We examined whether interrogation tactics that imply leniency (i.e., minimization) or exaggerate seriousness and incriminating evidence (i.e., maximization) have downstream consequences on innocent and guilty defendants' plea decisions. We predicted that (a) participants interrogated using minimization and maximization tactics would plead guilty more often than would those interrogated using control tactics; (b) guilty participants would plead guilty more often than would innocent participants; (c) the effect of interrogation tactics on plea decisions would be driven by perceived trial prospects; and (d) the effect of guilt on plea decisions would be driven by anxiety. Participants (N = 262) took part in a plea decision-making task in which they were either innocent or guilty of cheating and interrogated using control, minimization, or maximization tactics. They were then told they could contest the accusation in front of a board (proxy for trial) or admit to it for a reduced punishment (proxy for plea). They decided how to plead, evaluated the likelihood they would have been convicted by the board, and estimated the likely punishment they would have received if convicted by the board. They also rated their state anxiety. As predicted, guilty participants pleaded guilty more often than did innocent participants (OR = 7.99). However, interrogation tactics differentially affected innocent and guilty participants. Compared to control tactics, minimization significantly reduced guilty pleas among innocent participants (p = .02, Cohen's h = 0.49) but not among guilty participants (p = .70, h = 0.09). In contrast, maximization significantly reduced guilty pleas among innocent participants (p = .04, h = 0.44) but significantly increased guilty pleas among guilty participants (p = .047, h = 0.41). Interrogation tactics can have consequences outside of the interrogation context by affecting innocent and guilty defendants' later plea decisions. Such findings raise questions about the continued use of these tactics in real-world interrogations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Melanie B. Fessinger
Jacqueline Katzman
Melanie Close
Law and Human Behavior
Arizona State University
City University of New York
The Graduate Center, CUNY
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Fessinger et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/68ea72339f1bd4df558cec84 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000635
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: