The effects of type of encoding and strength of discounting appeal on the success of ignoring an invalid testimony

Individuals appear to be more successful in discounting invalid evidence in studies which are set in courtroom settings than in studies done in the belief perseverance paradigm. Several differences between the two paradigms may explain this pattern. Most of these differences are ruled out by past research. We focused on differences in two domains, namely, encoding of the information and strength of the discounting appeals, and manipulated them experimentally. Even though the two manipulations were effective in influencing other judgments, they had no effect on success of discounting with guilt judgments. As in previous studies done within the courtroom paradigm, subjects were successful in discounting invalid evidence. Our interpretation for these findings involves the active process of discounting. Specifically, we assume that court settings activate a schema that leads people to deliberately correct for potential biases on the relevant guilt judgments. Since other judgments are less central within the court schema, they are not monitored actively and consequently are more susceptible to the effects of an invalid testimony.