What do you expect?: The influence of people's prior knowledge of crime categories on fact-finding.

Vicki L. Smith · Christina A. Studebaker

76 citations0/0 files storedLaw and Human Behavior

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Jury Decision Making Processes Memory Processes and Influences Deception detection and forensic psychology

Abstract

Jurors have accumulated prior knowledge of crime categories that influences their verdict choices (V. L. Smith, 1991, 1993). The present research investigates whether this prior knowledge also influences the fact-finding process by operating as an expectancy for information processing. Consistent with the expectancy hypothesis, Study 1 demonstrated that people are more susceptible to misleading information that is perceived to be typical of the crime in question than misleading information that is atypical. Studies 2 and 3 revealed that people's intrusion errors also contain more typical than atypical information. These results indicate that people's prior knowledge of crime categories does indeed serve as an expectancy for fact-finding. Thus, prior knowledge plays a broader role than previously appreciated. The implications of this breadth are discussed.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 76 citations exist upstream.

References

1986Judging the jury 1991Prototypes in the courtroom: Lay representations of legal concepts.1986Judging the Jury 1993When prior knowledge and law collide: Helping jurors use the law.

Cited by

2000Psychology and Law: Truthfulness, Accuracy and Credibility 2000Commonsense justice and jury instructions: Instructive and reciprocating connections.2000Legal blame: how jurors think and talk about accidents 2010Getting to (not) guilty: examining jurors' deliberative processes in, and beyond, the context of a mock rape trial 2003Sexual harassment stories: Testing a story-mediated model of juror decision-making in civil litigation.2016Redefining Trial by Media 2005An affair to remember: The role of sexual scripts in perceptions of sexual intent 2011Identifying and measuring juror pre-trial bias for forensic evidence: development and validation of the Forensic Evidence Evaluation Bias Scale

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.