Reference : Impression formation or prediction? Category fit and task influence forensic person m... |
Scientific journals : Article | |||
Social & behavioral sciences, psychology : Social, industrial & organizational psychology Social & behavioral sciences, psychology : Multidisciplinary, general & others | |||
http://hdl.handle.net/10993/6766 | |||
Impression formation or prediction? Category fit and task influence forensic person memory. | |
English | |
Glock, Sabine ![]() | |
Kneer, Julia ![]() | |
Krolak-Schwerdt, Sabine ![]() | |
2011 | |
Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice | |
Haworth Press | |
11 | |
391-405 | |
Yes (verified by ORBilu) | |
International | |
1522-8932 | |
[en] forensic psychologists ; person memory ; prediction ; dual process models | |
[en] We experimentally investigated whether forensic psychologists
differ from laymen in their use of heuristic and integrated information processing depending on the given task and category fit of information. Participants’ task was either forming an impression or predicting the development of a fictitious rapist and a fictitious robber-and-murderer. Case report recall was measured. Results showed that experts processed the rapist’s information heuristically when offender information fit the category and the task required impression formation. In contrast, laymen did not apply the offender categories and processed all the information using an integrated strategy. When predicting the development of an offender, forensic psychologists integrated all relevant information. The robber-and-murderer information was always processed using an integrated strategy. The practical relevance of the results is discussed. | |
http://hdl.handle.net/10993/6766 | |
10.1080/15228932.2011.588529 | |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2011.588529 |
File(s) associated to this reference | ||||||||||||||
Fulltext file(s):
| ||||||||||||||
All documents in ORBilu are protected by a user license.