Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Communication error management in law enforceme...

Electronic data

  • Communication_error_management_in_law_enforcement_interactions_Submission2_Final_version

    Rights statement: This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Psychology, Crime and Law on 16/10/2017, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/1068316X.2017.1390112

    Accepted author manuscript, 494 KB, PDF-document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Communication error management in law enforcement interactions: a receiver’s perspective

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal article

Published
Close
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>02/2018
<mark>Journal</mark>Psychology, Crime and Law
Issue number2
Volume24
Number of pages22
Pages (from-to)134-155
StatePublished
Early online date16/10/17
Original languageEnglish

Abstract

Two experiments explore the effect of law enforcement officers’ communication errors and their response strategies on a suspect’s trust in the officer; established rapport and hostility; and, the amount and quality of information shared. Students were questioned online by an exam board member about exam fraud (Nstudy1  = 188) or by a police negotiator after they had stolen money and barricaded themselves (Nstudy2  = 184). Unknown to participants, the online utterances of the law enforcement officer were pre-programmed to randomly assign them to a condition in a 2(Error: factual, judgment) × 3(Response: contradict, apologize, accept) factorial design, or to control where no error was made. Our findings show that making (judgment) errors seem more detrimental for affective trust and rapport in a suspect interview, while no such effects appeared in a crisis negotiation. Notably, we found a positive effect of errors, as more information was being shared. The ultimate effect of the error was dependent on the response: accept was effective in re-establishing rapport and decreasing hostility, while contradict threatens it. Accept seems more effective for the willingness to provide information in a suspect interview, while apologize seems more effective for affective trust and rapport in a crisis negotiation.

Bibliographic note

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Psychology, Crime and Law on 16/10/2017, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/1068316X.2017.1390112