Law and Human Behavior最新文献

{"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}

{"title":"Detecting criminal intent in social interactions: The influence of autism and theory of mind.","authors":"Zoe Michael,Neil Brewer","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000575","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000575","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEDefense attorneys sometimes suggest that social-cognitive difficulties render autistic individuals vulnerable to involvement in crime, often arguing that theory of mind (ToM) difficulties that undermine inferences about others' intentions underpin this vulnerability. We examined autistic adults' ability to respond adaptively to criminal intent during interactions and whether difficulties were associated with poor ToM.HYPOTHESESCompared with nonautistic adults, autistic adults were expected to be less likely to respond adaptively to another's criminal intent and less likely to do so early in interactions, with poorer performance associated with ToM difficulties.METHODWe developed the Suspicious Activity Paradigm, in which autistic (n = 102) and nonautistic (n = 95) adults listened (as if participating in an interaction) to audio scenarios in which cues suggesting their impending involvement in a crime gradually emerged. At periodic intervals, they were required to indicate how they would react toward the other person's behavior, with response coding reflecting detection of, and adaptive responding to, suspicious activity.RESULTSWe observed similar patterns of suspicion and adaptive responses in autistic and nonautistic adults as the scenarios progressed. Regardless of diagnostic status, pronounced ToM difficulties and low verbal ability were independently associated with a lower likelihood of reporting suspicion and responding adaptively.CONCLUSIONSOur results do not support the perspective that autistic adults are uniquely vulnerable to crime involvement due to an inability to recognize and respond adaptively to suspicious behavior. The potential for heightened criminal vulnerability was associated with significant ToM difficulties (and verbal ability) regardless of autism diagnostic status, although such difficulties were more prevalent in the autistic sample. The finding that pronounced ToM difficulties may heighten criminal vulnerability for both autistic and nonautistic individuals challenges the validity of a generalized \"autism\" legal defense based on assumed rather than measured ToM difficulties. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"217 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142325207","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":"Inequality threat increases laypeople's, but not judges', acceptance of algorithmic decision making in court.","authors":"Jonas Ludwig,Paul-Michael Heineck,Marie-Theres Hess,Eleni Kremeti,Max Tauschhuber,Eric Hilgendorf,Roland Deutsch","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000577","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000577","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEAlgorithmic decision making (ADM) takes on increasingly complex tasks in the criminal justice system. Whereas new developments in machine learning could help to improve the quality of judicial decisions, there are legal and ethical concerns that thwart the widespread use of algorithms. Against the backdrop of current efforts to promote the digitization of the German judicial system, this research investigates motivational factors (pragmatic motives, fairness concerns, and self-image-related considerations) that drive or impede the acceptance of ADM in court.HYPOTHESESWe tested two hypotheses: (1) Perceived threat of inequality in legal judgments increases ADM acceptance, and (2) experts (judges) are more skeptical toward technological innovation than novices (general population).METHODWe conducted a preregistered experiment with 298 participants from the German general population and 267 judges at regional courts in Bavaria to study how inequality threat (vs. control) relates to ADM acceptance in court, usage intentions, and attitudes.RESULTSIn partial support of the first prediction, inequality threat increased ADM acceptance, effect size d = 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.01, 0.47], and usage intentions (d = 0.23, 95% CI [0.00, 0.46]) of laypeople. Unexpectedly, however, this was not the case for experts. Moreover, ADM attitudes remained unaffected by the experimental manipulation in both groups. As predicted, judges held more negative attitudes toward ADM than the general population (d = -0.71, 95% CI [-0.88, -0.54]). Exploratory analysis suggested that generalized attitudes emerged as the strongest predictor of judges' intentions to use ADM in their own court proceedings.CONCLUSIONSThese findings elucidate the motivational forces that drive algorithm aversion and acceptance in a criminal justice context and inform the ongoing debate about perceptions of fairness in human-computer interaction. Implications for judicial praxis and the regulation of ADM in the German legal framework are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"63 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142174608","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":"Virginia Alford plea-takers experience harsher outcomes than traditional plea-takers.","authors":"Amy Dezember,Allison D Redlich","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000580","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000580","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEAlford pleas allow defendants to profess innocence while simultaneously pleading guilty. In Study 1, we addressed two research questions: (1) Does the case processing length in Alford plea cases differ from traditional guilty plea cases? and (2) Do the sentencing outcomes (i.e., length of sentence, reduction in sentence, incarceration) in Alford plea cases differ from traditional guilty plea cases? In Study 2, we explored two research questions: (1) What is the process for offering, negotiating, and accepting Alford pleas? and (2) How does the strength of evidence compare in Alford plea cases versus traditional guilty plea cases?HYPOTHESESIn Study 1, we predicted that (a) Alford plea cases would take longer to dispose of than traditional guilty plea cases, and (b) Alford plea cases would receive more beneficial sentencing outcomes (e.g., shorter sentences, larger sentence reductions) than traditional guilty plea cases. The research questions in Study 2 were exploratory; thus, we did not have a priori hypotheses.METHODStudy 1 is a quantitative analysis of 18 years of Virginia court administrative data, and Study 2 is a qualitative analysis of interviews with Virginia judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys.RESULTSIn Study 1, we found that Alford plea cases take longer to process and generally receive harsher, less favorable outcomes compared with traditional guilty pleas. In Study 2, we found that legal actors do not perceive evidence to be a driving factor in the context of Alford pleas and largely do not consider Alford pleas differently from traditional guilty pleas.CONCLUSIONSAdditional research would be beneficial to ensure that defendants are not punished simply for insisting on their innocence. Given that almost all convictions are the result of guilty pleas, some entered without admissions of guilt, increased scholarship on traditional and Alford pleas is essential. