1. |
- Dahlman, Christian
(författare)
-
Introduction
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Law, Probability and Risk. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1470-8396 .- 1470-840X. ; 18:4, s. 235-235
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
2. |
|
|
3. |
- Zenker, Frank, et al.
(författare)
-
Generalization in Legal Argumentation
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice. - : Informa UK Limited. - 2473-2850 .- 2473-2842. ; 20:1, s. 80-99
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- When interpreting a natural language argument that generalizes over a contextually relevant category, audiences are likely to activate the category prototype and transfer its characteristics onto category instances. A generalized argument can thus appear more (respectively less) persuasive than one mentioning a specific category instance, provided the argument’s claim is more (less) warranted for the prototype than for the instance (positive and negative prototype effect). To investigate this effect in legal contexts using mock-scenarios, professional and lay judges at Swedish courts evaluated the persuasiveness of arguments giving a generalized or a specific description of an eyewitness. The generalized version described the witness either as an alcohol-intoxicated person or as a child, while the specific version varied both the amount of alcohol consumed (two vs. five glasses of wine) and the child’s age (four vs. 12 years). To investigate the effect of legal expertise on argument selection, moreover, law and social science students evaluate the persuasiveness of both argument versions. Though we observed statistically significant prototype effects as well as expertise effects, results were mixed and sometimes ran counter to normative expectation.
|
|
4. |
- Bergius, My, et al.
(författare)
-
Are judges influenced by legally irrelevant circumstances?
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Law, Probability and Risk. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1470-8396 .- 1470-840X. ; 19:2, s. 157-164
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Judges should not be influenced by legally irrelevant circumstances in their legal decision making and judges generally believe that they manage legally irrelevant circumstances well. The purpose of this experimental study was to investigate whether this self-image is correct. Swedish judges (N = 256) read a vignette depicting a case of libel, where a female student had claimed on her blog that she had been sexually harassed by a named male professor. The professor had sued the student for libel and the student retracted her claim during the hearing. Half of the judges received irrelevant information - that the professor himself had been convicted of libel a year earlier, while the other half did not receive this information. For the outcome variable, the judges were asked to state how much compensation the student should pay the professor. Those judges who received information about the professor himself having been convicted of libel stated that he should be given significantly less compensation than those who did not receive the irrelevant information. The results show that the judges’ decision was affected by legally irrelevant circumstances. Implications for research and practice are discussed
|
|
5. |
|
|
6. |
|
|
7. |
|
|
8. |
|
|
9. |
|
|
10. |
|
|