{"id":{"repo_id":"uoit","oai_identifier":"oai:ontariotechu.scholaris.ca:10155/1967"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uoit/oai:ontariotechu.scholaris.ca:10155/1967","repository":{"repo_id":"uoit","name":"Ontario Institute of Technology","base_url":"https://ontariotechu.scholaris.ca/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Re-reading between the lines: a re-evaluation of the pragmatic implications of minimization within police interrogations","abstract":"Past research has suggested that minimization (i.e., downplaying the moral or psychological seriousness of the crime) pragmatically implies that a suspect will receive a more lenient sentence in exchange for information and this is not mitigated by a leniency warning. Across four studies (Ns = 187, 124, 236, 241), participants read a case overview involving a break and enter, a suspect-interview transcript and then answered questions regarding various perceptions of the interview and potential subsequent judicial process. We manipulated (1) the perspective taken by participants in the follow-up questions (Self v. Other) and (2) the language and placement of the leniency warning. Results indicated that minimization only implies leniency when an imagine-other perspective is used; however, this effect can be successfully negated if a leniency warning is provided directly to the suspect. We also conducted a fifth study as a first step to begin assessing the pragmatic implications of minimization within in-person interviews. Participants (N = 49) either carried out a mock-crime or they did not (Guilty v. Innocent). Next they underwent an interview in which minimization was either applied or it was not (Minimization: Present v. Absent), and a leniency warning was provided or it was not (Warning: Present v. Absent). Results indicated that guilt significantly influenced perceptions regarding sentencing expectations if they confessed, but Minimization and a Warning did not. The implications of our findings in regards to the impact of minimization within police interviews are discussed.","abstract_html":"Past research has suggested that minimization (i.e., downplaying the moral or psychological seriousness of the crime) pragmatically implies that a suspect will receive a more lenient sentence in exchange for information and this is not mitigated by a leniency warning. Across four studies (Ns = 187, 124, 236, 241), participants read a case overview involving a break and enter, a suspect-interview transcript and then answered questions regarding various perceptions of the interview and potential subsequent judicial process. We manipulated (1) the perspective taken by participants in the follow-up questions (Self v. Other) and (2) the language and placement of the leniency warning. Results indicated that minimization only implies leniency when an imagine-other perspective is used; however, this effect can be successfully negated if a leniency warning is provided directly to the suspect. We also conducted a fifth study as a first step to begin assessing the pragmatic implications of minimization within in-person interviews. Participants (N = 49) either carried out a mock-crime or they did not (Guilty v. Innocent). Next they underwent an interview in which minimization was either applied or it was not (Minimization: Present v. Absent), and a leniency warning was provided or it was not (Warning: Present v. Absent). Results indicated that guilt significantly influenced perceptions regarding sentencing expectations if they confessed, but Minimization and a Warning did not. The implications of our findings in regards to the impact of minimization within police interviews are discussed.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Crough, Quintan"],"institution":"University of Ontario Institute of Technology","degree_name":"Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)","degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":"Forensic Psychology","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Eastwood, Joseph"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2025,"date_issued":"2025-07-01","date_published":"2025-07-01","updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:35:20Z","subjects":[],"languages":["en"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://hdl.handle.net/10155/1967","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Eastwood, Joseph"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Crough, Quintan"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2025-07-22T15:17:51Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2025-07-22T15:17:51Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2025-07-01"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Forensic Psychology"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Ontario Institute of Technology"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://hdl.handle.net/10155/1967"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Past research has suggested that minimization (i.e., downplaying the moral or psychological seriousness of the crime) pragmatically implies that a suspect will receive a more lenient sentence in exchange for information and this is not mitigated by a leniency warning. Across four studies (Ns = 187, 124, 236, 241), participants read a case overview involving a break and enter, a suspect-interview transcript and then answered questions regarding various perceptions of the interview and potential subsequent judicial process. We manipulated (1) the perspective taken by participants in the follow-up questions (Self v. Other) and (2) the language and placement of the leniency warning. Results indicated that minimization only implies leniency when an imagine-other perspective is used; however, this effect can be successfully negated if a leniency warning is provided directly to the suspect. We also conducted a fifth study as a first step to begin assessing the pragmatic implications of minimization within in-person interviews. Participants (N = 49) either carried out a mock-crime or they did not (Guilty v. Innocent). Next they underwent an interview in which minimization was either applied or it was not (Minimization: Present v. Absent), and a leniency warning was provided or it was not (Warning: Present v. Absent). Results indicated that guilt significantly influenced perceptions regarding sentencing expectations if they confessed, but Minimization and a Warning did not. The implications of our findings in regards to the impact of minimization within police interviews are discussed."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Re-reading between the lines: a re-evaluation of the pragmatic implications of minimization within police interrogations"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Eastwood, Joseph"],"dc:creator":["Crough, Quintan"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2025-07-22T15:17:51Z"],"dc:date.available":["2025-07-22T15:17:51Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2025-07-01"],"dc:description.abstract":["Past research has suggested that minimization (i.e., downplaying the moral or psychological seriousness of the crime) pragmatically implies that a suspect will receive a more lenient sentence in exchange for information and this is not mitigated by a leniency warning. Across four studies (Ns = 187, 124, 236, 241), participants read a case overview involving a break and enter, a suspect-interview transcript and then answered questions regarding various perceptions of the interview and potential subsequent judicial process. We manipulated (1) the perspective taken by participants in the follow-up questions (Self v. Other) and (2) the language and placement of the leniency warning. Results indicated that minimization only implies leniency when an imagine-other perspective is used; however, this effect can be successfully negated if a leniency warning is provided directly to the suspect. We also conducted a fifth study as a first step to begin assessing the pragmatic implications of minimization within in-person interviews. Participants (N = 49) either carried out a mock-crime or they did not (Guilty v. Innocent). Next they underwent an interview in which minimization was either applied or it was not (Minimization: Present v. Absent), and a leniency warning was provided or it was not (Warning: Present v. Absent). Results indicated that guilt significantly influenced perceptions regarding sentencing expectations if they confessed, but Minimization and a Warning did not. The implications of our findings in regards to the impact of minimization within police interviews are discussed."],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://hdl.handle.net/10155/1967"],"dc:language.iso":["en"],"dc:title":["Re-reading between the lines: a re-evaluation of the pragmatic implications of minimization within police interrogations"],"dc:type":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Forensic Psychology"],"thesis:degree_name":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Ontario Institute of Technology"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:35:20Z"}