Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,952 studies31 sourcesUpdated 38 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BYFrontiers in psychology

Legal Evidence–Authority Dissociation in juror judgment: a multistudy reanalysis of memory contamination and AI advice

  1. 1School of Law, Tianjin University , ,

Abstract

Introduction: Legal decision makers may remember information without using it to update a legal judgment, and may respond differently to the same recommendation depending on its attributed source. LEAD separates these processes into memory-entry, judgment-incorporation, and authority-deference gates.

Methods: We reanalyzed three public, de-identified datasets: one jury-deliberation misinformation study and two preregistered judge-versus-artificial-intelligence sentencing studies. We compared gate-specific estimates while retaining study-specific outcomes and raw units.

Results: In Study 1, pro-prosecution misinformation crossed the memory-entry gate more clearly than the judgment-incorporation gate. In Studies 2 and 3, mitigating case facts produced larger judgment-incorporation effects than authority-source assignment. The authority-source effect was equivalent to zero within a prespecified small-effect bound in Study 2 (source Experiment 1), but remained inconclusive in Study 3 (source Experiment 2).

Discussion: LEAD identifies which process changed and supports cross-gate magnitude comparisons without treating unlike outcomes as identical. This secondary analysis does not estimate behavior in real courts, but it provides a transparent framework for forensic and legal psychology.

Related

  1. Evidence-Calibrated Reanalysis of an Otosclerosis Locus Generates a Testable Myeloid State Hypothesis
    Weijun Ma, Ying Cheng, Heng Li +1
    GenesPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGenetics & genomicsEurope PMC
  2. Exploratory Reanalysis of the Lithuanian OHIP-14 in Older Adults: Preliminary Evidence for an Oral Discomfort Structure
    Yvonne Buunk-Werkhoven, Mantė Kireilytė, Daiva Mačiulienė +2
    Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)Peer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  3. No convincing evidence for a mediated effect of Type D personality on quality of life: A reanalysis of Wang et al. (2026)
    Kimmo Sorjonen, Bo Melin, Marika Melin
    PsyArXivPreprintCC BY 4.0Full textStatisticsPsychiatry & mental healthOSF
  4. Where Agent Protocols Stop: Cross-Layer Gaps in Authority, Commitment, Evidence, and Service Closure
    Zhongjie Wang, Mingyi Liu, Shuang Yu +1
    ZenodoPreprintCC BY 4.0Full textZenodo
  5. Robust warming rates, marginal evidence of acceleration and unstable extrapolation: a reproducible reanalysis of statistical trend models for the Berkeley Earth global temperature record
    Arav Siddharth Mestry
    EarthArXivPreprintCC BY 4.0Full textAtmospheric science & meteorologyClimate scienceEarthArXiv
BibTeX
@article{xie2026legal,
  title = {{Legal Evidence–Authority Dissociation in juror judgment: a multistudy reanalysis of memory contamination and AI advice}},
  author = {Xiangran Xie},
  journal = {Frontiers in psychology},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1956486},
  url = {https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13719418},
  note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Legal Evidence–Authority Dissociation in juror judgment: a multistudy reanalysis of memory contamination and AI advice
AU  - Xiangran Xie
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/16
JO  - Frontiers in psychology
DO  - 10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1956486
UR  - https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13719418
AB  - Introduction: Legal decision makers may remember information without using it to update a legal judgment, and may respond differently to the same recommendation depending on its attributed source. LEAD separates these processes into memory-entry, judgment-incorporation, and authority-deference gates.  Methods: We reanalyzed three public, de-identified datasets: one jury-deliberation misinformation study and two preregistered judge-versus-artificial-intelligence sentencing studies. We compared gate-specific estimates while retaining study-specific outcomes and raw units.  Results: In Study 1, pro-prosecution misinformation crossed the memory-entry gate more clearly than the judgment-incorporation gate. In Studies 2 and 3, mitigating case facts produced larger judgment-incorporation effects than authority-source assignment. The authority-source effect was equivalent to zero within a prespecified small-effect bound in Study 2 (source Experiment 1), but remained inconclusive in Study 3 (source Experiment 2).  Discussion: LEAD identifies which process changed and supports cross-gate magnitude comparisons without treating unlike outcomes as identical. This secondary analysis does not estimate behavior in real courts, but it provides a transparent framework for forensic and legal psychology.
SN  - 1664-1078
ER  -