the question of the role of psychosocial maturity in legal decision-making, psychosocial immaturity is characterized by a general tendency to underestimate the likelihood that there will be negative consequences for actions, as well as a tendency to focus more on the immediate risk or rewards of the moment while not thinking about how immediate decisions could impact the future (Steinberg & Cauffman, 1996). For adolescents involved in the justice system, some of the immediate rewards to confessing could have included pleasing the justice officer who was questioning them (given that social rewards are especially influential on adolescents; Foulkes and Blakemore, 2016) and ending the questioning (Scott-Hayward, 2007). In fact, given that true confessors’ offenses were more likely to be non-violent than true deniers’ offenses, it may be that true confessors were less aware of the severity of their crime and of the consequences of their actions. This last explanation is most in keeping with the finding that true confessors were fairly trusting of police legitimacy and legal authorities in general, and that they found police treatment toward them to be fair and legitimate.

Further complicating the matter, true confessors perhaps lacked the psychosocial maturity to act differently; given that confessing to a crime (truthful or not) is most always associated with being found guilty (e.g., Fisher and Rosen-Zvi, 2008; Kassin & Neuman, 1997), individuals are more likely to say the right approach is to remain silent (e.g., the young adult sample in Grisso et al., 2003). However, younger individuals are more likely to believe that they will be treated well if they confess (Grisso et al., 2003), which is not generally the case (Redlich et al., 2018), perhaps because their parents have used the disciplinary approach that they will be more lenient with their child, and not punish them, if their child tells them the truth. For example, as one study found, adolescents do not generally endorse lying to conceal a misdeed from a parent (Perkins & Turiel, 2007). In sum, younger adolescents, in general, likely do not realize that their parents may not punish them if they tell the truth, but that legal authorities will not respond similarly.

Previous studies can help to shed light on our finding that true confessors were both psychosocially immature and trusting of legal authorities. Immaturity is associated with decreased abilities in areas that are relevant for legal decision-making (Grisso et al., 2003), such as a higher sensitivity to short-term rewards and lower sensitivity to future consequences of their actions (Cauffman et al., 2010). In fact, judges rate age and maturity as being important factors in determining whether an adolescent is competent to stand trial (Cox et al., 2012), which highlights the need to consider, assess, and protect against the vulnerability of developmental immaturities related to legal-decision-making. Further, given that true confessors’ offenses were more likely to be non-violent than true deniers’ offenses, it may be that true confessors were less aware of the severity of their crime and of the consequences of their actions.

False Deniers as Intelligent and Trusting Legal Authorities

False deniers emerged as being relatively intelligent (in comparison with other respondent types), trusting of legal authorities in general and tending to report that police were legitimate and fair in their treatment toward them. False deniers were likely motivated to lie to avoid consequences (a strong motivator; Talwar and Lee, 2011). A previous study by Gudjonsson and colleagues (2004) found that, of college-age students (15–25 years old) who had been interrogated by police, 19% of them had provided a false denial of wrongdoing to the police. The authors found that both false denials and false confessions were associated with antisocial personality traits more broadly, which is in keeping with the developmental relation between antisocial behavior and lying more generally. For example, adolescents who are involved in illegal activities are perceived as being more deceptive (Keijsers et al., 2010; Warr, 2007), in particular toward parents (Kerr & Stattin, 2000). Further, teacher and parent perceptions of more frequent lying among children longitudinally is associated with problematic behaviors (Gervais et al., 2000).

At the same time, despite the fact that within a developmental context, telling a lie to protect oneself is considered antisocial and concerning, within a legal context, telling a lie to a justice officer to conceal illegal behavior may actually reflect a calculated decision response that is not morally desirable, but that is practically sensible. In other words, it may be an intelligent decision for them to lie to conceal wrongdoing, reflecting the higher IQ of this respondent group, to avoid legal sanctions and the broader negative impact on their lives and future aspirations if having a juvenile criminal record.

Psychosocially Mature but Untrusting of Legal Authorities

Both true deniers and false confessors emerged as more psychosocially mature than true confessors, yet both respondent groups had lower perceptions of police authority legitimacy. True deniers in particular were the youngest of the groups and they were also more likely to have been charged with a violent offense than true confessors. They had higher responsibility scores than true confessors, and this sense of personal responsibility and tendency to make independent decisions may have given them an air of maturity and confidence that was not in keeping with their age. It is possible that this air of maturity and confidence, combined with their young actual age and general distrust toward legal authorities may have put them at odds with the police officers processing their charges. In keeping with this possibility, previous research suggests that the attitude of the adolescent when being processed is an important factor in how they are treated by police officers, as more of a victim or an offender (Halter, 2010).

In terms of the false confessors group, the profile of the false confessors was similar to true deniers in terms of psychosocial maturity and low perceptions of the fairness and legitimacy of legal authorities, but the fact that this group chose to falsely admit to a crime they did not commit suggests a different underlying motivation than the true denier respondent group. False admissions do occur (Kassin, 2014), even among adolescents (Arndorfer et al., 2015; Malloy et al., 2014) and can result from a desire to protect another person (Malloy et al., 2014) or due to a limited competence to engage in the legal system that can result in an admission of guilt that is more procured rather than offered voluntarily (Cleary, 2014; Kassin & Gudjonsson, 2004). Both of these examples are a possibility for our false admitter respondents. At the same time, their higher ability to control impulses and suppress aggressive responses, as indicated through higher temperance scores than the true confessors group, suggests that there was some thought put into their responses.

Implications

Our findings highlight the need to further review how psychosocial immaturity should be considered before youth speak with justice system personnel. The developmental needs of the adolescent, for example, through low psychosocial maturity, may confer an additional element of vulnerability in interactions with the justice system and additional legal supports may help the adolescent; for example in being ensured access to legal counsel or representation in legal interactions, especially considering that the United States Department of Justice found that more than 80–90% of youth forgo a right to legal counsel (Jones, 2004). Of course, waiver can happen at multiple stages of the juvenile justice system processing, from initial interview through probation revocation hearings, indicating a need to have access to counsel at all stages and steps in the juvenile process (National Juvenile Defender Center, 2018; Scali, 2019). At the same time, recent findings indicate that the presence of an interested adult during adolescent interrogations is associated with higher conviction rates of the adolescent, which suggests that the presence of the adult may serve to legitimize adolescents’ statements, regardless of the truthfulness of their statements (Mindthoff et al., 2020). Of notable interest, recent legislation has passed in the states of Illinois and Oregon in the United States that prohibit law enforcement from using deceptive tactics during interrogations of minors under the age of 18 (Innocence Project, 2021).

Internationally, the European Union (EU) Directive passed legislation in 2016 that provides children (under 18) with the right to an individual assessment prior to criminal proceedings, to determine whether any special assistance is required on the basis of “the child’s personality and maturity, the child’s economic, social and family background, including living environment, and any specific vulnerabilities of the child, such as learning disabilities and communication difficulties” (articles 35 and 36). In addition, the EU legislation recommends that all interactions between the child and police or law enforcement be audio-visually recorded to ensure sufficient protection for children who may not understand the content of the questions being asked of them (article 42). With these recent findings and legislation in mind, further efforts to find effective supports that provide a developmental buffer to assist in legal decision-making without disadvantaging adolescents are urgently needed in the United States.

