Confirmatory Information Processing in Legal Decision: Effect of Intimate Conviction
A large body of research has focused on legal decision-making in mixed courts of lay and professional judges. However, few studies have been conducted to test the impact on evidence processing of the intimate conviction instruction (ICI), a decision rule based on impression formation used in civil law systems. The influence of the two facets of the ICI (the decision rule and the motivation requirement) on confirmatory information processing (CIP) was studied in a harm-to-person case. Using a methodology combining the simulated juror and CIP paradigms, the decision rule (based on impression vs. rationality) and the motivation requirement (required vs. not required) were manipulated to observe their impact on assimilation and selective exposure biases. Results showed significant interactions of the two facets of the ICI but only on the assimilation bias. These results are discussed in the light of the evidence processes in the context of legal decision-making in criminal courts.
KeywordsCognitive distortions Juror decision making Mock-juries Processing strategy Social cognition
This research was supported by a grant from La Mission de Recherche Droit et Justice (France).
This research was funded by a grant (research agreement no 213.03.20.15) from La Mission de Recherche Droit et Justice (France).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The Center for Research on Cognition and Learning (CeRCA), the laboratory whose Catherine Esnard is membership, has received a grant from La Mission de Recherche Droit et Justice (France).
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Canon LK (1964) Self-confidence and selective exposure to information. Conflict, Decision, and Dissonance 1:83–95Google Scholar
- Chaffee SH, McLeod JM (1973) Individual vs. social predictors of information seeking. J Q 50:237−245Google Scholar
- Farina F, Arce R, Novo M (2003) Anchoring in judicial decision making. Psychology in Spain 7:56–65Google Scholar
- Fischer P, Kastenmüller A, Greitemeyer T, Crelley D, Fischer J, Frey D (2011) Threat and selective exposure: The moderating role of threat and decision context on confirmatory information search after decisions. J Exp Psychol Gen 140:51–62Google Scholar
- Frey D (1986) Recent research on selective exposure. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 19:41–80Google Scholar
- Rassin E (2010) Blindness to alternative scenarios in evidence evaluation. J Investig Psychol Offender Profiling 7:153–163Google Scholar
- Sandys M, Dillehay C (1995) First-ballot votes, predeliberation dispositions, and final verdicts in jury trials. Law Hum Behav 19(2):175–195Google Scholar