Improving juror assessments of forensic testimony and its effects on decision-making and evidence evaluation.

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Law and Human Behavior Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-21 DOI:10.1037/lhb0000539
Devon E LaBat, Deborah Goldfarb, Jacqueline R Evans, Nadja Schreiber Compo, Cassidy J Koolmees, Gerald LaPorte, Kevin Lothridge
{"title":"Improving juror assessments of forensic testimony and its effects on decision-making and evidence evaluation.","authors":"Devon E LaBat, Deborah Goldfarb, Jacqueline R Evans, Nadja Schreiber Compo, Cassidy J Koolmees, Gerald LaPorte, Kevin Lothridge","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000539","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We explored whether an educational forensic science informational (FSI) video either alone or with specialized jury instructions would assist mock jurors in evaluating forensic expert testimony.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We predicted that the FSI video would help participants distinguish between low-quality and high-quality testimony, evidenced by lower ratings of the testimony and the expert when the testimonial quality was low compared with when it was high.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Jury-eligible adults (<i>N</i> = 641; <i>M</i><sub>age</sub> = 38.18 years; 77.4% White; 8.1% Latino/a or Hispanic; 50.1% male) watched a mock trial and were randomly assigned to a no-forensic-evidence control condition or to a test condition (i.e., participants either watched the FSI video before the trial or did not and either received specialized posttrial instructions or did not). In the test conditions, a forensic expert provided low-quality or high-quality testimony about a latent impression, and participants rated the expert, their testimony, and the forensic evidence. All participants rendered verdicts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The presence of the FSI video interacted with testimonial quality on ratings of the expert and forensic testimony: In the video-present condition, participants rated the expert in the low-quality testimony condition lower than did participants in the high-quality testimony condition (between-condition differences for credibility: <i>d</i> = -0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.78, -0.27]; trustworthiness: <i>d</i> = -0.67, 95% CI [-0.92, -0.42]; knowledgeability: <i>d</i> = -0.54, 95% CI [-0.80, -0.29]). The pattern was the same for the expert's testimony (between-condition differences for convincingness: <i>d</i> = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.66, -0.16]; validity: <i>d</i> = -0.60, 95% CI [-0.86, -0.35]; presentation quality: <i>d</i> = -0.51, 95% CI [-0.76, -0.25]). Participants' ratings in the video-absent condition did not differ on the basis of testimonial quality (<i>d</i>s = -0.07-0.11). The ratings of the print evidence and verdicts were unaffected. Specialized jury instructions had no effect.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The FSI video may be a practical in-court intervention to increase jurors' sensitivity to low-quality forensic testimony without creating skepticism. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"566-578"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and Human Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000539","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: We explored whether an educational forensic science informational (FSI) video either alone or with specialized jury instructions would assist mock jurors in evaluating forensic expert testimony.

Hypotheses: We predicted that the FSI video would help participants distinguish between low-quality and high-quality testimony, evidenced by lower ratings of the testimony and the expert when the testimonial quality was low compared with when it was high.

Method: Jury-eligible adults (N = 641; Mage = 38.18 years; 77.4% White; 8.1% Latino/a or Hispanic; 50.1% male) watched a mock trial and were randomly assigned to a no-forensic-evidence control condition or to a test condition (i.e., participants either watched the FSI video before the trial or did not and either received specialized posttrial instructions or did not). In the test conditions, a forensic expert provided low-quality or high-quality testimony about a latent impression, and participants rated the expert, their testimony, and the forensic evidence. All participants rendered verdicts.

Results: The presence of the FSI video interacted with testimonial quality on ratings of the expert and forensic testimony: In the video-present condition, participants rated the expert in the low-quality testimony condition lower than did participants in the high-quality testimony condition (between-condition differences for credibility: d = -0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.78, -0.27]; trustworthiness: d = -0.67, 95% CI [-0.92, -0.42]; knowledgeability: d = -0.54, 95% CI [-0.80, -0.29]). The pattern was the same for the expert's testimony (between-condition differences for convincingness: d = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.66, -0.16]; validity: d = -0.60, 95% CI [-0.86, -0.35]; presentation quality: d = -0.51, 95% CI [-0.76, -0.25]). Participants' ratings in the video-absent condition did not differ on the basis of testimonial quality (ds = -0.07-0.11). The ratings of the print evidence and verdicts were unaffected. Specialized jury instructions had no effect.

Conclusion: The FSI video may be a practical in-court intervention to increase jurors' sensitivity to low-quality forensic testimony without creating skepticism. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
改进陪审员对法医证词的评估及其对决策和证据评估的影响。
目的:我们探讨了教育性法医科学信息(FSI)视频是否有助于模拟陪审员评估法医专家证词。假设:我们预测,FSI视频将帮助参与者区分低质量和高质量的证词,证据是,当证词质量较低时,与高质量时相比,证词和专家的评分较低。方法:符合陪审团条件的成年人(N=641;Mage=38.18岁;77.4%的白人;8.1%的拉丁裔/a或西班牙裔;50.1%的男性)观看了模拟审判,并被随机分配到无法医证据控制条件或测试条件(即,参与者在审判前观看了FSI视频,或没有观看,或接受了专门的审判后指导,或没有接受)。在测试条件下,法医专家提供了关于潜在印象的低质量或高质量证词,参与者对专家、他们的证词和法医证据进行了评分。所有参与者都作出了裁决。结果:FSI视频的存在与鉴定质量对专家和法医鉴定的评分相互作用:在视频呈现的情况下,参与者对处于低质量证词条件下的专家的评分低于处于高质量证词条件的参与者(可信度的条件差异:d=-0.52,95%置信区间[CI][-0.78,-0.27];可信度:d=-0.67,95%CI[-0.92,-0.42];知识能力:d=-0.54,95%CI-0.80,-0.29])。专家证词的模式相同(令人信服的条件间差异:d=-0.41,95%CI[-0.66,-0.16];有效性:d=-0.60,95%CI[0.86,-0.35];呈现质量:d=-0.51,95%CI-0.76,-0.25])。参与者在视频缺席条件下的评分在证明质量方面没有差异(d=-0.07-0.11)。印刷证据和判决的评分不受影响。专门的陪审团指示没有效果。结论:FSI视频可能是一种实用的法庭干预措施,可以在不产生怀疑的情况下提高陪审员对低质量法医证词的敏感性。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
8.00%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Law and Human Behavior, the official journal of the American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association, is a multidisciplinary forum for the publication of articles and discussions of issues arising out of the relationships between human behavior and the law, our legal system, and the legal process. This journal publishes original research, reviews of past research, and theoretical studies from professionals in criminal justice, law, psychology, sociology, psychiatry, political science, education, communication, and other areas germane to the field.
期刊最新文献
The state of open science in the field of psychology and law. The Miranda penalty: Inferring guilt from suspects' silence. Comparing predictive validity of Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory scores in Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadian youth. Regional gender bias and year predict gender representation on civil trial teams. Lived experiences of bias in compensation and reintegration associated with false admissions of guilt.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1