Our findings also highlight the need to consider whether psychosocial immaturity may constitute a reason for not being competent to stand trial (e.g., Drizin and Leo, 2004; Mayzer et al., 2009; Scott and Grisso, 2005; Steinberg and Icenogle, 2019; Viljoen and Roesch, 2008). Overall, these findings provide information and context for legal authorities to be aware of when interacting with adolescents being charged with a first-time offense, most importantly that adolescents, in general, but especially those with low psychosocial maturity, may not have the developmental skills required for legal decision-making and are likely to require additional supports even from the point of initial contact.

Limitations and Future Directions

There are several limitations to acknowledge in this study. First, we took the veracity of adolescents’ statements to the researcher at face value. However we did use several safeguards to increase the likelihood of adolescents telling the truth to the researcher. We had a Privacy Certificate from the Department of Justice that protected adolescents’ responses from ever being disclosed without adolescents’ consent, for example through a subpoena. We discussed the Privacy Certificate with adolescents before they began the study and also before the questions that were considered more sensitive. We also gave adolescents the choice to enter answers to sensitive questions into the keypad themselves by handing them the keypad device, or they were able to tell the interviewer what to input. Thus, adolescents should not have been motivated to lie to protect themselves in this situation. The fact that a great percentage of adolescents in this study did admit that they had committed the crime for which they were charged suggests that adolescents were generally comfortable sharing what happened.

A second limitation of the study is that the measures used relied on adolescents’ own reporting to gather information on their psychosocial maturity, offense, and perceptions of legal authorities. Future studies can consider examining reciprocal perceptions and interactions between adolescents and legal authorities, as well as reciprocal perceptions and interactions between adolescents and authority figures, including parents, more generally (i.e., lying to parents as a predictor of lying to authorities), to further inform professional practice involving the interactions between adolescents and legal authorities in the criminal justice system.

Conclusions

Overall, we found that adolescents were generally forthcoming to legal authorities about their involvement in committing a crime. Our results highlight the need to consider the psychosocial maturity of the adolescent in determining their ability and competence to interact with legal authorities about illegal activities. Of utmost importance, adolescents in general, but especially those with additional developmental needs, such as low psychosocial maturity, may need additional supports from the very first point of initial contact with legal authorities to assist with legal decision-making.

Link to Article

Adolescents’ Truthfulness with Legal Authorities: Examining the Role of Psychosocial Maturity and Perceptions of Procedural Justice

Legal interactions can be overwhelming for adolescents suspected of crimes. Justice system officers, including law enforcement, probation officers, and judges, work to determine the truth of alleged crimes using various sources, including adolescent testimonies. Adolescents may face a difficult choice: be truthful and risk consequences, or lie to protect themselves or others. This tension arises from societal values of honesty, alongside a developmental proclivity for lying for personal gain, consequence avoidance, and self-preservation (Bok, 1978; DePaulo et al., 1996; Steingrimsdottir et al., 2007; Warr, 2007).

Despite the importance of this decision, little is known about the characteristics of adolescents who are truthful versus deceptive about minor offenses. Both individual and situational characteristics likely relate to how adolescents engage with the legal system and share their account of the offense. This study examined the relationship between developmental characteristics, situational specifics (i.e., offense type), and the legal interactions of adolescents involved with the juvenile justice system due to a first-time arrest.

Concealment and Disclosures

Although adolescents often conceal information from parents (Darling et al., 2006; Lavoie & Talwar, 2022), many endorse open communication (Cumsille et al., 2010; Smetana et al., 2006). Specifically, adolescents are more likely to conceal personal matters or issues they deem private (Smetana et al., 2006) and illegal activities, potentially fearing disapproval and consequences (Frijns et al., 2010; Keijsers, 2016; Keijsers et al., 2010; Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Metzger et al., 2013; Smetana et al., 2009; Tilton-Weaver, 2014; Yau et al., 2009). This raises the question: how do adolescents navigate disclosures when interacting with legal authorities for the first time?

Disclosures to Legal Authorities

Adolescent interactions with the justice system often involve high-pressure interrogations (Feld, 2006, 2013; Malloy et al., 2014). In the United States, the presumption of guilt (Redlich, 2010) impacts how adolescents are interviewed (Redlich & Kassin, 2009). Feld (2006) found that police frequently employ maximization or minimization tactics (Inbau et al., 1986) during interrogations with adolescents, echoing approaches used with adults. This practice persists despite research indicating that law enforcement officers perceive adolescents as capable of being interrogated like adults (Meyer & Reppucci, 2007) and utilize similar interrogation techniques for both groups (Cleary & Warner, 2016). These findings raise concerns about how these interactions affect adolescents’ truthfulness.

During police interactions, adolescents may confess or deny (truthfully or falsely) their involvement. Research reveals individual differences in these responses. Younger age (i.e., early adolescence) and male gender are associated with a higher likelihood of false confessions (Gudjonsson et al., 2016). Additionally, substance abuse, bullying or violence history, burglary offenses, and extra-familial sexual abuse (in boys) correlate with false confessions (Gudjonsson et al., 2009). A study by Steingrimsdottir et al. (2007) found that Danish college students (M = 19 years) provided true confessions primarily to leave police custody or due to perceived evidence against them. These findings highlight the developmental vulnerability of adolescents, particularly their susceptibility to pressure, desire to avoid immediate discomfort, and potential vulnerability to suggestive interrogation techniques (Scott-Hayward, 2007). This suggests that adolescents' disclosures to legal authorities may differ from their typical disclosure patterns with other authority figures.

Psychosocial Maturity and Disclosures

Adolescents' endorsement of disclosures may stem from the social benefits of honesty (Levine et al., 1999). Adolescents with greater maturity and psychosocial skills facilitating open communication may be more forthcoming. However, adolescents, unlike adults, may underestimate the long-term consequences of truthfully disclosing guilt in legal contexts (Redlich & Shteynberg, 2016).

Psychosocial maturity, encompassing temperance, perspective, and responsibility (Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000), increases with age (Icenogle et al., 2019) and relates to reduced antisocial decision-making (Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000) and illegal activity (Monahan et al., 2009). Both cognitive ability and psychosocial capability are crucial in legal decision-making (Steinberg & Icenogle, 2019). Grisso (1989) argued that age and IQ, potentially as proxies for psychosocial maturity, are important factors in determining adolescent legal competency. Therefore, psychosocial maturity might be associated with adolescents' initial disclosure tendencies regarding illegal activity.

