Law and Human Behavior最新文献

{"title":"Bias in the justice and legal systems: Cumulative disadvantage as a framework for understanding.","authors":"Lucy A Guarnera, Jennifer T Perillo, Kyle C Scherr","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000608","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000608","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Bias is a pervasive aspect of human thought and behavior that influences how we perceive, interpret, and respond to the world around us. Although built on assumptions of fairness and equality, the justice and legal systems are not exempt from individual and structural biases, which contribute to differential outcomes and disproportionately affect individuals who are marginalized based on race, gender, socioeconomic status, education, and other factors. The special issue showcases innovative science and clinical perspectives on bias in the justice and legal systems, including its underlying mechanisms, consequences, and potential interventions. We offer a framework centered on cumulative disadvantage to conceptualize how biases can accrue and compound across different stages of the justice and legal systems. The articles examine issues involving multiple actors (e.g., police, suspects, attorneys, defendants, psychologists, probation officers, jurors, judges) engaged in various processes (e.g., stops, frisks, searches, interrogation, risk assessment, evidence review, decision-making) at different stages in the justice and legal systems (e.g., initial contact, investigation, forensic evaluation, trial, post-conviction). Much like research in other domains, the special issue articles reveal that bias in the justice and legal systems is prevalent, pernicious, and difficult to attenuate. Rigorous, transparent science and evidence-based practices targeting bias at early stages in the justice and legal systems before disadvantage accumulates are sorely needed and should inform future intervention efforts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"48 5-6","pages":"329-337"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143568564","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Suppressing myside bias in civil litigation.","authors":"Mihael A Jeklic","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000584","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000584","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Myside bias-the tendency to evaluate and generate evidence as well as test hypotheses in a manner biased toward prior beliefs-causes disputants in litigation to harbor overconfident expectations of judicial awards and reduces odds of settlement. Two studies tested three interventions to suppress myside bias in civil litigation settings.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>I predicted that the participants in the baseline conditions would exhibit myside bias in award estimates and argument ratings and that the interventions would attenuate it.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Two between-subjects experimental studies using students of law (n = 164, Mage = 24.21 years, 53% female; n = 181, Mage = 20.89 years, 61% female) compared the participants' award estimates and argument ratings in a simulated civil dispute. The interventions (a) manipulated the advocates to think they represented the opposing side during initial information processing (side-switch condition), (b) required the participants to generate and evaluate arguments for both sides (dialectical condition), and (c) affected the participants' motivations by threatening dismissal in case of estimation error (goal states condition).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Baseline groups in both studies displayed significant myside bias in award estimates (all ds ≥ 1.12) and argument ratings (all ds ≥ 1.29). In Study 1, the side-switch intervention eliminated bias in argument ratings (d = 0.73 and 0.72) but only reduced (d = 0.35) rather than eliminated bias in award estimates. In Study 2, the dialectical intervention reduced bias in argument ratings (d = 0.74 and 0.58) but did not eliminate it; it also failed to reduce bias in award estimates. The goal states intervention suppressed myside bias in both argument ratings (d = 0.76 and 0.82) and award estimates (d = 0.78).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Myside bias in litigation settings is robust and difficult to suppress. Accountability interventions show potential as bias-attenuating strategies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"48 5-6","pages":"564-579"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143568566","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Disparate impact of risk assessment instruments: A systematic review.","authors":"Spencer G Lawson, Emma L Narkewicz, Gina M Vincent","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000582","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000582","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>One concern about the use of risk assessment instruments in legal decisions is the potential for disparate impact by race or ethnicity. This means that one racial or ethnic group will experience harsher legal outcomes than another because of higher or biased risk estimates. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to synthesize research examining the real-world impact of juvenile and adult risk instruments on racial/ethnic disparities in legal decision making.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>Given the nature of research synthesis, we did not test formal hypotheses.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Our systematic literature search as of July 2023 identified 21 articles that investigated the disparate impact of 13 risk assessment instruments on various legal outcomes. Most of these instruments were actuarial pretrial screening instruments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our narrative synthesis indicated that there is not strong evidence of risk instruments contributing to greater system disparity. Ten articles indicated that adopting risk instruments did not create (or exacerbate preexisting) disparities, and eight articles found that instrument use reduced disparities in legal decision making. Three articles reported evidence of disparate impact of risk instruments; only one of these studies received a strong study quality assessment score. We observed a scarcity of high-quality articles that employed what we deem to be the gold standard approach for examining the disparate impact of risk instruments (i.e., pretest-posttest design).