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"55 1","pages":"262-280"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142325210","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":"Interviewing and interrogation practices and beliefs, 20 years later: A national self-report survey of American police.","authors":"Laure Brimbal, Sean Patrick Roche, M Hunter Martaindale","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000570","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000570","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This survey examined current law enforcement beliefs and practices about interviewing and interrogation to gauge whether they have evolved given the research and training developed over the past 20 years.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We hypothesized that police beliefs and practices would have evolved along with research findings over the past 20 years.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We surveyed 526 law enforcement officers about the practices and beliefs regarding interviewing and interrogation. We asked questions about officers' beliefs about rates of true and false confessions, time spent in the interrogation room, beliefs about their ability to detect deception, training experience, practices of recording interrogations, and their self-reported use of interrogation techniques.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, when we compared our survey with Kassin et al.'s (2007) seminal survey, we found both similar results and evolving positive trends. The average interview was reportedly 1.6 hr, virtually no different from that in Kassin and colleagues' study. In addition, our sample reported that 26.2% of innocent suspects at least partially falsely confessed. Further, whereas Kassin and colleagues found that fewer than one in 10 interrogations were video recorded, we found that now more than half of interrogations are recorded in this way.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In a geographically diverse sample of U.S. law enforcement officers, we found significant positive trends toward knowledge and practices informed by research generated over the past decades on interviewing and interrogation. Although causality could not be determined, these findings indicate an evolution of the U.S. law enforcement mindset in a more science-based direction. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"247-261"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141890498","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":"Dementia and competency to stand trial in the United States: A case law review.","authors":"Dana R Miller,Casey LaDuke","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000581","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000581","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVECompetency to stand trial (CST) is foundational to the U.S. criminal legal system. Dementia is increasingly prevalent in the United States, and older adults are becoming involved with the U.S. criminal legal system at unprecedented rates, which carries significant implications for legal professionals and clinicians involved in CST cases. Unfortunately, CST research to date has largely excluded considerations of dementia and aging. The present study addressed this gap by reviewing U.S. case law related to dementia and CST.HYPOTHESESThe present study had no hypotheses because of its descriptive nature.METHODThis was a case law review of 118 U.S. court cases involving dementia and CST from 2002 through 2022. Relevant information was coded about the legal case, defendant demographics, clinical evaluation(s), and court determination.RESULTSCompetency was mostly raised by the defense (81%). Similar percentages of defendants were involved in one, two, and three or more evaluations, mostly conducted by experts appointed by courts or retained by the defense. Trends for court determinations were based on the number of evaluations conducted and experts' (dis)agreement about diagnosis and CST recommendation. Ultimately, 45% of defendants were determined incompetent, with trends appearing for dementia diagnosis, cognitive deficits, index offense, and jurisdiction, but not age. Ability to assist was the most cited reason for determinations of incompetence, often in combination with both factual and rational understanding or one of these psycholegal abilities alone.CONCLUSIONSDementia and related impairments appear especially relevant to CST among older adults and carry important implications for clinicians, legal professionals, and policymakers. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"120 1","pages":"315-328"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142325208","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":"Emotion regulation reduces victim blaming of vulnerable sex trafficking survivors.","authors":"Richard L Wiener,Samantha M Wiener,Rachel Haselow,Brooke McBride,Kayla Sircy","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000572","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000572","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEThis research applied emotion regulation to negative emotions felt toward a sex trafficking victim so that judgments were made to offer her services rather than to favor her arrest for prostitution.HYPOTHESESWe predicted that participants would favor police not arresting a trafficking survivor for prostitution when she was vulnerable (Hypothesis 1) or she showed no sex work history (Hypothesis 2). We predicted a moderated mediation model (Hypothesis 3), in which emotion regulation training to reduce feelings of contempt, anger, and disgust (CAD) toward the survivor interacted with vulnerability and prior sex work such that the effects of the latter two manipulations were the strongest in the successful emotion regulation conditions (i.e., cognitive reappraisal and cognitive reappraisal with motivation), with CAD emotions mediating those relationships.METHODParticipants (N = 421, 54% women, Mage = 42.63 years, 75% White) read a modified version of a sex trafficking case and decided whether the police should arrest the survivor for prostitution. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of 16 conditions in a 4 (emotion regulation: control vs. cognitive reappraisal vs. motivation vs. cognitive reappraisal plus motivation) × 2 (vulnerability: vulnerable background vs. nonvulnerable background) × 2 (prior prostitution history: engaged in prostitution before the trafficking incident vs. not engaged in prostitution before the incident) factorial design.RESULTSParticipants with cognitive reappraisal training, but not controls, who read about a vulnerable survivor were less likely to favor arrest. Moreover, those who trained with cognitive reappraisal plus motivation to decrease their CAD emotions, compared with the controls, showed weaker CAD feelings toward the vulnerable survivor, which in turn predicted a lower probability of favoring arrest.CONCLUSIONSReducing CAD emotions through emotion regulation supported the impact of emotions on culpability judgments and showed how emotion regulation can be used to support a victim-centered approach to fighting sex trafficking. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"13 1","pages":"281-298"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142325212","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}