Disclosures and Perceptions of Procedural Justice

The perceived consequences of disclosure influence the decision to share information. According to social information processing theory (Crick & Dodge, 1994), past experiences with disclosure shape future behavior. Adolescents who faced negative repercussions for previous disclosures, such as punishment, might hesitate to disclose in future situations. Although first-time offenders may lack this experience, their preconceived notions about the fairness and legitimacy of legal actors (Tyler, 1990) and the legal system likely influence their willingness to disclose. Research suggests that increased contact with legal authorities correlates with poorer perceptions of law enforcement (Massez et al., 2023; see also Del Toro et al., 2019). Adolescents derive perceptions of police legitimacy from beliefs about fair and just treatment (Fine & Tom, 2023; Tyler & Trinkner, 2018). When adolescents perceive legal authorities as fair and legitimate, it fosters cooperation (Bolger & Walters, 2019; Hamm et al., 2017; Hinds, 2007) and potentially encourages truthfulness. Conversely, legal cynicism, characterized by a rejection of social norms (Sampson & Bartusch, 1999), might hinder truthful reporting to legal authorities.

Current Study

This study investigated differences in age, psychosocial maturity, and perceptions of procedural justice among adolescents who were truthful versus deceptive about their involvement in a first-time, moderate-severity offense. We hypothesized that:

• True confessors: Would be younger, less psychosocially mature, and perceive police as more legitimate, reflecting the societal value of honesty (Levine et al., 1999).

• True deniers: Would exhibit higher psychosocial maturity and positive perceptions of police legitimacy, feeling secure in denying involvement and anticipating a fair response.

• False deniers: Would demonstrate higher maturity and negative police perceptions, utilizing deception for self-protection (Gudjonsson et al., 2004).

• False confessors: Would display lower psychosocial maturity and negative police legitimacy perceptions (Cauffman et al., 2010; Cleary, 2014).

We also examined whether offense type (violent vs. non-violent) related to adolescents' truthfulness, considering potential motivations to conceal more serious offenses.

Method

Participants

Participants included 1,216 adolescent males (ages 13-18 years) charged with a first-time, moderate-severity offense. Data from 947 participants (77.81%; M = 15.30 years, SD = 1.29 years) were analyzed due to complete data on key measures, with no significant differences between included and excluded participants. Participants were drawn from the first wave of the Crossroads Study (Cauffman et al., 2020), a longitudinal study of adolescent males in Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and California. The sample's racial/ethnic composition was 46% Latino, 38% Black, 14% White, and 2% other. Non-violent offenses (e.g., possession of marijuana, theft, vandalism) constituted 84% of the offenses (US Department of Justice, 2004).

Measures

IQ

Two subtests of the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI; Vocabulary and Matrix Reasoning) were administered to obtain an estimated IQ score, which served as a control variable.

Psychosocial Maturity

Psychosocial maturity was assessed using a composite score of temperance, perspective, and responsibility (Steinberg & Cauffman, 1996). This was calculated as the mean of standardized scores from six measures: Psychosocial Maturity Inventory (Greenberger et al., 1975), Future Outlook Inventory (Cauffman & Woolard, 1999), Resistance to Peer Influence questionnaire (Steinberg & Monahan, 2007), and the Impulse Control, Suppression of Aggression, and Consideration of Others subscales from the Weinberger Adjustment Inventory (Weinberger & Schwartz, 1990). Higher scores indicated greater maturity (range: -1.76 to 1.68, M = 0.00, SD = 0.59).

Legal Sanctions

Participants answered questions about their legal history and current offense, including: (1) "Did you do the offense that you were charged with?" and (2) "Did you admit (plead guilty) to any of the charges?". Responses included "yes", "no", "sort of", "don't know", or "not applicable". Responses of "sort of", "don't know", or "not applicable" resulted in exclusion from analyses due to uncertainty.

Police Legitimacy

Tyler's (2006) four-item scale measured perceptions of police legitimacy (e.g., "I have a great deal of respect for the police"). Responses were given on a 4-point Likert scale (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree), with higher scores reflecting more positive perceptions (M = 2.35, SD = 0.83, range = 1-4, α = 0.86).

Legal Cynicism

Sampson and Bartusch's (1999) five-item scale assessed legal cynicism (e.g., "Laws were made to be broken"). Items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree), with higher scores indicating greater cynicism (M = 2.04, SD = 0.57, range = 1-4, α = 0.63).

Procedure

Ethical approval was obtained from all participating universities. Within six weeks of their offense disposition, participants completed a face-to-face, screen-facilitated interview. Parental/guardian consent and adolescent assent were obtained. Participants were informed of their right to skip questions. Responses were protected by a Department of Justice Privacy Certificate, which was thoroughly explained to encourage honest reporting. Participants entered their responses privately to minimize potential bias.

Coding

Adolescents were categorized based on two factors: (a) self-reported offense commission and (b) admission of guilt to a justice system officer. This resulted in four groups: true confessors, false confessors, true deniers, and false deniers.

Analytic Approach

Multivariate multinomial logistic regressions were used to examine age differences across respondent groups. Multinomial regressions, controlling for age and IQ, were conducted to examine psychosocial maturity differences. Finally, multinomial regressions were used to analyze perceptions of procedural justice and offense severity according to respondent groups.

Results

Missing Data

Missing data were handled as described in the original article.

Respondent Type

Respondent group distribution and descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1 and Figures 1 and 2 of the original article.

Test of Potential Covariates

Significant differences in IQ were observed across respondent types (χ2(3, N = 950) = 8.92, p = .030), with false deniers scoring higher than false confessors and true deniers. Age also differed significantly (χ2(6, N = 950) = 14.93, p = .021), with true confessors being older than true deniers and false deniers being older than true deniers. Race was not significantly different across respondent groups. Age and IQ were controlled for in subsequent analyses.

Psychosocial Maturity

A significant relationship was found between psychosocial maturity and respondent type (χ2(9, N = 948) = 27.59, p = .001). False confessors and true deniers exhibited higher psychosocial maturity compared to true confessors. Analyses of individual psychosocial maturity domains revealed that both false confessors and true deniers scored higher on temperance than true confessors. True deniers also demonstrated higher responsibility scores than true confessors.

Perceptions of Police Legitimacy and Legal Cynicism

Respondent groups significantly differed in their perceptions of police legitimacy (χ2(9, N = 949) = 28.33, p < .001). True confessors reported more positive perceptions of police legitimacy compared to false confessors and true deniers. Significant differences were also found for legal cynicism (χ2(9, N = 949) = 20.41, p = .016), with false confessors exhibiting greater cynicism than true deniers.

Violent Versus Non-Violent Offenses

True deniers were significantly more likely to have committed a violent offense compared to true confessors (χ2(3, N = 951) = 17.96, p < .001). Controlling for offense type did not change the pattern of significant findings.

Discussion

Summary

This study investigated the characteristics of adolescent males who were truthful versus deceptive during legal processing for a first-time, moderate-severity offense. Findings indicated that:

• The majority of adolescents were truthful about their involvement (true confessors and true deniers combined).

• True confessors exhibited the lowest levels of psychosocial maturity.

• True deniers and false confessors reported lower perceptions of police legitimacy.

