Abstract
Jurors are supposed to rely on the judge's instructions for verdict selection. However, recent research indicates that people have constructed naive representations of crimes that conflict with the judge's instructions and that influence decision making. The present research explored potential solutions to this conflict. Two experiments revealed that the problem cannot be circumvented by avoiding people's prior knowledge; subjects activated and used their prior knowledge of crimes even when the crime name was withheld. Experiment 3 demonstrated that a supplementary instruction to disregard prior knowledge was also ineffective. Experiment 4 revealed that a supplementary instruction designed to revise subjects' existing representations did improve decision accuracy. These experiments indicate that the conflict between people's prior knowledge and the law cannot easily be avoided or disregarded, but its impact can be reduced by revising people's existing concepts.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
American Bar Association (1968).Project on standards for criminal justice: Standards relating to the administration of criminal justice: Trial by jury (Vol. 12). Chicago: Author.
American Law Institute (1962).Model penal code. Philadelphia: Author.
Black, H. C. (1983).Black's law dictionary. St. Paul, MN: West.
Buchanan, R. W., Pryor, B., Taylor, K. P., & Strawn, D. U. (1978). Legal communication: An investigation of juror comprehension of pattern instructions.Communication Quarterly, 26, 31–35.
California jury instructions, criminal (CALJIC, 3d ed.). (1970). St. Paul, MN: West.
Charrow, R. P., & Charrow, V. (1979). Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions.Columbia Law Review, 79, 1306–1374.
Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. J. (1977). Juridic decisions: In ignorance of the law or in light of it?Law and Human Behavior, 1, 163–189.
Goldberg, J. C. (1981). Memory, magic, and myth: The timing of jury instructions.Oregon Law Review, 59, 451–475.
Hans, V. P., & Vidmar, N. (1986).Judging the jury. New York: Plenum.
Hastie, R. (1982). Final report to the National Institute of Justice: An empirical evaluation of five methods of instructing the jury. Unpublished manuscript, University of Colorado, Boulder.
Heuer, L., & Penord, S. D. (1988). Increasing jurors' participation in trials: A field experiment with jury notetaking and question asking.Law and Human Behavior, 12, 231–261.
Heuer, L., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Instructing jurors: A field experiment with written and preliminary instructions.Law and Human Behavior, 13, 409–430.
Illinois pattern jury instructions, criminal (2d ed.). (1981). St. Paul, MN: West.
Kagehiro, D. K., & Stanton, W. C. (1985). Legal vs. quantified definitions of standards of proof.Law and Human Behavior, 9, 159–178.
Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1979). On the requirements of proof: The timing of judicial instruction and mock juror verdicts.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1877–1887.
Kerr, N. L., Atkin, R. S., Stasser, G., Meek, D., Holt, R. W., & Davis, J. H. (1976). Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: Effects of concept definition and assigned decision rule on the judgments of mock jurors.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 282–294.
Loh, W. D. (1984).Social research on the judicial process: Cases, readings, and text. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Prettyman, E. B. (1960). Jury instructions—First or last?American Bar Association Journal, 46, 1066.
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192–233.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories.Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.
Sand, L. B., & Reiss, S. A. (1985). A report on seven experiments conducted by District Court judges in the Second Circuit.New York University Law Review, 60, 423–497.
Severance, L. J., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Improving the ability of jurors to comprehend and apply criminal jury instructions.Law and Society Review, 17, 153–197.
Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981).Categories and concepts. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Smith, V. L. (1991a). Impact of pretrial instruction on jurors' information processing and decision making.Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 220–228.
Smith, V. L. (1991b). Prototypes in the courtroom: Lay representations of legal concepts.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 857–872.
Strawn, D. U., & Buchanan, R. W. (1976). Jury confusion: A threat to justice.Judicature, 59, 478–483.
Sue, S., Smith, R. E., & Caldwell, C. (1973). Effects of inadmissible evidence on the decisions of simulated jurors: A moral dilemma.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 345–353.
Weld, H. P., & Danzig, E. R. (1940). A study of the way in which a verdict is reached by a jury.American Journal of Psychology, 53, 518–536.
Weld, H. P., & Roff, M. (1938). A study in the formation of opinion based upon legal evidence.American Journal of Psychology, 51, 609–628.
Wolf, S., & Montgomery, D. A. (1977). Effects of inadmissible evidence and level of judicial admonishment to disregard on the judgments of mock jurors.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 205–219.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
I would like to thank Norma Fiedotin, Shana Fineburg, and Chinazo Opia, for their help in testing subjects.
About this article
Cite this article
Smith, V.L. When prior knowledge and law collide. Law Hum Behav 17, 507–536 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01045071
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01045071