Layperson perceptions of explicit and implicit witness interviewing tactics were examined. Canadian residents (N = 293) read an interview transcript that contained a tactic (i.e., explicit threat or promise, one of four types of minimization, or no tactic) that aimed to persuade the witness to change his account. Participants were then asked to rate the amount of trouble the witness would be in if he (a) changed his account and (b) retained his original account, as well as their perceptions of the witness, interviewer, and tactic. Results showed that participants who viewed a tactic believed the witness would be in less trouble if he changed his account than if he retained his original account. All leniency-related strategies (i.e., explicit leniency and all minimization tactics) were rated as somewhat acceptable and respectful, frequently used, and legal for police to employ. Implications of these findings for witness interviewing are discussed.
Blandón-GitlinI.SperryK.LeoR. (2011). Jurors believe interrogation tactics are not likely to elicit false confessions: Will expert witness testimony inform them otherwise?Psychology, Crime and Law, 17(3), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160903113699
3.
BrewerN.BurkeA. (2002). Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock-juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 26(3), 353–364. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015380522722
4.
BullR.BakerB. (2019). Obtaining from suspects valid discourse “PEACE”-fully: What role for rapport and empathy? In MasonM.RockF. (Eds.), The discourse of police interviews (pp. 42–64). University of Chicago Press.
CostanzoM.Shaked-SchroerN.VinsonK. (2010). Juror beliefs about police interrogations, false confessions, and expert testimony. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 7(2), 231–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2010.01177.x
7.
CutlerB. L.PenrodS. D.StuveT. E. (1988). Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01064273
8.
DavisD.LoftusE. F. (2017). Internal and external sources of misinformation in adult witness memory. In TogliaM. P.ReadJ. D.RossD. F.LindsayR. C. L. (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology: Vol. I. Memory for events (pp. 195–238). Psychology Press.
9.
de QuervainD. J.RoozendaalB.NitschR. M.McGaughJ. L.HockC. (2000). Acute cortisone administration impairs retrieval of long-term declarative memory in humans. Nature Neuroscience, 3(4), 313–314. https://doi.org/10.1038/73873
10.
EvansJ. R.MeissnerC. A.RossA. B.HoustonK. A.RussanoM. B.HorganA. J. (2013). Obtaining guilty knowledge in human intelligence interrogations: Comparing accusatorial and information-gathering approaches with a novel experimental paradigm. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2(2), 83–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.03.002
11.
FallonL.SnookB. (2020). Beyond common sense and human experience: Lay perceptions of witness coercion. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(2), 208–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819892654
12.
FisherR. P.SchreiberN. (2017). Interview protocols to improve eyewitness memory. In TogliaM. P.ReadJ. D.RossD. F.LindsayR. C. L. (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology: Vol. I. Memory for events (pp. 53–80). Psychology Press.
13.
GassR. H.SeiterJ. S. (2018). Persuasion: Social influence and compliance gaining. Routledge.
14.
GeorgeR.CliffordB. (1992). Making the most of witnesses. Policing, 8(3), 185–198.
15.
GiebelsE.TaylorP. J. (2009). Interaction patterns in crisis negotiations: Persuasive arguments and cultural differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012953
Goodman-DelahuntyJ.MartschukN. (2018). Securing reliable information in investigative interviews: Coercive and noncoercive strategies preceding turning points. Police Practice and Research, 21(2), 152–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2018.1531752
18.
HallV.EastwoodJ.ClowK. A. (2020). An exploration of laypeople’s perceptions of confession evidence and interrogation tactics. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 52(4), 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000178
19.
HarrisR. J.MonacoG. E. (1978). Psychology of pragmatic implication: Information processing between the lines. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 107(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.107.1.1
20.
HickmanT. A.PoitrasL. A.EvansG. T. (1989). Royal commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr., Prosecution (N.S.). The Commission.
21.
HolmbergU.ChristiansonS. Å. (2002). Murderers’ and sexual offenders’ experiences of police interviews and their inclination to admit or deny crimes. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 20(1–2), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.470
22.
HomantR. J.WitkowskiM. J. (2011). Support for coercive interrogation among college students: Torture and the ticking bomb scenario. Journal of Applied Security Research, 6(2), 135–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361610.2011.552002
23.
HorganA. J.RussanoM. B.MeissnerC. A.EvansJ. R. (2012). Minimization and maximization techniques: Assessing the perceived consequences of confession and confession diagnosticity. Psychology, Crime and Law, 18(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2011.561801
24.
InbauF. E.ReidJ. E.BuckleyJ. P.JayneB. C. (2013). Essentials of the Reid technique: Criminal interrogation and confessions. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
JonesA. M.PenrodS. (2016). Can expert testimony sensitize jurors to coercive interrogation tactics?Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 16(5), 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2016.1232029
27.
JonesA. M.PenrodS. (2018). Research-based instructions induce sensitivity to confession evidence. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 25(2), 257–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2017.1364677
28.
