A double standard in evaluating implicit threats

The perceived acceptability of implicit threats, as a function of messenger type, was examined. Across two experiments, participants (79 undergraduates and 160 community members) read a news article about how a police officer or gang member used an implicit threat to obtain an admission of wrongdoing from a store owner. Participants then provided their opinions about the implied messages, the messenger, and the admissibility of the confession evidence, and were asked to render a verdict. Results showed that the implied threats were viewed more negatively when uttered by a gang member. Ratings of admissibility of the confession evidence were high in both groups and varied little between the groups. Our findings are indicative of a double standard in the justice system whereby the same implicit message is viewed differently depending on who utters the message. The potential implications of these findings on legal decision-making and future research are discussed.