• True deniers were more likely to have committed a violent offense compared to true confessors.

True Confessors as Psychosocially Immature but Trusting Legal Authorities

The finding that true confessors were the least psychosocially mature aligns with previous research highlighting the developmental vulnerabilities of adolescents in legal contexts (Grisso et al., 2003; Redlich et al., 2018). Their truthful confessions, while potentially stemming from a desire to please authority figures (Foulkes & Blakemore, 2016) or end the interrogation (Scott-Hayward, 2007), may also reflect a lack of awareness regarding the long-term consequences of their admissions (Cauffman et al., 2010). Their higher trust in police legitimacy suggests a belief that their honesty would be met with leniency, potentially mirroring parental disciplinary practices (Perkins & Turiel, 2007).

False Deniers as Intelligent and Trusting Legal Authorities

False deniers demonstrated higher IQ scores and reported positive perceptions of police legitimacy, potentially reflecting a calculated decision to protect themselves from legal sanctions. Their deceptive behavior, while considered antisocial in a developmental context, may be a pragmatic, albeit ethically questionable, strategy within a legal setting (Gudjonsson et al., 2004; Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Warr, 2007).

Psychosocially Mature but Untrusting of Legal Authorities

True deniers and false confessors, despite exhibiting higher psychosocial maturity, reported lower trust in legal authorities. True deniers, being the youngest group and more likely to be charged with violent offenses, may have encountered skepticism from law enforcement due to their perceived maturity conflicting with their age (Halter, 2010). False confessors' decision to admit to crimes they did not commit, while seemingly counterintuitive, could be motivated by a desire to protect others (Malloy et al., 2014) or reflect limited legal competency (Cleary, 2014; Kassin & Gudjonsson, 2004).

Implications

These findings underscore the need to consider psychosocial maturity when adolescents are interacting with the justice system. Legal professionals should be aware of the developmental vulnerabilities that might compromise adolescents' ability to make sound legal decisions (Grisso et al., 2003). Ensuring access to legal counsel and implementing safeguards, such as prohibiting deceptive interrogation tactics (Innocence Project, 2021) and conducting competency evaluations (Drizin & Leo, 2004; Mayzer et al., 2009; Scott & Grisso, 2005; Steinberg & Icenogle, 2019; Viljoen & Roesch, 2008), are crucial for protecting adolescents' rights within the legal system.

The EU's legal framework, which mandates individual assessments to determine the need for special assistance and promotes audio-visual recording of interrogations (EU Directive, 2016), offers valuable insights for enhancing procedural justice for adolescents. Further research should explore effective support systems that can mitigate the challenges posed by psychosocial immaturity and promote fair treatment for adolescents within the justice system.

Limitations and Future Directions

Study limitations are discussed in the original article. Future research should incorporate multi-informant perspectives (e.g., legal authorities, parents) to provide a more comprehensive understanding of adolescent disclosures within legal contexts.

Conclusions

This study provides valuable insights into the complex interplay between adolescent development, perceptions of procedural justice, and legal decision-making. The findings highlight the importance of considering psychosocial maturity as a key factor in ensuring fair and developmentally appropriate treatment for adolescents within the justice system. Policymakers, legal professionals, and researchers must collaborate to develop and implement effective safeguards that protect the rights and well-being of adolescents involved in the legal system.

Link to Article

Who Lies to the Police: Exploring Truthfulness in Justice-Involved Youth

Navigating the legal system can be stressful, especially for teenagers. When facing accusations of a crime, adolescents often feel torn between telling the truth and facing potential consequences, or lying to protect themselves or others. While society values honesty, people also tend to lie for personal gain or self-preservation. This conflict becomes even more complex for young people still developing their understanding of right and wrong. This study investigated the characteristics of adolescents who choose to be truthful versus deceptive when dealing with legal authorities after being arrested for a first-time offense.

Adolescent Disclosure Patterns

Research shows that while most teenagers sometimes hide information from their parents – particularly about personal matters and illegal activities – they generally believe in being open and honest (Darling et al., 2006; Lavoie & Talwar, 2022). This honesty likely stems from the social benefits of being truthful (Levine et al., 1999). However, confessing to a crime carries significant consequences that could impact their future, a fact adolescents often underestimate (Redlich & Shteynberg, 2016).

Navigating Legal Interrogations

Interactions with law enforcement can be intimidating for adolescents. In the US, a presumption of guilt often influences how young suspects are interviewed (Feld, 2006; Redlich & Kassin, 2009). Police may employ interrogation tactics like exaggerating the severity of the crime or evidence to elicit a confession. Research suggests that adolescents are often subject to similar interrogation techniques used on adults, despite their developmental differences (Cleary & Warner, 2016; Meyer & Reppucci, 2007). These high-pressure situations raise concerns about how they might impact a young person's tendency to be truthful.

Studies reveal that certain individual characteristics are linked to false confessions in youth, including younger age, male gender, substance abuse, history of bullying or violence, and burglary offenses (Gudjonsson et al., 2016, 2009). A study with Danish college students who had police encounters revealed that common reasons for both true and false confessions included wanting to leave the police station or believing the police had incriminating evidence (Steingrimsdottir et al., 2007). This highlights adolescents' vulnerability to pressure and suggestive interrogation tactics, potentially leading them to prioritize immediate comfort over long-term consequences (Scott-Hayward, 2007).

The Role of Psychosocial Maturity

Adolescents who are more psychosocially mature – meaning they exhibit self-control, empathy, future-oriented thinking, and personal responsibility – might be more inclined towards honesty (Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000). This maturity is linked to less antisocial behavior and illegal activity (Monahan et al., 2009). However, legal situations require weighing potential consequences that immature individuals might not fully grasp.

Disclosure and Perceptions of Justice

Past experiences and beliefs about the legal system also influence disclosure. According to social information processing theory (Crick & Dodge, 1994), adolescents who have faced negative repercussions for honesty might be hesitant to disclose information in the future. Additionally, perceptions of law enforcement's fairness and legitimacy – known as procedural justice (Tyler, 1990) – can impact their willingness to cooperate. When youth view legal authorities as legitimate, they are more likely to trust and cooperate (Fine & Tom, 2023; Tyler & Trinkner, 2018). Conversely, those who hold cynical views of the legal system might reject its norms and be less truthful (Sampson & Bartusch, 1999).

Current Study

This study aimed to examine how age, psychosocial maturity, offense type (violent vs. non-violent), and perceptions of law enforcement relate to truthfulness among first-time offenders. Based on previous research, we hypothesized that:

• Truthful admitters (true confessors): Would be younger, less psychosocially mature, and view police more favorably due to the societal value placed on honesty.

• Truthful deniers (true deniers): Would possess higher psychosocial maturity and positive perceptions of police, feeling secure in their innocence.

• Deceptive deniers (false deniers): Would exhibit greater maturity and more negative perceptions of police, strategically lying to avoid repercussions.

• Deceptive admitters (false confessors): Would demonstrate lower psychosocial maturity and negative views of police, potentially influenced by pressure or external factors.