KaplanJ.CutlerB. L.LeachA. M.MarionS.EastwoodJ. (2020). Perceptions of coercion in interrogation: Comparing expert and lay opinions. Psychology, Crime & Law, 26(4), 384–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2019.1669597
29.
KassinS. M.DrizinS. A.GrissoT.GudjonssonG. H.LeoR. A.RedlichA. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: Risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34(1), 3–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6
30.
KassinS. M.McNallK. (1991). Police interrogations and confessions: Communicating promises and threats by pragmatic implication. Law and Human Behavior, 15(3), 233–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01061711
31.
KassinS. M.RedlichA. D.AlcesteF.LukeT. J. (2018). On the general acceptance of confessions research: Opinions of the scientific community. American Psychologist, 73(1), 63–80. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000141
32.
KassinS. M.SukelH. (1997). Coerced confessions and the jury: An experimental test of the “harmless error” rule. Law and Human Behavior, 21(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024814009769
33.
KebbellM.HurrenE. J.MazerolleP. (2006). Sex offenders’ perceptions of how they were interviewed. Canadian Journal of Police & Security Services, 4, 67–75.
34.
KlaverJ. R.LeeZ.RoseV. G. (2008). Effects of personality, interrogation techniques and plausibility in an experimental false confession paradigm. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13(1), 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532507X193051
35.
LamerA. (2006). The Lamer Commission of inquiry pertaining to the cases of: Gregory Parsons, Randy Druken, Ronald Dalton. Office of the Queen’s Printer.
36.
LeoR. A.LiuB. (2009). What do potential jurors know about police interrogation techniques and false confessions?Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 27(3), 381–399. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.872
37.
LoneyD. M.CutlerB. L. (2016). Coercive interrogation of eyewitnesses can produce false accusations. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 31, 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-015-9165-6
38.
LukeT. J.AlcesteF. (2019, July4). The mechanisms of minimization: How interrogation tactics suggest lenient sentencing through pragmatic implication. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/etudk
39.
MeissnerC. A.RedlichA. D.MichaelS. W.EvansJ. R.CamillettiC. R.BhattS.BrandonS. (2014). Accusatorial and information-gathering interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(4), 459–486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-014-9207-6
MilgramS. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. Harper & Row.
42.
MillerW. R.RollnickS. (2012). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change. Guilford Press.
43.
MilneR.BullR. (2003). Interviewing by the police. In CarsonD.BullR. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology in legal contexts (pp. 111–125). Wiley.
44.
MilneR.BullR.KoehnkenG.MemonA. (1995). The cognitive interview and suggestibility. Issues in Criminological & Legal Psychology, 22, 21–27.
45.
MostonS.FisherM. (2007). Perceptions of coercion in the questioning of criminal suspects. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 4(2), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.66
46.
PalanS.SchitterC. (2018). Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.004
47.
PeerE.BrandimarteL.SamatS.AcquistiA. (2017). Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006
48.
R. v. Leslie. (2008). ONCJ666.
49.
R. v. Morgan. (2013). ONSC 6462, [2013] O.J. No. 5827.
50.
R. v. Oickle. (2000). 2 S. C. R. 3.
51.
RedlichA. D.ShteynbergR. V.NiriderL. H. (2019). Pragmatic implication in the interrogation room: A comparison of juveniles and adults. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 16, 555–564. https://doi.org/10.10007/s11292-019-09377-y
52.
RossL. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 173–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60357-3
53.
RossL.WardA. (1996). Naive realism in everyday life: Implications for social conflict and misunderstanding. In ReedE. S.TurielE.BrownT. (Eds.), The Jean Piaget symposium series. Values and knowledge (pp. 103–135). Lawrence Erlbaum.
54.
RussanoM. B.MeissnerC. A.NarchetF. M.KassinS. M. (2005). Investigating true and false confessions within a novel experimental paradigm. Psychological Science, 16(6), 481–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01560.x
55.
SnookB.BrooksD.BullR. (2015). A lesson on interrogations from detainees: Predicting self-reported confessions and cooperation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(12), 1243–1260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854815604179
TrainumJ. L. (2016). How the police generate false confessions: An inside look at the interrogation room. Rowman & Littlefield.
58.
WallaceD. B.KassinS. M. (2012). Harmless error analysis: How do judges respond to confession errors?Law and Human Behavior, 36(2), 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093975
59.
WalshD.BullR. (2010). Interviewing suspects of fraud: An in-depth analysis of interviewing skills. The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 38(1–2), 99–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/009318531003800106
60.
WalshD.BullR. (2012). Examining rapport in investigative interviews with suspects: Does its building and maintenance work?Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 27(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-011-9087-x
61.
WellsG. L.MemonA.PenrodS. D. (2006). Eyewitness evidence: Improving its probative value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(2), 45–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00027.x
