The effect of ambiguous question wording on jurors’ presumption of innocence

Abstract

Research suggests that jurors misunderstand the presumption of innocence. However, past studies have not asked participants to estimate the defendant's probability of guilt, setting aside the fact of charge and indictment. We conduct two studies to explore the impact of this question wording on estimates of the probability of guilt/innocence by jury-eligible Mturk workers. In Experiment 1 (N = 275), question wording (legal, factual and ambiguous) was varied within participants and revealed significantly higher estimates of innocence in response to the legal than the factual or ambiguously worded question. In Experiment 2 (N = 303), question wording was manipulated between participants both before (prior) and after (posterior) the presentation of evidence. Prior estimates of guilt were significantly lower in the legal than factual or ambiguous conditions. Question wording also predicted posteriors, and these in turn predicted verdicts. These results suggest that imprecise wording may have contributed to concerns about jurors' understanding of the presumption of innocence, highlighting the need for further research.Link to associated OSF page: [version for blind review to be updated if accepted https://osf.io/ywuxr/?view_only=eb837985f443453d91d363d874da4e64]

Interval numbers BON r,q ‐OWA operator and its application to multiattribute decision‐making

“…However, the BON-OWA operator can only be used in deterministic MADM. In real life, the reaction of DMs for decision problems is often ambiguous, 21,22 and the decision results are often given in the form of the interval numbers. 23 Thus, the problem of integration of interval numbers' attribute values appears.…”