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 with a control condition if the suspect confessed to the crime. Hypotheses were preregistered prior to conducting each experiment. Method: In 6 experiments (Ns = 413, 574, 496, 552, 489, 839), MTurkers read an interrogation transcript in which the suspect was (a) promised leniency, (b) subjected to minimization, or (c) 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. Results: Moral minimization techniques decreased sentencing expectations after a confession (d = 0.34), by influencing the perceived severity of the crime (d = 0.40). Honesty themes, similar to illegal direct promises, led participants to infer that leniency would be forthcoming in exchange for a confession (d = 0.60). Warnings about leniency repaired sentencing expectations when participants read an interrogation with a direct promise, but were ineffective when an interrogator used minimization. Conclusions: 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).

中文翻译：

---

最小化的机制：审讯策略如何通过务实的暗示暗示宽大的量刑。

目标：最小化是一种法律讯问策略，在这种策略中，讯问者试图通过例如轻视犯罪的严重性来降低嫌疑人对认罪的抵抗力。这些研究考察了最小化程度在实用上暗示嫌疑人将获得较宽大的刑罚以换取供认的程度。假设：通常，我们预测，如果犯罪嫌疑人认罪，阅读带有最小化主题或直接宽恕的讯问的参与者会误认为与控制条件相比，判处更宽大的刑罚。在进行每个实验之前，先对假设进行预注册。方法：在6个实验中（Ns = 413、574、496、552、489、839），MTurkers阅读了一个讯问笔录，其中犯罪嫌疑人（a）承诺宽大处理，（b）受到最小化限制，或（c）对证据（对照）提出质疑。我们测试了有关直接承诺和最小化的警告是否使人们调整了对句子严重性的期望，以及警告是否可以帮助人们更好地校准量刑期望。结果：通过影响认罪的严重程度（d = 0.40），道德最小化技术降低了认罪后的量刑期望（d = 0.34）。类似于非法直接承诺的诚实主题，导致参与者推断宽大处理将换来认罪（d = 0.60）。当参与者阅读带有直接承诺的审讯时，有关宽大处理的警告会修复量刑预期，但是当审讯人使用最小化时，警告无效。结论：与美国法院允许最小化但不能直接在讯问中使用诺言的信念相反，最小化的确确实影响了量刑预期。可能有必要审查此类策略的合法性。（PsycInfo数据库记录（c）2020 APA，保留所有权利）。