Adverse inferences: The impact of suspect silence on lay perceptions

We conducted three studies that examined how preinterrogation rights decisions could impact lay people's perceptions of suspects.

Grounded in the literature on attribution errors and biases, we proposed that suspects who remained silent would be viewed and treated more negatively, generally, and especially when formal invocations were offered, compared to suspects who waived their rights.

Participants in Studies 1 and 2 acted as the lead detective in the investigation of an online murder simulation. Participants were randomly assigned to a 2 (informal silence: waived vs. exercised) × 2 (formal silence: waived vs. exercised) between-subjects design. Study 3 used an online vignette (adopted from previous research) where participants were randomly assigned to one of three levels in a between-subjects design: informed that the defendant had either waived or exercised their preinterrogation rights or were not informed of the defendant's decision. In all three studies, participants then judged the suspect's guilt and the interrogation procedures.

Overall, we found that suspects who remained silent were viewed and treated more negatively than those who waived their rights. Exploratory mediation analyses across all three studies suggest that the formal decision to remain silent negatively impacted perceptions of the suspect, which, in turn, increased guilt judgments.

The results of the present studies suggest that preinterrogation decisions negatively impact judgments of guilt-not based on relevant legal factors, but assumptions arising from suspects' behavior. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).