Quality of Laypersons' Assessment of Forensically Relevant Stimuli,

Sneyd, Danielle; Compo, Nadja Schreiber; Rivard, Jillian R.; Pena, Michelle M.; Stoiloff, Stephanie; Hernández, G. Oviedo

doi:10.1111/1556-4029.14495

“…There was a main effect of latent print type on participants’ ratings of evidence strength, F (1, 500) = 20.10, p < .001, η p 2 = .04, and evidence quality, F (1, 500) = 31.03, p < .001, η p 2 = .06; specifically, participants rated the footwear print evidence as stronger and of higher quality ( M = 4.94, 95% CI [4.79, 5.09] and M = 6.42, 95% CI [6.27, 6.57], respectively) than the fingerprint evidence ( M = 3.96, 95% CI [3.82, 4.10] and M = 5.22, 95% CI [5.08, 5.36], respectively), perhaps reflecting that participants found the footwear testimony easier to understand (see Sneyd et al, 2020). There were no significant predictors of participants’ ratings of the usefulness of the evidence in coming to a verdict, p s ≥ .04.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

LaBat,

Goldfarb,

Evans

et al. 2023

Law and Human Behavior

1

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…When contextual information is biasing yet available in a decision environment, it increases the risk of contextual biasa psychological process whereby people draw on task-irrelevant contextual information from their environment when making decisions. Contextual effects have been observed across various forensic disciplines, including fingerprint examination (Fraser-Mackenzie et al, 2013;Langenburg et al, 2009;Stevenage & Bennett, 2017), firearms examination (Mattijssen et al (2020), forensic document examination (Miller, 1984), footwear examination (Sneyd et al, 2020), bitemark examination (Osborne et al, 2014), blood spatter analysis (Osborne et al, 2014(Osborne et al, , 2016, and even in what is regarded as the "gold standard" in forensic science -DNA analysis (Dror & Hampikian, 2011).…”

Section: Some Specific Types Of Bias Relevant To This Project: Order ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Confirmatory Information Seeking is Robust in Psychologists’ Diagnostic Reasoning

Neal,

MacLean,

Morgan

et al. 2024

Preprint

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Across two experiments, we examined three cognitive biases (order effects, context effects, confirmatory bias) in licensed psychologists’ diagnostic reasoning. Hypotheses: Our main prediction was that psychologist-participants would seek confirming vs. disconfirming information after forming an initial diagnostic hypothesis, even given multiple opportunities to seek new information in the same case. We also expected individual differences would affect diagnostic reasoning, such that psychologists with lower (vs. higher) cognitive reflection tendencies and larger (vs. smaller) bias blind spots would be more likely to demonstrate confirmatory bias.Method: Study 1 recruited 149 licensed psychologists (M = 18 years of experience; 44% women; 71% White) and exposed them to one of four randomly-assigned vignettes that varied order effects (one set of symptoms in reversed orders) and context effects (court vs. employer referral). They rank-ordered a list of four possible initial diagnostic hypotheses, and received a piped follow-up choice of which of two pieces of information (confirmatory or disconfirmatory) they wanted to test their initial hypothesis. Study 2 (n =131; M = 21 years of experience; 53% men; 68% White) replicated and extended Study 1, following the same procedure except offering three sequential choice opportunities.Results: Both studies found robust confirmatory information-seeking: 92% sought confirmatory information in Study 1, and confirmation persisted across three opportunities in Study 2 (90%, 84%, 77%), though it lowered with each opportunity (generalized logistic mixed regression model F [2, 378] = 3.85, p = 0.02, ηp2 = 0.02). Conclusions: These findings expand a growing body of research on bias in expert judgment. Specifically, psychologists may engage in robust confirmation bias in the process of forming diagnoses. Although further research is needed on bias and its impact on accuracy, psychologists may need to take steps to reduce confirmatory reasoning processes, such as documenting evidence for and against each decision element.Public Significance Statement: These studies revealed strong evidence that once psychologists form an initial diagnosis, they seek confirming information in an effort to determine if their diagnosis is correct (rather than seeking information to determine if their diagnosis is incorrect). Confirmation bias is a problem because it can lead to misdiagnosis, failure to receive proper treatment, unjust sanctions, and more. Psychologists should take steps to reduce confirmatory bias in their diagnostic reasoning, such as carefully considering and documenting evidence both for and against each element of their decision process.

show abstract

“…There was a main effect of latent print type on participants' ratings of evidence strength, F(1, 500) = 20.10, p < .001, η 2 p = .04, and evidence quality, F(1, 500) = 31.03, p < .001, η 2 p = .06; specifically, participants rated the footwear print evidence as stronger and of higher quality (M = 4.94, 95% CI [4.79, 5.09] and M = 6.42, 95% CI [6.27,6.57], respectively) than the fingerprint evidence (M = 3.96, 95% CI [3.82,4.10] and M = 5.22, 95% CI [5.08, 5.36], respectively), perhaps reflecting that participants found the footwear testimony easier to understand (see Sneyd et al, 2020). There were no significant predictors of participants' ratings of the usefulness of the evidence in coming to a verdict, ps ≥ .04.…”

Section: Ratings Of the Print Evidence Were Unaffected By The Manipul...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Supplemental Material for Improving Juror Assessments of Forensic Testimony and Its Effects on Decision-Making and Evidence Evaluation

2023

Law and Human Behavior

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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; M age = 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

show abstract

Quality of Laypersons' Assessment of Forensically Relevant Stimuli,

Cited by 4 publications

References 25 publications

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

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

Confirmatory Information Seeking is Robust in Psychologists’ Diagnostic Reasoning

Supplemental Material for Improving Juror Assessments of Forensic Testimony and Its Effects on Decision-Making and Evidence Evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About