Communication Error Management in Law Enforcement Interactions: a receiver's perspective

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)
80 Downloads (Pure)

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)134-155
Number of pages22
JournalPsychology, crime & law
Volume24
Issue number2
Early online date16 Oct 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 7 Feb 2018

Fingerprint

Law Enforcement
Police
law enforcement
Hostility
recipient
Communication
Negotiating
communication
interaction
management
Interviews
Fraud
Students
fraud
interview
police
money
experiment

Cite this

@article{c0df5140347b46f1b36bb6f2ce1af2cb,
title = "Communication Error Management in Law Enforcement Interactions: a receiver's perspective",
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.",
author = "Miriam Oostinga and Ellen Giebels and Taylor, {Paul Jonathon}",
year = "2018",
month = "2",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1080/1068316X.2017.1390112",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "134--155",
journal = "Psychology, crime & law",
issn = "1068-316X",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "2",

}

Communication Error Management in Law Enforcement Interactions : a receiver's perspective. / Oostinga, Miriam (Corresponding Author); Giebels, Ellen; Taylor, Paul Jonathon.

In: Psychology, crime & law, Vol. 24, No. 2, 07.02.2018, p. 134-155.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Communication Error Management in Law Enforcement Interactions

T2 - a receiver's perspective

AU - Oostinga, Miriam

AU - Giebels, Ellen

AU - Taylor, Paul Jonathon

PY - 2018/2/7

Y1 - 2018/2/7

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

U2 - 10.1080/1068316X.2017.1390112

DO - 10.1080/1068316X.2017.1390112

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 134

EP - 155

JO - Psychology, crime & law

JF - Psychology, crime & law

SN - 1068-316X

IS - 2

ER -