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The evidence signals that risk instruments can contribute to reductions in disparities across multiple stages of legal decision making. Yet study quality remains low, and most research has been conducted on decisions during the pretrial stage. More rigorous research on disparate impact across diverse legal decision points and approaches to risk assessment is needed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"427-440"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142337147","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Predictive bias in pretrial risk assessment: Application of the Public Safety Assessment in a Native American population.","authors":"Samantha A Zottola, Kamiya Stewart, Violette Cloud, Liz Hassett, Sarah L Desmarais","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000562","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000562","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Native Americans are vastly overrepresented in U.S. jails and people in rural communities face unique barriers (e.g., limited public transportation and services) that may impact how well pretrial risk assessments predict outcomes. Yet, these populations are understudied in the literature examining the predictive validity and, more importantly, the potential predictive bias of pretrial risk assessments. We sought to address these gaps.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We had three aims: (a) examine the validity of Public Safety Assessment (PSA) scores in predicting pretrial outcomes in a county with a high degree of rurality, (b) compare predictive validity and test for predictive bias among Native American and White people, and (c) compare predictive validity and test for predictive bias among men and women.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Our sample comprised 4,570 closed cases involving people released on personal recognizance bonds over a 3.5-year period. About two thirds were Native American and men. The PSA was completed and outcome data were collected as part of routine pretrial practice.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In slightly more than one third of cases, people failed to appear or were rearrested during the pretrial period. In the full sample, PSA scores demonstrated poor validity in predicting failure to appear but fair validity in predicting new arrest. Further analyses revealed predictive bias as a function of both race and sex in the prediction of failure to appear. In contrast, we did not find evidence of bias in the prediction of new criminal arrest, although predictive validity was slightly better for White people and men.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings raise concerns regarding the use of PSA scores to inform pretrial decisions related to risk for failure to appear in rural communities and among Native American people. They also highlight concerns regarding reliance on static factors as well as the need for research on the validity of pretrial risk assessments in these populations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"398-414"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141972111","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Confirmatory information seeking is robust in psychologists' diagnostic reasoning.","authors":"Tess M S Neal, Nina MacLean, Robert D Morgan, Daniel C Murrie","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000574","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000574","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Across two experiments, we examined three cognitive biases (order effects, context effects, confirmatory bias) in licensed psychologists' diagnostic reasoning.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>Our main prediction was that psychologist-participants would seek confirming versus disconfirming information after forming an initial diagnostic hypothesis, even given multiple opportunities to seek new information in the same case. We also expected that individual differences would affect diagnostic reasoning, such that psychologists with lower (vs. higher) cognitive reflection tendencies and larger (vs. smaller) bias blind spots would be more likely to demonstrate confirmatory bias.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In Study 1, we recruited 149 licensed psychologists (<i>M</i> = 18 years of experience; 44% women; 71% White) and exposed them to one of four randomly assigned vignettes that varied order effects (one set of symptoms in reversed orders) and context effects (court referral vs. employer referral). They rank ordered a list of four possible initial diagnostic hypotheses and received a piped follow-up choice of which of two pieces of information (confirmatory or disconfirmatory) they wanted to test their initial hypothesis. Study 2 (<i>n</i> = 131; <i>M</i> = 21 years of experience; 53% men; 68% White) replicated and extended Study 1, following the same procedure except offering three sequential choice opportunities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both studies found robust confirmatory information seeking: 92% sought confirmatory information in Study 1, and confirmation persisted across three opportunities in Study 2 (90%, 84%, 77%), although it lowered with each opportunity (generalized logistic mixed regression model), <i>F</i>(2, 378) = 3.85, <i>p</i> = .02, η<i>_p</i>² = .02.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings expand a growing body of research on bias in expert judgment. Specifically, psychologists may engage in robust confirmation bias in the process of forming diagnoses. Although further research is needed on bias and its impact on accuracy, psychologists may need to take steps to reduce confirmatory reasoning processes, such as documenting evidence for and against each decision element. