Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Character Proof and the Fireside Induction

Character Proof and the Fireside Induction The present research examined psycholegal assumptions about specific acts evidence as a method of character proof. On the basis of “fireside induction” (Meehl, 1971) and social psychological research on inferential processes, it was expected that the logic behind the presumption against specific acts testimony would receive empirical support. In the context of a videotaped automobile negligence trial, nondeliberating experimental jurors were presented with character evidence expressed either in terms of specific acts or in terms of general reputation. Mode of presentation and the amount of testimony also were varied. Only post hoc support for the logic behind the presumption against specific acts testimony was obtained, and several factors that may have constrained its impact were considered. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Law and Human Behavior American Psychological Association

Character Proof and the Fireside Induction

Law and Human Behavior , Volume 3 (3): 14 – Sep 1, 1979

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-psychological-association/character-proof-and-the-fireside-induction-gXNwRFklc0

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
American Psychological Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1979 American Psychological Association
ISSN
0147-7307
eISSN
1573-661X
DOI
10.1007/BF01039790
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The present research examined psycholegal assumptions about specific acts evidence as a method of character proof. On the basis of “fireside induction” (Meehl, 1971) and social psychological research on inferential processes, it was expected that the logic behind the presumption against specific acts testimony would receive empirical support. In the context of a videotaped automobile negligence trial, nondeliberating experimental jurors were presented with character evidence expressed either in terms of specific acts or in terms of general reputation. Mode of presentation and the amount of testimony also were varied. Only post hoc support for the logic behind the presumption against specific acts testimony was obtained, and several factors that may have constrained its impact were considered.

Journal

Law and Human BehaviorAmerican Psychological Association

Published: Sep 1, 1979

There are no references for this article.