Method

Participants

The study included 1,216 male adolescents (ages 13-18) from Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and California who were charged with a first-time offense of moderate severity as part of the Crossroads Study (Cauffman et al., 2020). The sample consisted of 46% Latino, 38% Black, 14% White, and 2% other racial/ethnic backgrounds. Around 84% of offenses were non-violent, including drug possession, theft, and vandalism. After excluding participants with unclear responses regarding their offense or admission of guilt, 947 participants with complete data were included in the final analyses.

Measures

IQ

Two subtests from the Weschler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI) – Vocabulary and Matrix Reasoning – were administered to estimate participants' intelligence quotient (IQ).

Psychosocial Maturity

This was measured using a combination of six standardized scales assessing temperance, perspective, and responsibility (Steinberg & Cauffman, 1996). Higher scores indicated greater psychosocial maturity.

Legal Sanctions

Participants answered questions about their offense and what they told legal authorities. Key questions included whether they committed the offense and if they admitted guilt to an officer.

Police Legitimacy

Tyler's (2006) four-item scale measured perceptions of police honesty, respect for authority, and support for law enforcement. Higher scores reflected more positive views.

Legal Cynicism

Sampson and Bartusch's (1999) five-item scale assessed beliefs about the acceptability of breaking laws and societal norms. Higher scores indicated greater cynicism.

Procedure

The study obtained ethical approval from all participating universities. Within six weeks of their case disposition, adolescents participated in a face-to-face interview with a research assistant. Parents/guardians provided consent, and youth provided assent. Participants were informed about their right to skip questions and the study's Privacy Certificate, which protected their responses from disclosure. To encourage honesty, participants could enter their answers privately.

Coding

Adolescents were categorized into four groups based on whether they self-reported committing the offense and whether they admitted guilt to legal authorities: true confessors, false confessors, true deniers, and false deniers.

Analytic Approach

Multinomial logistic regression models were used to examine differences in age, psychosocial maturity, perceptions of procedural justice, and offense severity across the four respondent groups.

Results

Respondent Type

The majority of adolescents were true confessors (71%), followed by false confessors (12%), true deniers (10%), and false deniers (8%).

Preliminary Analyses

• IQ: False deniers had significantly higher IQ scores than false confessors and true deniers.

• Age: True confessors were older than true deniers, and false deniers were older than true deniers.

• Race: No significant differences in race were found between respondent groups.

Due to significant differences in age and IQ, these variables were controlled for in subsequent analyses.

Psychosocial Maturity

After controlling for age and IQ, results showed that:

• False confessors and true deniers had significantly higher psychosocial maturity scores than true confessors.

• In terms of specific domains, both false confessors and true deniers scored higher on temperance (impulse control and suppression of aggression) than true confessors. True deniers also scored higher on responsibility (personal responsibility and independent decision-making) compared to true confessors.

Perceptions of Police Legitimacy and Legal Cynicism

• True confessors perceived the police as more legitimate than both false confessors and true deniers.

• False confessors had higher levels of legal cynicism compared to true deniers.

Violent Versus Non-Violent Offenses

True deniers were significantly more likely to have committed a violent offense compared to true confessors. However, controlling for offense type did not change the other significant findings.

Discussion

This study provides insights into the characteristics and motivations of adolescents who choose to be truthful or deceptive when interacting with the justice system. While the majority of participants truthfully confessed, the findings highlight the vulnerability of specific subgroups.

True Confessors: Immature and Trusting

True confessors, although not the youngest, demonstrated the lowest levels of psychosocial maturity. Their honesty might stem from a lack of awareness regarding the long-term consequences of confessing, potentially influenced by parental disciplinary approaches that favor honesty (Grisso et al., 2003; Perkins & Turiel, 2007). Their higher trust in police legitimacy suggests they might believe in receiving leniency for their honesty. This finding underscores the need to consider developmental factors when assessing adolescents' legal competence and the potential for misunderstanding the implications of their admissions.

False Deniers: Intelligent and Strategic

False deniers, who denied involvement despite having committed the offense, exhibited higher IQ scores and trust in legal authorities. Their decision to lie likely reflects a calculated attempt to avoid negative consequences, a strong motivator in adolescent decision-making (Talwar & Lee, 2011). This aligns with research linking deception to antisocial behavior and self-preservation (Gudjonsson et al., 2004; Kerr & Stattin, 2000). Their relatively positive views of law enforcement might reflect a strategic approach to appear compliant while protecting themselves.

Navigating Maturity and Distrust: True Deniers and False Confessors

Both true deniers and false confessors demonstrated higher psychosocial maturity than true confessors, but also reported lower trust in legal authority.

True deniers, despite their young age, might come across as more mature due to their higher sense of responsibility. This, coupled with their distrust in law enforcement, could potentially lead to adversarial interactions, impacting their treatment within the system (Halter, 2010).

False confessors present a complex picture. Their decision to admit to a crime they did not commit while exhibiting higher impulse control suggests a deliberate choice driven by factors beyond simply pleasing authority figures. Potential motivations could include protecting someone else or succumbing to pressure due to feeling overwhelmed by the legal process (Cleary, 2014; Kassin & Gudjonsson, 2004; Malloy et al., 2014).

Implications

The study's findings have important implications for improving legal practices involving adolescents.

• Assessing Psychosocial Maturity: Understanding the role of psychosocial immaturity in legal decision-making is crucial. Evaluations of legal competence should consider maturity levels, particularly in younger adolescents who might not fully grasp the weight of their decisions.

• Ensuring Access to Legal Counsel: Given the developmental vulnerabilities highlighted, ensuring access to legal counsel throughout the juvenile justice process is vital. The presence of an informed advocate can help protect adolescents' rights and ensure their decisions are well-informed.

• Tailoring Interrogation Techniques: Recognizing the power dynamics and potential for misunderstanding in legal settings, law enforcement should receive training on developmentally appropriate interrogation techniques. This includes avoiding deceptive tactics and considering alternative approaches that prioritize fairness and transparency.

Limitations and Future Directions

The study's reliance on self-reported data presents a limitation. While safeguards were implemented to encourage honesty, future research could explore incorporating objective measures of truthfulness and examining interactions between adolescents and legal authorities directly. Additionally, exploring the role of parental disciplinary styles and family dynamics in shaping adolescents' disclosure patterns could provide further insights.

Conclusions

This study underscores the complexity of truthfulness in justice-involved youth. It highlights the significant impact of developmental factors like psychosocial maturity and perceptions of law enforcement on adolescents' decisions to be truthful or deceptive. These findings call for a more nuanced understanding of young people's experiences within the legal system, emphasizing the need for developmentally appropriate practices and safeguards to ensure fair and just outcomes.

Link to Article

Do Teens Lie to the Police? What Makes a Teen More Likely to Tell the Truth?