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"503-518"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142298880","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Degrees of freedom as a breeding ground for biases-A threat to forensic practice.","authors":"Aileen Oeberst, Verena Oberlader","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000579","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000579","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Researcher-based degrees of freedom have been shown to contribute to low replication rates in science. That is, researchers' options within the process of designing and conducting empirical tests may increase the probability of false positive findings. The aim of this study was to transfer the concept of degrees of freedom to the practice of forensic-psychological assessment as it may likewise pose a severe threat to the reliability and validity of forensic assessments. Using an example from statement validity assessment, we identified degrees of freedom, calculated the different possible workflows that forensic experts can take, and elaborated on their consequences for the reliability and validity of their assessments. Importantly, we elaborated on why degrees of freedom likely not only increase noise in the results but also foster the occurrence of systematic biases in forensic practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Degrees of freedom in forensic-psychological assessments exist and lead to an enormous number of different possible workflows. As this threatens the interrater reliability and validity of forensic assessments and may lead to biases, we call for research on this issue and put forward recommendations for forensic practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"519-530"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142298881","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Does engaging in reason elaboration mitigate bias in mock jurors' evaluations of confession evidence?","authors":"Alexander D Perry, Amelia Mindthoff, Skye A Woestehoff, Christian A Meissner","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000595","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000595","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Prior research suggests that jurors may commit the fundamental attribution error when evaluating confession evidence (i.e., failing to recognize the situational pressures inherent to coercive interrogations) and exhibit belief perseverance when presented with expert testimony or judicial instructions seeking to remediate juror knowledge. Given mixed findings regarding the use of safeguards that might assist jurors in rendering appropriate decisions, the current research examined the effectiveness of reason elaboration instructions.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We hypothesized that instructing mock jurors to engage in reason elaboration (Experiments 1, 2, and 4: list reasons; Experiment 3: make an initial judgment and then list reasons for the opposite of their initial belief) for why an individual might confess may help them to become more sensitive to situational and dispositional confession risk factors. We expected that reason elaboration instructions would lead to fewer convictions when a coercive interrogation was presented, but not in cases in which a noncoercive interrogation was presented (i.e., a sensitivity effect).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Across four experiments, jury-eligible participants (N = 1,319) read a murder trial transcript and then responded to items measuring perceived interrogation coerciveness, defendant vulnerability, and verdict decision. We manipulated interrogation approach (noncoercive vs. coercive) and reason listing for a true and/or false confession.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across all four experiments, mock jurors demonstrated appropriate knowledge of false confession risk factors, and there was no interactive effect of our reason elaboration task with interrogation condition.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Reason elaboration does not appear to be an effective safeguard for debiasing and improving sensitivity in jurors' evaluations of confession evidence. Jurors appeared relatively proficient in distinguishing between coercive and noncoercive interrogation tactics. Future research should assess alternative approaches that can leverage mock jurors' knowledge of appropriate risk factors and further improve their decision making. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"48 5-6","pages":"456-473"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143568565","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"An audit study of barriers to mental health treatment for wrongly incarcerated people.","authors":"Jeff Kukucka, Kateryn Reyes-Fuentes, Christina M Dardis","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000569","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000569","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>People who have been wrongly incarcerated report exceptionally poor mental health, and despite having been exonerated, they face discrimination similar to other formerly incarcerated people when seeking housing and employment opportunities. The current audit study was designed to test whether exonerees likewise face discrimination when seeking mental health treatment.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>Therapists will reply less often to treatment inquiries from exonerees and parolees compared to another prospective client with the same symptoms and trauma history-and when therapists do reply, they will less often be willing to meet with exonerated or paroled help seekers.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We emailed 752 therapists across the United States while posing as a man seeking therapy for the mental health symptoms most commonly reported by exonerees. By random assignment, this help seeker had been either incarcerated and paroled, wrongly incarcerated and exonerated, or working as a first responder (control). For each email, we noted whether the therapist replied and, if so, the speed and length of the reply. We also content analyzed all replies for predetermined themes, including willingness to meet.