Beyond Common Sense and Human Experience: Lay Perceptions of Witness Coercion

Abstract

Perceptions of the use of coercive tactics in witness interviews were examined. Canadian community members ( N = 293) were asked to read a transcript of a witness interview that included either (a) threats/overt coercion, (b) minimization/covert coercion, or (c) no coercion, and answer questions about the interview. Participants rated the threat transcript as being the most coercive, containing the most pressure, involving the most serious consequences for withholding information, and eliciting the most negative feelings from witnesses. Conversely, the minimization transcript tended to be rated less negatively than the threat transcript and was also rated as being the most effective for gathering information. Results indicate that laypeople recognize the issues with explicitly coercive police tactics, but are less clear on the problems with subtler forms of coercion. The implications for the truth-seeking function of the justice system and the role of expert testimony in the courtroom are discussed.