| Abstract: | In a simulation of lay judges’ deliberations, it is shown how the participants selectively misconstrued courtroom evidence, depending on their overall story frameworks. All participants had received a common set of background information (drawn from an authentic custody case). In addition, one person in each group had, unknowingly, received some unique pieces of information. The “lay judges” produced several spontaneous misrepresentations of the background material. Moreover, they would often accept and retell false “facts” (introduced by a participant with different background information), unless these “facts” were integrated into opposing account frameworks. Hence it is shown how misrepresentations are often coconstituted. |