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, therapists replied less often to exonerees (50.6%) than to first responders (62.9%) or parolees (61.1%), who did not differ (<i>V</i> = .11). Therapists' replies also differed in their willingness to meet (<i>V</i> = .13), such that inquiries from first responders would more often result in a meeting with a therapist (31.7%) compared with inquiries from exonerees (19.6%) or parolees (21.0%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Exonerees' staggering rates of mental illness may be compounded by lesser treatment access. Therapists' reluctance to assist exonerees may reflect stigma and/or perceived incompetence. Our data highlight the need to destigmatize wrongful conviction, empower clinicians to treat exonerated clients, and advance legislation and other means to expand exonerees' access to mental health care. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"474-485"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142074178","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reducing biases in the criminal legal system: A perspective from expected utility.","authors":"Janice L Burke, Justice Healy, Yueran Yang","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000571","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000571","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Racial biases exist in almost every aspect of the criminal legal system, resulting in disparities across all stages of legal procedures-before, during, and after a legal procedure. Building on expected utility theory, we propose an expected utility framework to organize and quantify racial disparities in legal procedures.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>Corresponding to the parameteres involved in estimating expected utility, we hypothesized that racial biases would occur at different stages of legal procedures.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Using police interrogation procedures as an example, we obtained estimates from previous literature and demonstrated that racial disparities exist at each stage of legal procedures. We then used these estimates to compute and visualize expected utilities, which quantify the average long-term outcomes of interrogations for minority versus nonminority suspects.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Based on this hypothetical example, the expected utility analysis suggests that biases at various stages of interrogations could potentially lead to substantial disparities in legal outcomes between racial groups. In particular, the example shows that interrogations might yield notably worse outcomes for minority suspects than nonminority suspects because of cumulative biases that occur before, during, and after this legal procedure.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The proposed expected utility approach not only offers a valuable tool for accounting the joint impacts of multiple stages of legal procedures to quantify racial disparities but also carries important implications for how the criminal legal system could reduce such disparities. That is, the criminal legal system must seek to reduce racial biases across all stages of legal procedures rather than focusing on just one aspect. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"356-367"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142298883","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Suspect race affects defense attorney evaluations of preidentification evidence.","authors":"Jacqueline Katzman, Margaret Bull Kovera","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000566","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000566","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>When an officer places a suspect in an identification procedure and the witness identifies the suspect, it falls on attorneys to make decisions that reflect the strength of that identification. The factor that most affects the strength of identification evidence is the likelihood that the suspect is guilty before being subjected to the procedure, which scholars refer to as the prior probability of guilt. Given large racial disparities in exonerations based on eyewitness misidentifications, the current work examined whether defense attorneys are less sensitive to prior evidence of guilt when the defendant is Black as opposed to White.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We predicted that when the defendant's race was described as White rather than Black, attorneys' judgments would be more sensitive to variations in the evidence that would influence the base rate of guilt. We also predicted that attorneys would rate the case as stronger when the victim's race was described as White rather than Black.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We gave 316 defense attorneys case files (modeled after the New York Police Department's style) that varied the strength of the preidentification evidence (strong vs. weak), the race of the defendant (Black vs. White), and the race of the victim (Black vs. White).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Attorneys made judgments that were sensitive to the base rate of guilt, but self-report measures demonstrated that they did not understand the extent to which the base rate of guilt influences the reliability of eyewitness evidence. Participants also rated the strength of the preidentification evidence as stronger for Black than for White defendants.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although attorneys are intuitively sensitive to the strength of preidentification evidence, they lack conscious awareness of how a suspect's prior probability of guilt affects likelihood of a mistaken identification, which may have implications for their ability to make race-neutral evaluations of preidentification evidence. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"385-397"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142113473","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}