Research
My research sits at the intersection of social psychology and law. I draw from basic social psychological theories to understand people's experiences in the legal system, specifically when they are making different types of legal decisions (e.g., guilty pleas, Miranda waivers, verdicts) and interacting with different types of legal professionals (e.g., attorneys, judges, police). I use varied methodological approaches to conduct this research, including behavioral lab paradigms, national surveys, longitudinal interviewing, and archival record reviews.
Recent Highlights
An offer you cannot refuse: Plea offer size affects innocent but not guilty defendants’ perceptions of voluntariness
Melanie Fessinger & Margaret Bull Kovera
Law and Human Behavior (2023)
If your defense attorney told you that you are facing the possibility of twenty years of incarceration at trial, would you plead guilty if that meant you only had to face two years? In this study, we explored how different plea offer sizes affected whether defendants felt their plea decisions were voluntary. Read more about the study here!
Melanie Fessinger & Margaret Bull Kovera
Law and Human Behavior (2022)
Judges have to question defendants in court about the voluntariness of their guilty pleas. But might judges be relying on a different definition of voluntary than defendants are? In this study, we explored how different perspectives affected perceptions of how voluntary a guilty plea decision was. Read more about the study here!
Areas of Expertise
Defendants have a right to trial by jury. But data shows that the vast majority of them (95% or more) choose to plead guilty instead of taking their case to the jury. In my research, I explore the reasons why defendants plead guilty especially when they are innocent. Additionally, I explore the factors that affect whether they perceive their guilty pleas as voluntary or coerced by the various actors and influences in the legal system.
​​
​​
​
​
Selected Publications
​Fessinger, M.B., Randolph, I., Frick, P., Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E. (2024). Tell the truth? Identifying common sources and types of advice juvenile defendants receive when pleading guilty to their first offense. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 30(4), 421–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000439
​
Fessinger, M.B., McAuliff, B.D., Aronson, E.,* & McWilliams, K. (2024). Attorneys’ experiences, perceptions, and plea recommendations in child sexual abuse cases. Law and Human Behavior, 48(1), 13–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000551​​
“No practice is more ingrained in our criminal justice system than the practice of the government calling a witness who is an accessory to the crime for which the defendant is charged and having that witness testify under a plea bargain that promises him a reduced sentence" (United States v. Cervantes-Pacheco, 1987, p. 315). Yet, data shows that false testimony from informants is one of the leading causes of wrongful convictions especially in capital cases. In my research, I explore the reasons why jurors are so compelled by this form of testimony and test safeguards against its misuse in courts.
​
Selected Publications​​​
​
Fessinger, M. B., Bornstein, B. H., Neuschatz, J. S., DeLoach, D., Hillgartner, M. A., Wetmore, S. A., & Douglass, A. B. (2020). Informants v. Innocents: Informant testimony and its contribution to wrongful convictions. Capital University Law Review, 48(2), 149–188.
​
Wetmore, S. A., Neuschatz, J. S., Fessinger, M. B., Bornstein, B. H., & Golding, J. M. (2020). Do judicial instructions aid in distinguishing between reliable and unreliable jailhouse informants? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(5), 582–600. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820908628
Some cases rely heavily on evidence provided by child witnesses. In these cases, it is essential to ensure the accuracy of the information that children provide by using scientifically-informed interviewing tactics. I have conducted a number of studies to better understand how child forensic interviewers collect information from children, ranging from topics like pre-interview preparation to question formulation to record-keeping practices.
​​
​​​
​
​
​
Selected Publications
​Fessinger, M. B. & McAuliff, B. D. (2020). A national survey of child forensic interviewers: Implications for research, practice, and law. Law and Human Behavior, 44(2), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000368
​
Fessinger, M. B., McWilliams, K., Bakth, F.,* & Lyon, T. D. (2021). Setting the ground rules: Use and practice of recommended ground rules in child forensic interviews. Child Maltreatment, 26(1), 126–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559520910783​​
Psychological science is experiencing a fundamental paradigm shift toward promoting transparency and accessibility. This shift—known as the movement toward “open science”—is becoming more widespread among the various psychological subdisciplines. I ascribe to the ideals of the open science movement by pre-registering my research plans, openly sharing my materials and data, and making my work open access when possible. My OSF website can be found at: osf.io/3jvgx. Beyond participating in open science practices, I have also written about and empirically examined its adoption in the field of psychology and law.
​
Selected Publications​​​
​
Fessinger, M. B., McAuliff, B. D., & Perillo, A. D. (2025). The state of open science in the field of psychology and law. Law and Human Behavior, 49(1), 54–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000592
​
McAuliff, B. D., Fessinger, M. B., Perillo, A. D., & Perillo, J. T. (2023). Psychology and law, meet open science. In D. DeMatteo & K. C. Scherr (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Psychology and Law. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197649138.013.5