Are the misinformed more punitive? Beliefs and misconceptions in forensic psychology

Abstract

Misconceptions about psycho-legal issues are widespread and threaten the fabric of our legal system. The present study examines how misconception endorsement is related to tough-on-crime beliefs and sentencing decisions. Two hundred and fifty-six students completed a 50-item questionnaire assessing misconceptions related to forensic psychology and determined sentences in four mock-jury scenarios at the beginning and end of an introductory forensic psychology course. Misconception endorsement decreased significantly from 32% to 21%, with every subscale (police and interrogations, service provision, mental illness, memory and cognition, tough on crime) experiencing a significant decrease from pre-test to post-test. This drop in endorsement is meaningful, as misconceptions and beliefs are typically very difficult to change. Additionally, misconception endorsement was positively correlated with tough-on-crime beliefs and punitive (mock) sentencing. This study provides a valuable resource for endorsement rates of psycho-legal misconceptions and the propensity of individual misconceptions to change. It also makes a strong argument for the usefulness of psychology and law courses in reducing potentially harmful misconceptions and tough-on-crime beliefs.

Cite this work

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

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 18 citations exist upstream.

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