P.L.E.A. LAB
RESEARCH
Selected publications from the P.L.E.A. Lab and its collaborators
THE WRONGFUL CONVICTION LAW REVIEW
Wilford, M. M., Gonzales, J. E., & Khairalla, A. (accepted). When pleas precede evidence: Using Bayesian analyses to establish the importance of a reasonable standard for evidence prior to plea offers.
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL CRIMINOLOGY
DiFava, R. J., Bettens, T., Wilford, M. M., & Redlich, A. D. (in press). Confession evidence results in more true and false guilty pleas than eyewitness evidence. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-023-09577-7
​
PSYCHOLOGY, CRIME AND LAW
Redlich, A. D., Wilford, M. M., DiPano, M.,& Berger, N. (in press). Commonalities in false guilty plea cases. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2023.2213381
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL CRIMINOLOGY
Yan, S., Wilford, M. M., & Ferreira, P. A. (in press). Terms and conditions apply: The effect of probation length and detailed disclosure on true and false guilty pleas. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-022-09543-9
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR
Henderson, K. S., Sutherland, K. T., Wilford, M. M. (2023). “Reject the offer”: The asymmetric impact of defense attorneys’ plea recommendations. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231172515
​
PSYCHOLOGY, CRIME AND LAW
Wilford, M. M., & Bornstein, B. H. (2023). The disappearing trial: How social scientists can help save the jury from extinction. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2021.1984482
​
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY: APPLIED
Wilford, M. M., Zimmerman, D., Yan, S., & Sutherland, K. T. (2021). Innocence in the shadow of COVID-19: Plea decision making during a pandemic. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3724
​
LAW AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR
Wilford, M. M., Sutherland, K. T., Gonzales, J. E., & Rabinovich, M. (2021). Guilt status influences plea outcomes beyond the shadow-of-the-trial in an interactive simulation of legal procedures. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000450
​
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Wilford, M. M., Wells, G. L., & Frazier, A. (2021). Plea-bargaining law: The impact of innocence, trial penalty, and conviction probability on plea outcomes. https://www.doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09564-y
​
LAW AND HUMAN BEHAVIOR
Smith, A. M., Wilford, M. M., Wells, G. L., & Quigley-McBride, A. (2019). Mistaken eyewitness identification rates increase when either witnessing or testing conditions get worse. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000334
​
PSYCHOLOGY, PUBLIC POLICY, AND LAW
Wilford, M. M., & Redlich, A. D. (2018). Deciphering the guilty plea: Where research can inform policy. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000169
PSYCHOLOGY, PUBLIC POLICY AND LAW
Wilford, M. M., & Wells, G. L. (2018). Bluffed by the dealer: Distinguishing false pleas from false confessions. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000165
​
PSYCHOLOGY, CRIME AND LAW
Wilford, M. M., Van Horn, M. C., Penrod, S. D., & Greathouse, S. M. (2018). Not separate but equal? The impact of multiple-defendant trials on juror decision-making. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2017.1351969
​
PSYCHOLOGY, PUBLIC POLICY, AND LAW
Redlich, A. D., Wilford, M. M., & Bushway, S. (2017). Understanding guilty pleas through the lens of social science [Special anniversary issue]. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000142
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY: APPLIED
Wilford, M. M., Chan, J. C. K., & Tuhn, S. J. (2014). Retrieval enhances eyewitness suggestibility to misinformation in free and cued recall. https://www.doi.org/10.1037/xap0000001
​
JOURNAL OF APPLIED RESEARCH IN MEMORY AND COGNITION
Wells, G. L., Wilford, M. M., & Smalarz, L. (2013). Forensic science testing: The forensic filler-control method for controlling contextual bias, estimating error rates, and calibrating analysts' reports. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.004
​
JOURNAL OF MEMORY AND LANGUAGE
Chan, J. C. K., Wilford, M. M., & Hughes, K. L. (2012). Retrieval can increase or decrease suggestibility depending on how memory is tested: The importance of source complexity. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.02.006
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
Wilford, M. M., & Wells, G. L. (2010). Does facial processing prioritize change detection? Change-blindness illustrates costs and benefits of holistic processing. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610385952
Cutting-edge simulation technology
​
The Plea Justice Project provides an interactive simulation of legal procedures, offering an alternative to existing paradigms in legal decision-making research (e.g., vignettes/narratives, high-stakes deception studies; Redlich et al., 2017;
Wilford et al., 2019)
​
This technology allows researchers to design their own customizable computer simulation of a variety of legal proceedings with unique actors and dialogues, used here in ongoing NSF-funded data collection.
Advisory Panels
With funding from the National Science Foundation, Dr. Wilford has convened advisory panels to further the broad objectives of the Plea Justice project. The panels have included renowned experts in the fields of psychology, law, and public policy. Two different panels convened in 2019 and 2022 at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. The final panel will convene in 2024 at Iowa State University. Please find further information regarding each panel below.
The second advisory panel centered around effective methods of recruitment for juvenile participants, and ways of effectively assessing juvenile comprehension of legal procedures. Many thanks to Dr. Tarika Daftary-Kapur, Dr. Rebecca K. Helm, Dr. Lindsay C. Malloy, Dr. Jodi A. Quas, Dr. Allison D. Redlich, Dr. Jennifer Woolard, and Dr. Tina M. Zottoli for their participation.
The first advisory panel was focused on ways of making the Plea Justice simulation attractive to current guilty plea researchers. Many thanks to Atty. Karen Smolar, Dr. Vanessa Edkins, Dr. Erika Fountain, Dr. Annabelle Frazier, Dr. Kelsey Henderson, Dr. Allison D. Redlich, Dr. Tina M. Zottoli and their students for participating.