The mechanisms of minimization: How interrogation tactics suggest lenient sentencing through pragmatic implication.

2020/06/25 by Timothy J. Luke, Fabiana Alceste · 1 citation
Psychology · #Deception detection and forensic psychology #Forgiveness and Related Behaviors

paper · doi:10.1037/lhb0000410

openalex publication_date 2020/06/25 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28

Abstract

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).

Citations

• Police interrogations and confessions: Communicating promises and threats by pragmatic implication.
• The case for motivated reasoning.
• Police interviewing and interrogation: A self-report survey of police practices and beliefs.
• The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.

Cited by

• What Constitutes “Gross” Coercion? Perceived Coercion in Police Interrogations Using a Virtual Reality Paradigm

Related

• Police interrogations and confessions: Communicating promises and threats by pragmatic implication.
• Humane Interrogation Strategies Are Associated With Confessions, Cooperation, and Disclosure: Evidence From a Field Study of Incarcerated Individuals in the United States
• Prosecutorial Discretion and the Imposition of Mandatory Minimum Sentences
• Must Jurors Know the Stakes of Conviction? Sentencing, Encroachment, and Legal Proof
• Crime and Mismeasured Punishment: Marginal Treatment Effect with Misclassification