Re-Reading Between the Lines: A Re-Evaluation of the Pragmatic Implications of Minimization Within Police Interrogations

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.