Interacting with the justice system can be scary for teenagers suspected of a crime. Police officers, probation officers, and judges try to figure out what happened, often relying on teenagers' own words. But teens might feel unsure about whether to tell the truth and risk punishment (or not being believed) or lie to protect themselves or someone else. This is especially tricky because society values honesty but also understands that people, especially young people, sometimes lie for personal gain or to protect themselves (Bok, 1978; DePaulo et al., 1996; Steingrimsdottir et al., 2007; Warr, 2007).

We don't know much about what makes some teens more likely to be honest than others when facing charges for minor crimes. However, it's likely that both their personal characteristics and the situation itself play a role in how they talk about the offense with the legal system. In this study, we looked at the connection between a teen's development, the type of offense, and their honesty when dealing with the juvenile justice system after being arrested for the first time.

Hiding the Truth and Sharing Information

Most teens hide things from their parents sometimes (Darling et al., 2006; Lavoie & Talwar, 2022), but many also believe in being open and honest (Cumsille et al., 2010; Smetana et al., 2006). Teens are more likely to hide things they see as personal, especially if it involves their friends (Smetana et al., 2006). They're also likely to hide illegal activities from their parents (Frijns et al., 2010; Keijsers, 2016; Keijsers et al., 2010; Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Tilton-Weaver, 2014) out of fear of disapproval and punishment (Metzger et al., 2013; Smetana et al., 2009; Yau et al., 2009). It's possible that teens facing the legal system for the first time might react the same way they do with their parents.

Talking to the Authorities

When teens deal with the justice system, they often face intense questioning (Feld, 2006, 2013; Malloy et al., 2014). In the United States, suspects are usually presumed guilty (Redlich, 2010), and this affects how young suspects are questioned (Redlich & Kassin, 2009). For example, police might use tactics that exaggerate the crime's seriousness or the evidence against the teen to pressure a confession, or they might downplay the severity to make the teen feel safer confessing (Feld, 2006; Inbau et al., 1986). Worryingly, research suggests that police officers often question teens the same way they do adults (Cleary & Warner, 2016; Meyer & Reppucci, 2007) even though teens have different needs and are legally minors.

During these interactions, teens might confess (truthfully or falsely) or deny involvement. Studies show that some teens are more likely to give false confessions. Younger teens and boys are more likely to falsely confess under pressure (Gudjonsson et al., 2016). Other factors, like substance abuse, being bullied, experiencing violence, committing burglary, and (for boys) experiencing sexual abuse outside the family also increase the chance of a false confession (Gudjonsson et al., 2009). Interestingly, a study of college students (aged 16–25) in Denmark found that those who confessed to crimes they did commit often did so to leave the police station or because they thought the police had proof (Steingrimsdottir et al., 2007). This shows how teens might prioritize immediate relief over long-term consequences and are vulnerable to suggestive questioning tactics (Scott-Hayward, 2007). These findings suggest that pressure from authority figures can make teens say things they wouldn't normally say.

Maturity and Honesty

One reason teens are generally open (Cumsille et al., 2010) might be the social benefits of honesty (Levine et al., 1999). Teens who are more mature and have good communication skills might be more likely to be honest. But, admitting guilt in a legal situation has serious, long-term consequences that teens often don't fully grasp compared to adults (Redlich & Shteynberg, 2016).

"Psychosocial maturity" combines self-control, understanding others, thinking about the future, taking responsibility, and resisting peer pressure (Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000). It usually increases with age (Icenogle et al., 2019) and is linked to better decisions and less illegal activity (Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000; Monahan et al., 2009). Good decision-making and self-control are crucial in legal situations (Steinberg & Icenogle, 2019). In fact, experts argue that age and IQ are vital in judging a teen's ability to make legal decisions, like waiving their rights (Grisso, 1989). Therefore, psychosocial maturity might also relate to a teen's willingness to be honest about illegal activities.

Honesty and Fairness

Whether someone shares information often depends on what they think will happen afterward. If a teen is punished for being honest in the past, they might be less likely to be honest again in the future (Crick & Dodge, 1994). While teens arrested for the first time might lack this experience, their beliefs about the fairness of the justice system (Tyler, 1990) can influence their honesty. Research suggests that negative experiences with legal authorities can lead to negative perceptions of the law (Massez et al., 2023; Del Toro et al., 2019). Teens are more likely to see the police as legitimate if they believe the police treat everyone fairly (Fine & Tom, 2023; Tyler & Trinkner, 2018). This can lead to better cooperation (Hamm et al., 2017; Hinds, 2007; Bolger & Walters, 2019) and honesty. On the other hand, teens who distrust the law are more likely to reject its rules (Sampson & Bartusch, 1999) and might be less likely to tell the truth.

This Study

This study aimed to understand the differences between teens who were honest and dishonest about their involvement in a crime, focusing on their age, maturity, and perceptions of the justice system. We also considered the type of offense (violent or non-violent), as teens facing more serious consequences might be more likely to lie (Talwar and Lee, 2011).

We predicted that teens who admitted to crimes they did commit would be younger, less mature, and see the police as more legitimate, based on the social value of honesty (Levine et al., 1999). We expected teens who denied crimes they didn't commit to be mature and view the police positively, feeling safe to be honest. We thought that teens who denied crimes they did commit would be more mature and have negative views of the police, lying to protect themselves. Finally, we expected those who admitted to crimes they didn't commit to be less mature and have negative views of the police.

Method

Participants

We studied 1,216 male teenagers aged 13–18 who were charged with a first-time offense of moderate severity. We focused on the 947 participants (78%) who provided complete data for our analysis (average age = 15.3 years). These teens were part of a larger study on first-time offenders (Cauffman et al., 2020). They came from Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and California, and identified as Latino (46%), Black (38%), White (14%), or other (2%). Most offenses (84%) were non-violent, like drug possession, theft, and vandalism.

Measures

IQ

We tested the teens' IQ using two subtests from the Weschler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI) as a control measure.

Psychosocial Maturity

We measured psychosocial maturity using six different questionnaires that assess self-control, perspective-taking, responsibility, and resistance to peer influence (Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000; Fine et al., 2018; Greenberger et al., 1975; Monahan et al., 2013; Steinberg & Monahan, 2007; Weinberger & Schwartz, 1990). Higher scores meant greater maturity.

Legal Sanctions

We asked the teens about their legal history and the current offense. Importantly, we asked if they committed the crime ("Did you do the offense that you were charged with?") and what they told the justice system ("Did you admit (plead guilty) to any of the charges?"). We excluded teens who gave unclear answers to these questions.

Police Legitimacy

We used a four-item questionnaire to measure how much teens viewed the police as legitimate and trustworthy (Tyler, 2006).

Legal Cynicism

We used a five-item questionnaire to assess how much teens distrusted the law and believed it was okay to break rules (Sampson & Bartusch, 1999).

What Did We Do?

Ethics Approval

Each university involved in the study reviewed and approved the study procedures.

How Did the Study Work?

Within six weeks of their case outcome, teens met with researchers and completed interviews. Parents/guardians consented, and teens agreed to participate. To encourage honesty, we told teens they could skip any question. We also used a Privacy Certificate from the Department of Justice to protect their answers from being shared without their permission. We explained this certificate thoroughly. Teens entered their own answers privately to further encourage honesty.

