PRAGMATIC IMPLICATION 1 The mechanisms of minimization: How interrogation tactics suggest lenient sentencing through pragmatic implication Timothy J. Luke Fabiana Alceste This manuscript has been accepted by Law and Human Behavior. The text of this preprint may differ from the version of record. 2020-05-20 Author Note Timothy J. Luke, Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg. Fabiana Alceste, Department of Psychology, Butler University. These studies were registered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/c3hux/). A preprint is available at https://psyarxiv.com/etudk/ Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Timothy J. Luke, Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, Box 500, 405 30 Göteborg. Email:
[email protected]. PRAGMATIC IMPLICATION 2 Abstract Objective: Minimization is a legal interrogation tactic in which an interrogator attempts to decrease a suspect's resistance to confessing by, for example, downplaying the seriousness of the crime. These studies examined the extent to which minimization pragmatically implies that a suspect will receive a more lenient sentence in exchange for a confession. Hypotheses: Generally, we predicted that participants who read an interrogation with a minimization theme or a direct promise of leniency would mistakenly expect more lenient sentences compared to a control condition if the suspect confessed to the crime. Hypotheses were preregistered prior to conducting each experiment. Method: In six experiments (Ns=413, 574, 496, 552, 489, 839), MTurkers read an interrogation transcript in which the suspect was (1) promised leniency, (2) subjected to minimization, or (3) questioned about the evidence (control). We tested whether warnings about direct promises and minimization induced people to adjust their expectations of sentence severity and also whether a warning could help people better calibrate their sentencing expectations.