Re‐Reading Between the Lines: A Re‐Evaluation of the Pragmatic Implications of Minimization Within Police Interrogations.
Saved in:
| Title: | Re‐Reading Between the Lines: A Re‐Evaluation of the Pragmatic Implications of Minimization Within Police Interrogations. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Crough, Quintan (AUTHOR), Eastwood, Joseph (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Applied Cognitive Psychology. May/Apr2025, Vol. 39 Issue 3, p1-15. 15p. |
| Subjects: | Police questioning, Leniency (Law), Burglary, Perspective taking, Judicial process |
| Abstract: | Past research has suggested that minimization (i.e., downplaying the moral or psychological seriousness of the crime) pragmatically implies that a suspect will receive a more lenient sentence in exchange for information, and this cannot be mitigated by a leniency warning. Across four studies (Ns = 187, 124, 236, and 241), participants read a case overview involving a break and enter, a suspect‐interview transcript, and then answered questions regarding various perceptions of the interview and potential subsequent judicial process. We manipulated (1) the perspective taken by participants in the follow‐up questions (Self v. Other) and (2) the language and placement of the leniency warning. We then conducted a mini meta‐analysis that incorporated findings from all four studies. Results indicated that minimization only implies leniency when an imagine‐other perspective is used; however, this effect can be successfully negated if a leniency warning is provided directly to the suspect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Applied Cognitive Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Past research has suggested that minimization (i.e., downplaying the moral or psychological seriousness of the crime) pragmatically implies that a suspect will receive a more lenient sentence in exchange for information, and this cannot be mitigated by a leniency warning. Across four studies (Ns = 187, 124, 236, and 241), participants read a case overview involving a break and enter, a suspect‐interview transcript, and then answered questions regarding various perceptions of the interview and potential subsequent judicial process. We manipulated (1) the perspective taken by participants in the follow‐up questions (Self v. Other) and (2) the language and placement of the leniency warning. We then conducted a mini meta‐analysis that incorporated findings from all four studies. Results indicated that minimization only implies leniency when an imagine‐other perspective is used; however, this effect can be successfully negated if a leniency warning is provided directly to the suspect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 08884080 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/acp.70072 |
