How does legal terminology affect our mental representations of police officers? In two experiments (N = 2001) with jury-eligible Americans, we examined the dual influence of social stratification and legal language on how Americans form judgments of police officers. We manipulated descriptions of officers—using laymen's terms or legal terms—and assessed how those descriptions differentially affected Americans' conceptions of officers. Officers described as “objectively reasonable” (a legal term) were judged less negatively and perceived as warmer and more competent than “average” officers or just “officers.” Further, effects of legal language were moderated by race and neighborhood context, consistent with racialized experiences in a stratified nation. Specifically, the priors of Black and white Americans in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas differ significantly at baseline (i.e., in the control condition), but are brought in alignment—in favor of officers—when officers are described as “objectively reasonable.” We discuss the implications of these processes for both psychological theory and legal practice.

法律术语如何影响我们对警察的心理表征？在两个实验中（N = 2001）与符合陪审团资格的美国人一起，我们研究了社会分层和法律语言对美国人如何形成对警察的判断的双重影响。我们操纵了对军官的描述——使用外行术语或法律术语——并评估这些描述如何不同地影响美国人对军官的概念。被描述为“客观合理”（法律术语）的军官被认为比“普通”军官或“军官”更温和、更有能力。此外，法律语言的影响受到种族和邻里环境的影响，这与分层国家的种族化经历一致。具体来说，大都市和非大都市地区的美国黑人和白人的先验在基线（即控制条件下）显着不同，但当军官被描述为“客观上合理”时，他们会被归为一致——有利于军官。我们讨论了这些过程对心理学理论和法律实践的影响。