Department of Psychology.
Law Hum Behav. 2020 Aug;44(4):266-285. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000410. Epub 2020 Jun 25.
Minimization is a legal interrogation tactic in which an interrogator attempts to decrease a suspect's resistance to confessing by, for example, downplaying the seriousness of the crime. These studies examined the extent to which minimization pragmatically implies that a suspect will receive a more lenient sentence in exchange for a confession. Generally, we predicted that participants who read an interrogation with a minimization theme or a direct promise of leniency would mistakenly expect more lenient sentences compared with a control condition if the suspect confessed to the crime. Hypotheses were preregistered prior to conducting each experiment. In 6 experiments (s = 413, 574, 496, 552, 489, 839), MTurkers read an interrogation transcript in which the suspect was (a) promised leniency, (b) subjected to minimization, or (c) questioned about the evidence (control). We tested whether warnings about direct promises and minimization induced people to adjust their expectations of sentence severity and also whether a warning could help people better calibrate their sentencing expectations. Moral minimization techniques decreased sentencing expectations after a confession ( = 0.34), by influencing the perceived severity of the crime ( = 0.40). Honesty themes, similar to illegal direct promises, led participants to infer that leniency would be forthcoming in exchange for a confession ( = 0.60). Warnings about leniency repaired sentencing expectations when participants read an interrogation with a direct promise, but were ineffective when an interrogator used minimization. Contrary to the beliefs of American courts, which have allowed minimization but not direct promises to be used in interrogations, minimization does indeed impact sentencing expectations. There may be cause to review the legality of such tactics. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
最小化是一种法律审讯策略，审讯员通过例如淡化犯罪的严重性来试图减少嫌疑人的抗拒供认的程度。这些研究考察了最小化策略在多大程度上暗示嫌疑人会因认罪而获得更宽松的判决。通常，我们预测，如果嫌疑人对犯罪供认不讳，与控制条件相比，阅读带有最小化主题或直接宽大承诺的审讯的参与者会错误地期望更宽松的判决。假设在进行每项实验之前都已预先注册。在 6 项实验中（s = 413、574、496、552、489、839），MTurkers 阅读了一份审讯记录，其中嫌疑人（a）被承诺宽大处理，（b）受到最小化处理，或（c）被问及证据（对照）。我们测试了关于直接承诺和最小化的警告是否会促使人们调整对判决严厉程度的期望，以及警告是否可以帮助人们更好地校准自己的判决期望。道德最小化技术在认罪后降低了判决期望（ = 0.34），通过影响对犯罪严重程度的感知（ = 0.40）。与非法直接承诺类似的诚实主题导致参与者推断，认罪后会有宽大处理（ = 0.60）。当参与者阅读带有直接承诺的审讯时，关于宽大处理的警告可以修复判决期望，但当审讯员使用最小化时，警告则无效。与允许在审讯中使用最小化但不允许直接承诺的美国法院的信念相反，最小化确实会影响判决期望。可能有理由审查这些策略的合法性。（PsycInfo 数据库记录（c）2020 APA，保留所有权利）。
