Abstract
Objectives
Pragmatic implication is the phenomenon that individuals process information “between the lines” and hear things that are implied but not asserted. In interrogation settings, whereas explicit statements of leniency are impermissible, implicit statements are allowed. In this study, we compare juveniles’ and adults’ perceptions of interrogator statements of explicit and implicit leniency, in effect examining pragmatic implication.
Methods
Samples of juveniles and young adults were randomly assigned to an explicit leniency, implicit leniency, or no leniency (control) condition. Participants were read a hypothetical interrogation of a suspect and then asked questions about whether the suspect should confess, possible outcomes, and perceptions about fairness, pressure, etc.
Results
Regardless of age, participants were about three times more likely to recommend the suspect confess when leniency was explicitly or implicitly mentioned than when leniency was not introduced. For sentencing expectations, a significant effect of leniency, in the manner predicted, was found for adults but not juveniles. Several differences were also found between juveniles and adults; for example, juveniles perceived the interrogator as significantly fairer than adults in the explicit and implicit leniency conditions, but not in the no leniency condition.
Conclusions
As a first step in examining the influence of pragmatic implication for juveniles in interrogation settings, this study makes an important contribution. The primary limitation is that participants responded to a hypothetical situation, which allowed for experimental manipulation but may not generalize to actual interrogations involving juveniles and adults. More in situ studies of interrogation are encouraged.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We note here that analyses were rerun controlling for race, as well as participant gender, and criminal justice experience. Results remained the same and these factors are not considered further.
References
Brewer, W. F. (1977). Memory for pragmatic implications of sentences. Memory and Cognition, 5, 673–678.
Bruno, K. J. (1980). Discrimination of assertions and implications: a training procedure for adults and adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 850–860.
Chan, J. C., & McDermott, K. B. (2006). Remembering pragmatic inferences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 633–639.
Cleary, H. (2017). Applying the lessons of developmental psychology to the study of juvenile interrogations: new directions for research, policy, and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23, 118–130.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
Drizin, S. A., & Leo, R. A. (2004). The problem of false confessions in the post-DNA world. North Carolina Law Review, 82(3), 891–1007.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G_Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
Feld, B. (2013). Kids, cops, and interrogation: inside the interrogation room. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Harris, R. J., & Monaco, G. E. (1978). Psychology of pragmatic implication: information processing between the lines. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 107, 1–22.
Horgan, A. J., Russano, M. B., Meissner, C. A., & Evans, J. R. (2012). Minimization and maximization techniques: assessing the percevied consequences of confessing and confession diagnosticity. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 65–78.
Inbau, F. E., Reid, J. E., Buckley, J. P., & Jayne, B. C. (2013). Criminal interrogation and confessions (5th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning.
J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S. Ct. 2394 (2011).
Kassin, S. M., & McNall, K. (1991). Police interrogations and confessions: communicating promises and threats by pragmatic impilcation. Law and Human Behavior, 15(3), 223–251.
Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010). APLS-approved white paper, police-induced confessions: risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 3–38.
Kassin, S. M., Redlich, A. D., Alceste, F., & Luke, T. (2018). On the “general acceptance” of confessions research: opinions of the scientific community. American Psychologist, 73, 63–80.
Kelly, C. E., Miller, J. C., Redlich, A. D., & Kleinman, S. M. (2013). A taxonomy of interrogation methods. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 19(2), 165–178.
Leo, R. (2008). Police interrogation and American justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ofshe, R., & Leo, R. (1997). The decision to confess falsely: rational choice and irrational action. Denver University Law Review, 74, 979–1122.
Owens-Kostelnik, J., Reppucci, N. D., & Meyers, J. (2006). Testimony and interrogation of minors: assumptions about maturity and morality. American Psychologist, 61, 286–304.
Redlich, A. D., & Goodman, G. S. (2003). Taking responsibility for an act not committed: the influence of age and suggestibility. Law and Human Behavior, 27, 141–156.
Redlich, A. D., & Shteynberg, R. V. (2016). To plead or not to plead: A comparison of juvenile and adult true and false plea decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 611–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000205.
Reppucci, N. D., Meyer, J., & Kostelnik, J. (2010). Custodial interrogation of juveniles: results of a national survey of police. In G. D. Lassiter & C. A. Meissner (Eds.), Police interrogations and false confessions: current research, practice, and policy recommendations (pp. 67–80). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Searleman, A., & Carter, H. (1988). The effectiveness of different types of pragmatic implications found in commercials to mislead subjects. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2, 265–272.
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank Catherine Walker-Resnick, Alyssa Clark, Chelsea Dubner, Jennifer Rounds-Weintraub, Krista Wallace, and Samantha Luna for their assistance.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclaimer
The data presented here were collected as part of a larger study on juvenile and adult plea decisions (Redlich and Shteynberg 2016). Study topics and hypotheses did not overlap, and an entirely separate scenario was used, after data collection in the main study was completed. The larger study was supported by National Science Foundation Award 1025925. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 12 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Redlich, A.D., Shteynberg, R.V. & Nirider, L.H. Pragmatic implication in the interrogation room: a comparison of juveniles and adults. J Exp Criminol 16, 555–564 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09377-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09377-y