ABSTRACT When interpreting a natural language argument that generalizes over a contextually relevant category, audiences are likely to activate the category prototype and transfer its characteristics onto category instances. A generalized argument can thus appear more (respectively less) persuasive than one mentioning a specific category instance, provided the argument’s claim is more (less) warranted for the prototype than for the instance (positive and negative prototype effect). To investigate this effect in legal contexts using mock-scenarios, professional and lay judges at Swedish courts evaluated the persuasiveness of arguments giving a generalized or a specific description of an eyewitness. The generalized version described the witness either as an alcohol-intoxicated person or as a child, while the specific version varied both the amount of alcohol consumed (two vs. five glasses of wine) and the child’s age (four vs. 12 years). To investigate the effect of legal expertise on argument selection, moreover, law and social science students evaluate the persuasiveness of both argument versions. Though we observed statistically significant prototype effects as well as expertise effects, results were mixed and sometimes ran counter to normative expectation.

中文翻译：

---

法律论证中的概括

摘要当解释自然语言论点时，它概括了上下文相关的类别，因此观众很可能会激活类别原型并将其特征转移到类别实例上。因此，与论及特定类别实例相比，广义论证的说服力似乎更具说服力（分别说服力），前提是该论点对原型的主张比对实例的主张（积极和消极的原型效应）更多（更少）。为了使用模拟方案在法律环境中调查这种影响，瑞典法院的专业法官和非专业法官评估了论点的说服力，从而给出了对目击者的一般性描述或具体描述。广义版本将证人描述为酗酒者或儿童，而具体版本会改变酒精消耗量（两杯和五杯酒）和孩子的年龄（四岁到12岁）。为了研究法律专业知识对论点选择的影响，法律和社会科学专业的学生评估了两种论点版本的说服力。尽管我们观察到了统计上显着的原型效果以及专业知识效果，但结果好坏参半，有时与规范预期背道而驰。