Contrasting guilty minds: Exposure to contrast concepts narrows conceptions of acting knowingly and recklessly.

IF 2.1 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
Christian Mott, Larisa Heiphetz Solomon
{"title":"Contrasting guilty minds: Exposure to contrast concepts narrows conceptions of acting knowingly and recklessly.","authors":"Christian Mott, Larisa Heiphetz Solomon","doi":"10.1037/xap0000547","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When one person harms another, the way lay jurors describe the perpetrator's mental state-whether they acted \"knowingly\" or \"recklessly\"-can significantly affect their culpability under U.S. criminal law. Five studies conducted in Fall 2017 show that the meanings of these crucial legal terms can shift depending on whether the jury instructions mention an alternative mental state. In Studies 1-3, lay participants, acting as mock jurors, were less likely to say an agent caused a harm \"knowingly\" when they could instead describe the person as acting \"recklessly\"-a less severe but still culpable state of mind. This pattern emerged whether or not participants received legal definitions of these terms. In Study 4, mock jurors were less likely to say an agent acted \"knowingly\" when \"recklessly\" appeared in the jury instructions as a contrast, even when they did not have any way to attribute the contrast term to the agent. In Study 5, mock jurors were also less likely to say an agent acted \"recklessly\" when the possibility of acting \"negligently\" appeared in the jury instructions. These studies provide evidence that \"knowingly\" and \"recklessly\" are <i>contrast sensitive</i>-that is, their meanings can shift based on what contrast concept is salient. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48003,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Applied","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000547","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When one person harms another, the way lay jurors describe the perpetrator's mental state-whether they acted "knowingly" or "recklessly"-can significantly affect their culpability under U.S. criminal law. Five studies conducted in Fall 2017 show that the meanings of these crucial legal terms can shift depending on whether the jury instructions mention an alternative mental state. In Studies 1-3, lay participants, acting as mock jurors, were less likely to say an agent caused a harm "knowingly" when they could instead describe the person as acting "recklessly"-a less severe but still culpable state of mind. This pattern emerged whether or not participants received legal definitions of these terms. In Study 4, mock jurors were less likely to say an agent acted "knowingly" when "recklessly" appeared in the jury instructions as a contrast, even when they did not have any way to attribute the contrast term to the agent. In Study 5, mock jurors were also less likely to say an agent acted "recklessly" when the possibility of acting "negligently" appeared in the jury instructions. These studies provide evidence that "knowingly" and "recklessly" are contrast sensitive-that is, their meanings can shift based on what contrast concept is salient. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

对比有罪的心理:暴露于对比的概念会缩小故意和鲁莽行为的概念。
当一个人伤害了另一个人时,外行陪审员描述肇事者精神状态的方式——他们的行为是“故意的”还是“鲁莽的”——可以显著影响他们在美国刑法下的罪责。2017年秋季进行的五项研究表明,这些关键法律术语的含义可能会随着陪审团指示是否提到另一种精神状态而发生变化。在研究1-3中,外行参与者扮演模拟陪审员的角色,他们不太可能说一个行为人“故意”造成了伤害,而他们可以把这个人描述为“鲁莽”——一种不那么严重但仍然有罪的心理状态。无论参与者是否得到这些术语的法律定义,这种模式都会出现。在研究4中,当陪审团指示中出现“鲁莽”作为对照时,模拟陪审员不太可能说代理人“故意”行事,即使他们没有任何方法将对比术语归因于代理人。在研究5中,当陪审团指示中出现“疏忽”行为的可能性时,模拟陪审员也不太可能说代理人“鲁莽”行事。这些研究提供了证据,证明“明知”和“鲁莽”是对比敏感的——也就是说,它们的含义可以根据对比概念的显著性而变化。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.80%
发文量
110
期刊介绍: The mission of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied® is to publish original empirical investigations in experimental psychology that bridge practically oriented problems and psychological theory. The journal also publishes research aimed at developing and testing of models of cognitive processing or behavior in applied situations, including laboratory and field settings. Occasionally, review articles are considered for publication if they contribute significantly to important topics within applied experimental psychology. Areas of interest include applications of perception, attention, memory, decision making, reasoning, information processing, problem solving, learning, and skill acquisition.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信