Police interrogations and confessions: Communicating promises and threats by pragmatic implication.

Abstract

The present research examined the possible effects of two methods of police interrogation:maximization, a technique in which the interrogator exaggerates the strength of the evidence and the magnitude of the charges, andminimization, a technique in which the interrogator mitigates the crime and plays down the seriousness of the offense. In Experiments 1 and 2, subjects read interrogation transcripts in which an interrogator used one of five methods to try to elicit a confession: a promise of leniency, threat of punishment, minimization, maximization, or none of the above. As indicated on a subsequent questionnaire, maximization communicated high sentencing expectations as in an explicit threat of punishment, while minimization implied low sentencing expectations as did an explicit offer of leniency. Experiment 3 demonstrated that although mock jurors discounted a confession elicited by a threat of punishment, their conviction rate was significantly increased by confessions that followed from promises or minimization. Taken as a whole, these studies raise serious questions concerning the use of minimization and maximization as methods of interrogation and the confessions they produce as evidence in court.