Horselenberg et al. (2003) conducted an experiment based on kassin and kieche (1996) in which the participant was falsely accused of striking a computer key that caused the data to be deleted. the earlier study showed that 69 percent of the participants were willing to sign a confession that they had struck the key. horselenbergs study included a change in procedure where the signed confession included giving up part of the participation fee. horselenberg et al. conducted their study in the netherlands and found similar results to kassins. that this finding was observed in multiple contexts supports which validity?

The conducted experiment of Horselenberg et al. (2003) is a replication of the Kassin and Kiechel (1996) findings. They used the classic computer crash paradigm wherein they falsely accused the participants of touching the forbidden keys and used a pseudo-eyewitness who insisted they saw the participants touched the forbidden keys.  With all the variables they explored: individual difference in compliance, suggestibility, fantasy proneness, dissociation, and cognitive failures; their findings suggest that only fantasy proneness has a relationship with false confessions. The result of this experiment shows that false confessions really occur; and that it is easy to make the participants confess because of the pseudo-eyewitness as evidence that made them internalize they really had touched the forbidden keys that resulted to the computer crash.