Pragmatic Implication of Threats and Promises During Police Interviews: Examining the Utility of Expert Witness Testimony on Lay Perceptions of Implicit Psychological Coercion

Abstract

The current study examined the impact of expert witness testimony and different types of interrogation tactics on lay perceptions of psychological coercion. Two experiments explored these perceptions in suspect interviews (Experiment 1) and witness interviews (Experiment 2) using a 2(Expert Witness Testimony: Relevant, Irrelevant) x 3(Type of Tactic: Neutral, Maximization, Minimization) factorial between-subjects design. While expert witness testimony did not yield a significant effect, tactic type significantly affected perceptions of coercion and expected consequences for suspects and witnesses. Across both experiments, maximization was rated as the most coercive and least effective form of interviewing. Conversely, minimization was rated as significantly less coercive than maximization and equally as effective as neutral tactics. Furthermore, maximization pragmatically implied harsh consequences in both suspect and witness interviews, but minimization implied leniency only in witness interviews. Results of this study offer insights into how lay people perceive different forms of psychological coercion across investigatory contexts.