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

• Published in: Psychology, crime & law Vol. 24; no. 2; pp. 134 - 155
• Main Authors: Oostinga, Miriam S.D., Giebels, Ellen, Taylor, Paul J.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Abingdon Routledge 07.02.2018; Taylor & Francis Ltd
• Subjects: Communication; Communication errors; Crisis intervention; crisis negotiation; Errors; Fraud; Hostility; information sharing; Interviews; Law enforcement; Money; Negotiation; Police; response strategies; suspect interview; Trust; Utterances
• ISSN: 1068-316X; 1477-2744
• DOI: 10.1080/1068316X.2017.1390112

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 (N study1  = 188) or by a police negotiator after they had stolen money and barricaded themselves (N study2  = 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.