Contextual biases in the interpretation of auditory evidence

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 178-187

  Lange, Nick D ^a   Thomas, Rick P ^a   Dana, Jason ^b   Dawes, Robyn M ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^c CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Context; Evidence; Misinterpretation; Top down bias

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HEARING; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; NOISE; OFFENDER; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; SPEECH PERCEPTION; STATISTICAL MODEL; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITY; VIDEORECORDING;

CRIMINALS; HEARING; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; LOGISTIC MODELS; MIDWESTERN UNITED STATES; NOISE; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; SPEECH PERCEPTION; UNIVERSITIES; VIDEO RECORDING;

EID: 79955612846     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10979-010-9226-4     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Addison v. U.S., 317 F.2d 808 (C.A.Tex. 1963).
2. Anderson, J. R. (2000). Cognitive psychology and its implications (5th ed.). New York, NY: Worth Publishers.
3. RC Anderson JW Pichert 1978 Recall of previously unrecallable information following a shift in perspective Journal of Verbal Learning and Behavior 17 1 12 10.1016/S0022-5371(78)90485-1 10.1016/S0022-5371(78)90485-1
4. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. Oxford, England: University Press.
5. W Brewer C Treyens 1981 Role of schemata in memory for places Cognitive Psychology 13 207 230 10.1016/0010-0285(81)90008-6 10.1016/0010-0285(81)90008-6
6. Golden v. State, 429 So.2d 45 (Fla. App. 1 Dist, 1983).
7. G Loewenstein D Moore RW Weber 2006 Misperceiving the value of information in predicting the performance of others Experimental Economics 9 3 281 295 10.1007/s10683-006-9128-y 10.1007/s10683-006-9128-y (Pubitemid 44086274)
8. National Research Council. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
9. DM Risinger MJ Saks WC Thompson R Rosenthal 2002 The Daubert/Kumho implications of observer effects in forensic science: Hidden problems of expectations and suggestion California Law Review 90 1 1 56 10.2139/ssrn.301408 10.2307/3481305
10. A Samuel 1996 Phoneme restoration Language and Cognitive Processes 11 647 653 10.1080/016909696387051 10.1080/016909696387051 (Pubitemid 126683341)
11. State v. Lavers, 814 P.2d 333 (Ariz., 1991).
12. State v. Trask, Case No. CF-2007-184 (Okla. Dist. Ct. 2007-2009).
13. U.S. v. Avila, 443 F.2d 792 (C.A.Fla. 1971).
14. U.S. v. Biggins, 551 F.2d 64 (C.A.Fla. 1977).
15. U.S. v. Harrell, 788 F.2d 1524 (C.A. Fla., 1986).
16. U.S. v. King, 587 F.2d 956 (C.A.Mont. 1978).
17. U.S. v. Stephens, 202 F.Supp. 2d 1361 (N.D. Ga., 2002).
18. RM Warren 1970 Perceptual restoration of missing speech sounds Science 167 392 393 10.1126/science.167.3917.392 5409744 10.1126/science.167.3917.392