Grouping the Teens

We divided the teens into four groups based on whether they admitted to the crime and whether they actually committed it:

1. True Confessors: Committed the crime and confessed.

2. False Confessors: Did not commit the crime but confessed.

3. True Deniers: Did not commit the crime and denied it.

4. False Deniers: Committed the crime but denied it.

Analyzing the Data

We used statistical models to compare the different groups on age, psychosocial maturity, views of the justice system, and type of offense.

Results

Missing Information

About 78% of the teens provided complete data. Those with missing data were similar to the rest of the sample on most factors.

Types of Responses

Most teens (71%) were true confessors. The other groups were smaller: false confessors (12%), true deniers (10%), and false deniers (8%).

What About IQ and Age?

False deniers had higher IQ scores than false confessors and true deniers. True confessors were older than true deniers, and false deniers were also older than true deniers. We controlled for age and IQ in our remaining analyses because of these differences.

Psychosocial Maturity and Honesty

We found that both false confessors and true deniers were more psychosocially mature than true confessors. Looking closer, we found that:

• False confessors and true deniers had better self-control than true confessors.

• True deniers were more responsible than true confessors.

Views on the Police and Law

True confessors saw the police as more legitimate than false confessors and true deniers. False confessors were more cynical about the law than true deniers.

Violent vs. Non-Violent Offenses

True deniers were more likely to have committed a violent offense than true confessors. However, this difference didn't change our other findings.

Discussion

In this group of teenage first-time offenders, most were honest about their actions. However, some lied, either confessing to crimes they didn't commit or denying crimes they did. Importantly, those who confessed to crimes they did commit were the least mature of all the groups. We also found that those who denied crimes they didn't commit and those who falsely confessed tended to trust the police less.

Why Were True Confessors Less Mature?

True confessors were less mature overall and might have lacked the skills to act differently. They might not have fully grasped the long-term consequences of confessing, especially if they trusted authority figures like the police. They might have confessed to please the officers, end the questioning quickly, or because they thought honesty would lead to leniency, like it might with their parents. Since their crimes were often less serious, they might not have understood the severity of their actions.

Previous research shows that immaturity is linked to poor decision-making in legal situations (Grisso et al., 2003). Judges also consider age and maturity when deciding if a teen is competent to stand trial (Cox et al., 2012), highlighting the need to protect young people in the justice system.

Why Did Some Teens Lie?

False deniers were more intelligent and might have lied to avoid punishment. They might have carefully weighed their options and decided that lying was the best way to protect themselves, reflecting their higher IQs. Past research shows a link between lying and antisocial behavior, especially in the context of illegal activities (Gudjonsson et al., 2004; Keijsers et al., 2010; Kerr & Stattin, 2000; Warr, 2007). However, lying to the police, while morally wrong, might sometimes be a strategic decision to avoid serious consequences.

Both true deniers and false confessors were more mature but distrusted the legal system. True deniers, the youngest group, were also more likely to have committed a violent offense. Their maturity, combined with their young age and distrust of authority, might have created conflict with the police. Research suggests that a teen's attitude can influence how police perceive them (Halter, 2010).

False confessors shared similarities with true deniers but chose to admit to crimes they didn't do. This could be to protect someone else or because they felt pressured or unable to navigate the legal system effectively (Cleary, 2014; Kassin & Gudjonsson, 2004; Malloy et al., 2014). However, their ability to control impulses suggests they put thought into their decision.

What Now?

Our findings show that it's crucial to consider a teen's maturity when they're involved with the justice system. Teens, especially those who are less mature, might struggle to make good decisions under pressure and might need extra support, like having a lawyer present (Jones, 2004; National Juvenile Defender Center, 2018; Scali, 2019). However, it's worth noting that some studies suggest the presence of an adult might actually increase the chance of conviction, regardless of guilt (Mindthoff et al., 2020). More research is needed to find the best ways to support teens in these situations.

Importantly, our findings raise questions about whether immaturity should be a factor in determining a teen's competence to stand trial (Drizin and Leo, 2004; Mayzer et al., 2009; Scott and Grisso, 2005; Steinberg and Icenogle, 2019; Viljoen and Roesch, 2008). This is a complex issue that requires careful consideration. Legal professionals must be aware that teens, especially those who are less mature, might need extra help understanding their rights and making safe choices.

What Could Be Improved?

This study has limitations. We couldn't be absolutely sure if teens were being truthful with us, even though we took steps to encourage honesty. Also, we relied on teens' own reports about their maturity, experiences, and beliefs. Future studies could explore the interactions between teens and legal authorities in more detail, as well as the influence of parents and other authority figures.

What Did We Learn?

This study found that while most teens were honest with legal authorities, some were not. Importantly, those who were dishonest differed in important ways from those who told the truth. These findings highlight the critical role of psychosocial maturity in how teens interact with the justice system. Teens, especially those who are less mature, deserve special consideration and support to ensure they are treated fairly and make safe, informed decisions.

Link to Article

Do Teens Tell the Truth to the Police?

Talking to police officers and judges can be scary for teenagers who might have broken the law. These adults are trying to figure out what really happened, and they listen to information from lots of places, including what teens say. Teens might feel confused about whether they should tell the truth and risk getting in trouble (or not being believed), or if they should lie to protect themselves or someone else. Most people think being honest is important, but we also know that people lie sometimes to get what they want, avoid consequences, or keep themselves and others safe.

We don't know very much about which teenagers are more likely to tell the truth or lie about small crimes. However, who they are as people and the situation they're in probably affects how they explain what happened. In this study, we looked at how teenagers' development, the type of crime, and their experiences with the justice system are connected to whether they are honest about a first-time offense.

Keeping Secrets and Telling the Truth

Even though most teenagers hide things from their parents sometimes, many teenagers believe in sharing information openly and honestly. Teens are more likely to keep quiet about things they think are personal or about their friends. They also often hide illegal activities from their parents because they're afraid of their parents' reactions and possible punishments. It's possible that teenagers act the same way with legal authorities, especially if it's their first time getting in trouble with the law.

Talking to Legal Authorities

When teens talk to police officers, they're often questioned in a very intense way. In the United States, suspects are usually treated as if they're guilty until proven innocent. This can affect how teens are interviewed. For instance, one study found that police officers often use specific tactics to try to get teenagers to confess, either by making the situation seem much worse or by making it seem not so bad. Also, some police officers say that it's okay to question teenagers the same way they question adults, even though teenagers are still developing and are not legally adults. This makes us wonder how these kinds of interactions might make teens less likely to tell the truth to police.

