Generalization in Legal Argumentation

Frank Zenker , Christian Dahlman , Sverker Sikström , Lena Wahlberg , Farhan Sarwar

Abstract

When interpreting a natural language argument that generalizes over a contextually relevant category, audiences are likely to activate the category prototype and transfer its characteristics onto category instances. A generalized argument can thus appear more (respectively less) persuasive than one mentioning a specific category instance, provided the argument’s claim is more (less) warranted for the prototype than for the instance (positive and negative prototype effect). To investigate this effect in legal contexts using mock-scenarios, professional and lay judges at Swedish courts evaluated the persuasiveness of arguments giving a generalized or a specific description of an eyewitness. The generalized version described the witness either as an alcoholintoxicated person or as a child, while the specific version varied both the amount of alcohol consumed (two vs. five glasses of wine) and the child’s age (four vs. 12 years). To investigate the effect of legal expertise on argument selection, moreover, law and social science students evaluate the persuasiveness of both argument versions. Though we observed statistically significant prototype effects as well as expertise effects, results were mixed and sometimes ran counter to normative expectation.
Author Frank Zenker (FASS / DPEA)
Frank Zenker,,
- Department of Philosophy and Ethics in Administration
, Christian Dahlman
Christian Dahlman,,
-
, Sverker Sikström
Sverker Sikström,,
-
, Lena Wahlberg
Lena Wahlberg,,
-
, Farhan Sarwar
Farhan Sarwar,,
-
Journal seriesJournal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice, [Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice], ISSN 2473-2850, e-ISSN 2473-2842, (N/A 20 pkt)
Issue year2019
Vol20
No1
Pages80-99
Publication size in sheets0.95
Keywords in EnglishArgumentation; decisionmaking; evidence; expertise effect; generalization; lay judge; legal context; persuasiveness; professional judge; prototype effect
ASJC Classification2734 Pathology and Forensic Medicine; 3202 Applied Psychology
DOIDOI:10.1080/24732850.2019.1689782
URL https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24732850.2019.1689782
Languageen angielski
Score (nominal)20
Score sourcejournalList
ScoreMinisterial score = 20.0, 24-02-2020, ArticleFromJournal
Publication indicators Scopus SNIP (Source Normalised Impact per Paper): 2018 = 0.521; WoS Impact Factor: 2017 = 0.38 (2) - 2017=0.694 (5)
Citation count*
Cite
Share Share

Get link to the record


* presented citation count is obtained through Internet information analysis and it is close to the number calculated by the Publish or Perish system.
Back
Confirmation
Are you sure?