> Detailanzeige

Fischer, Andreas; Oswald, Margit E.; Seiler, Stefan

Terrorists Among Us : Effects of a Suspect’s Group Membership, Terrorist Past, and Knowledge on Lay Persons’ Interrogation Severity Recommendations : Effects of a Suspect’s Group Membership, Terrorist Past, and Knowledge on Lay Persons’ Interrogation Severity Recommendations

Literatur-
verwaltung

Zur
Merkliste

Lösche von
Merkliste

Per Whatsapp teilen

Schließen

Merkliste



Sie können Bookmarks mittels Listen verwalten, loggen Sie sich dafür bitte in Ihr SLUB Benutzerkonto ein.
  • Medientyp: E-Artikel
  • Titel: Terrorists Among Us : Effects of a Suspect’s Group Membership, Terrorist Past, and Knowledge on Lay Persons’ Interrogation Severity Recommendations : Effects of a Suspect’s Group Membership, Terrorist Past, and Knowledge on Lay Persons’ Interrogation Severity Recommendations
  • Beteiligte: Fischer, Andreas; Oswald, Margit E.; Seiler, Stefan
  • Erschienen: Hogrefe Publishing Group, 2013
  • Erschienen in: Swiss Journal of Psychology
  • Sprache: Englisch
  • DOI: 10.1024/1421-0185/a000094
  • ISSN: 1421-0185; 1662-0879
  • Schlagwörter: General Psychology
  • Entstehung:
  • Anmerkungen:
  • Beschreibung: <jats:p> Support among US citizens for severe interrogation has been recognized as drawing upon utilitarian as well as on retributive motivation ( Carlsmith &amp; Sood, 2009 ). Two studies were conducted to expand on these findings in a Swiss sample. In Study 1, participants rated the severity of different interrogation techniques, which were scaled to provide an alternative measure of interrogation severity. In Study 2, retributive motivation was manipulated by varying the terrorist past of a male suspect, and utilitarian motivation was manipulated by varying the probability that the suspect could provide valuable information. Additionally, we manipulated the suspect’s group membership. The results of the vignette study suggest that the number and severity of recommended interrogation techniques is mainly influenced by whether the suspect might provide valuable information. Whether the suspect had a terrorist past was an additional influence that, however, was primarily attributable to the suspect’s group membership: If the suspect belonged to the ingroup, participants’ harsher interrogation recommendations were affected by that person’s past, whereas recommendations were not significantly influenced by a terrorist past if the suspect was an outgroup member. </jats:p>