During these talks with officers, teens might confess or deny (truthfully or not) doing something illegal. Some studies have found that certain teenagers react in particular ways. For example, younger teenagers and boys are more likely to falsely confess to a crime during questioning. Additionally, teenagers who have problems with drugs or alcohol, have been bullied or hurt, committed burglary, or (for boys) were sexually abused are also more likely to falsely confess. Another study asked Danish college students (ages 16-25) who had been questioned by police why they had confessed to crimes. Most said they confessed either to be allowed to go home or because they thought the police already knew they were involved. These findings show that we need to consider how teenagers' development might affect their choices. For example, they might say what they think they need to say to avoid an uncomfortable situation without thinking about what might happen later. They also might be more likely to be tricked by certain interrogation methods. It seems like the pressure teens feel when talking to legal authorities might change how honest they are.

Growing Up and Telling the Truth

One reason teenagers might choose to be honest in general is because it's socially rewarded. Being truthful helps you make friends and have good relationships. So, teens who are more mature and have better social skills that help them communicate openly might also be more honest. However, when it comes to admitting to a crime, telling the truth has serious and potentially life-changing consequences that teenagers often don't fully understand.

Growing up and becoming more mature can be thought of as getting better at three things: self-control, understanding others, and taking responsibility. Self-control means being able to manage impulses and not react in an aggressive way. Understanding others involves empathizing with them and thinking about the future. Taking responsibility means owning up to your actions and making choices without being influenced by your friends. As teenagers get older, they generally become more mature in these areas. This maturity is connected to making better choices and staying away from illegal activities. Since these skills are important for making good decisions in general, they might also be connected to how honest teens are about illegal things they've done.

Honesty and Fairness

Thinking about what will happen after you tell the truth helps you decide whether to share information. If a teenager has been punished in the past for telling the truth, they might be less likely to be honest in the future. First-time offenders may not have any past experiences to help them decide whether to be truthful with legal authorities. But, if they already believe that police and judges are fair and trustworthy, they might be more willing to tell the truth.

When teenagers believe that legal authorities are fair and treat people equally, it can help them feel more comfortable working with them. This might make them more likely to be honest. On the other hand, some teens might be cynical about the legal system. They might think it's okay to break the rules and might not tell the truth to authorities.

This Study

Researchers wanted to see if there were differences in age, maturity levels, and beliefs about the justice system between teenagers who were truthful about their involvement in a crime and those who lied. We also wanted to see if the type of crime (violent or non-violent) mattered, because teens might be more likely to lie about serious crimes with worse punishments.

Researchers thought that teens who admitted to committing a crime would be younger, less mature, and see the police as more trustworthy because they believe in being honest. Researchers also thought that teens who truthfully said they didn't commit a crime would be more mature and trusting of police. They expected teenagers to feel safe denying involvement, expecting to be treated fairly. They also thought teens who lied about not committing a crime would be more mature and have a less positive view of police because they are trying to avoid getting in trouble. Lastly, we thought teens who lied about committing a crime would be less mature and have a negative view of police.

Method

Participants

The teenagers in our study were 1,216 boys between 13 and 18 years old who were charged with a moderately serious crime for the first time. Most of them (947 teens) answered all the important questions. They were part of a bigger study called the Crossroads Study, which is following teens in Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and California to see how they develop after their first offense. The teenagers in our study were mostly Latino (46%) or Black (38%), with some White teens (14%) and other races (2%). Most of the crimes (84%) were non-violent, like stealing, vandalizing, or having marijuana.

Ethics

Before we started, we got permission from special groups at each university to make sure our study was safe and fair for the teenagers. We also got permission from the teenagers and their parents or guardians. We explained that they could skip any questions they didn't want to answer. We also promised to keep their answers private. To make sure they felt comfortable answering honestly, they could type their answers themselves so that the researcher wouldn't see them.

Measures

Researchers gave the teenagers several tests to measure their intelligence, maturity level, and beliefs about the legal system.

1. Intelligence (IQ): We used parts of a test called the WASI to get an idea of how intelligent the teenagers were.

2. Psychosocial Maturity: We used several questionnaires to see how mature the teens were in terms of self-control, understanding others, and taking responsibility.

3. Legal History: We asked the teens about their experiences with the legal system, including whether they committed the crime and what they told legal authorities.

4. Police Legitimacy: We used a questionnaire to see how much the teens believed that police officers were fair and trustworthy.

5. Legal Cynicism: We used another questionnaire to see if the teens thought it was okay to break the law.

Putting Teens Into Groups

We put the teenagers into four groups based on whether they said they actually committed the crime and whether they told that to the police or judge:

1. True Confessors: Committed the crime and confessed.

2. False Confessors: Didn't commit the crime but confessed.

3. True Deniers: Didn't commit the crime and denied it.

4. False Deniers: Committed the crime but denied it.

Analyzing the Data

We used special statistical methods to see if there were differences between the groups on things like age, IQ, psychosocial maturity, beliefs about the police, and whether their crimes were violent or not.

Results

• Most of the teens (71%) were true confessors, meaning they admitted to doing the crime they were charged with.

• There were fewer false confessors (12%), true deniers (10%), and false deniers (8%).

• False deniers had higher IQ scores than false confessors and true deniers.

• True confessors were older than true deniers, and false deniers were older than true deniers.

• False confessors and true deniers were more mature than true confessors.

• True confessors saw the police as more trustworthy than false confessors and true deniers.

• False confessors were more cynical about the law than true deniers.

• True deniers were more likely to have committed a violent crime than true confessors.

What Does This Mean?

Honest but Immature?

The true confessors (who admitted to the crime) were the least mature group. They might not have understood how admitting to a crime, even if they did it, could get them into serious trouble. It's possible they thought being honest was the best policy, like their parents might have taught them. Because they were more likely to have committed a less serious crime, they might not have realized how important it was to be careful about what they said to the police.

Smart and Lying to Stay Safe?

The false deniers (who lied about committing the crime) were the smartest group. They also trusted the legal system and felt they were treated fairly by the police. It's possible they lied to avoid getting in trouble and because they knew that confessing usually means being found guilty.

Mature and Distrustful

Both the true deniers (who truthfully said they didn't commit the crime) and false confessors (who lied about committing a crime) were more mature than the true confessors. However, they both had less trust in the police.

The true deniers were the youngest group and were more likely to have committed a violent crime. They might have acted confidently and maturely even though they were young, which might have made it hard for them to get along with the police, especially if they already didn't trust them.

The false confessors are a bit of a mystery. We're not sure why they would admit to a crime they didn't do, but it could be that they were trying to protect someone else. Or, maybe they didn't understand what was happening and felt pressured to confess.

What's Next?

Our study showed that we need to think about how mature teenagers are when they're involved in the justice system. Less mature teens might not be able to make good choices when talking to the police and might need extra help, like having a lawyer present.

It's also important to make sure that all teens, but especially those who are less mature, understand their rights and how to interact with the police. New laws in some states are trying to protect teenagers by making it illegal for police to use tricky tactics to get them to confess.

Conclusion

Most teens in the study told the truth to legal authorities, but some did not. It's important for legal authorities to understand that teenagers are still developing and might not always make the best choices when they're in trouble. We need to find better ways to support teens in the justice system and make sure they are treated fairly.

Link to Article