Vividness in Judgements of Guilt
Copyright policy )Vividness in Judgements of Guilt
This study investigated the vividness variable in legal decision-making. It was hypothesised that different verdicts regarding the same legal case can be obtained by simply varying the vividness of phrases, without changing any probative element. 53 participants read Original (26) or Vivid (27) versions of testimonies to a homicide case, then made a decision as to the defendant's guilt. Results support the hypothesis: participants' judgements significantly differ between the two conditions; that is, participants who read the Original version consider the homicide as unintentional while participants who read the Vivid one are not able to choose between intentional or unintentional homicide. Therefore we can infer that vividness influenced the process by which guilt is attributed.
Adult, Male, Judgment, Decision Making, Guilt, Humans, Female, Pilot Projects, Adult; Decision Making; Female; Guilt; Humans; Judgment; Male; Pilot Projects
Adult, Male, Judgment, Decision Making, Guilt, Humans, Female, Pilot Projects, Adult; Decision Making; Female; Guilt; Humans; Judgment; Male; Pilot Projects
selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources.This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).2 popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.Average influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).Average impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.Average
Citations provided by BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!