Visual evidence

Feigenson, Neal

doi:10.3758/pbr.17.2.149

Cited by 28 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reliable empirical support for this widespread assumption, however, is scanty. Despite growing efforts to explore courtroom technology generally (e.g., Center for Legal and Court Technology, 2007;Federal Judicial Center/National Institute for Trial Advocacy, 2001) and a handful of experimental studies of other digital visual technologies, such as computer animations (e.g., Dunn, Salovey, & Feigenson, 2006; for a review, see Feigenson, 2010), there have been no published controlled experimental studies of the effects of PowerPoint in legal settings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of a Visual Technology on Mock Juror Decision Making

Park

Feigenson

2012

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two studies explored the effects of lawyers' use of PowerPoint on liability judgments in a case involving statistical evidence. Participants (Study 1, N = 192; Study 2A, N = 180; Study 2B, N = 189) watched videotaped opening statements for plaintiffs and defendant. In general, defendant's responsibility was judged to be greater when plaintiffs used PowerPoint slides than when they did not and less when defendant used PowerPoint slides than when it did not. Furthermore, PowerPoint's impact was greatest when its use was unequal. PowerPoint enhanced persuasion partly through central and partly through peripheral processing. In general, each party's use of PowerPoint increased participants' recall of that party's evidence, which in turn increased defendant's judged responsibility (when plaintiffs used PowerPoint) or reduced it (when defendants used PowerPoint), indicative of central processing. PowerPoint also functioned as a peripheral cue, influencing participants' judgments of defendant's responsibility by affecting their perceptions of the respective attorneys.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of a Visual Technology on Mock Juror Decision Making

Park

Feigenson

2012

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The search began with the use of PsycINFO, ProQuest Criminal Justice, Social Science Research Network, and Google Scholar search engines to search for papers with one of the words 'gruesome', 'gory', 'violent', and 'graphic', one of the words 'photo Ã ', 'picture', and 'evidence', and one of the words 'jur Ã ', 'verdict', and 'trial' (note that asterisks indicate wildcards). 1 When papers were found that match the topic, including non-empirical papers (e.g., Bandes & Salerno, 2014;Bornstein & Nemeth, 1999;Feigenson, 2010), the reference section of each paper was examined in order to find other related papers. Additionally, the authors of relevant empirical and review papers were contacted by email to ask for details of any unpublished work they were aware of, recommendations for other researchers to contact, and any necessary statistical clarification.…”

Section: Search Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gruesome crime scene and autopsy photographs are regularly introduced in both criminal and civil trials (Bandes & Salerno, 2014;Feigenson, 2010;Risinger, 1998). Admitting gruesome photographs (meaning in this context gory, bloody, or violent photographs of injury or death to a human body) as evidence in a legal case is a complex judicial decision.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Old Chief was convicted at trial, but the United States Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the prejudicial impact of the details surrounding his prior conviction substantially outweighed any probative value. The Court went on to craft a lengthy opinion in which it reaffirmed the bedrock principle that probative value must be balanced against potential prejudicial impact, leading to this case often being discussed by legal scholars in connection with gruesome photographic evidence (e.g., Bandes & Salerno, 2014;Feigenson, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact of Gruesome Photographic Evidence on Legal Decisions: A Meta-Analysis

Grady

Reiser

Garcia

et al. 2018

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gruesome crime scene and autopsy photographs are admissible evidence under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) if their probative value substantially outweighs their prejudicial impact. Despite important methodological differences and mixed results from past studies, recommendations from the psychological literature have been made about the prejudicial impact of gruesome photographs perhaps prematurely. This meta-analysis investigates whether there is sufficient empirical evidence that presenting gruesome photographs in a trial affects legal decisions. The analysis of 23 studies and 4868 participants shows a small but statistically significant effect of gruesome photographs increasing guilty/liable verdicts or punishments, Hedge's g D 0.143, 95% CI: [0.055, 0.232]. However, this effect is significantly, Q(1) D 8.086, p D .004, and substantially moderated by an important methodological distinction: the effect is much larger when studies compare gruesome photographs with no photographs (g D 0.450) than when they are compared with neutral photographs (g D 0.077). These results suggest that gruesome photographs do increase affirmative verdicts, both through a small effect of gruesome content as well as a larger additive of having visual material. These findings help shed light on the mixed empirical results and suggest that important additional research is needed.

show abstract

“…Courts are increasingly adopting new technologies to enhance and streamline the administration of justice [1,2]. Litigators and expert witnesses often rely on visual evidence (e.g., images, videos, animation) to communicate information, making visual presentation a cornerstone of legal argument [3]. Jurors serving in contemporary trials have substantial exposure to technology, most noticeably through the presentation of visual evidence [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Students vs. Jurors: Responding to Enhanced Video Technology

Rossner

Tait

Goodman‐Delahunty

2014

Laws

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the influence of visual media technologies used in remote witness testimony, examining whether it is suitable to use students as mock jurors when measuring the impact of new technologies. A 2 × 2 mixed factorial design explored how student status impacted ratings of the quality of the technology and remote witness facilities. A sample of 79 students and non-empanelled jurors from the Victorian Metropolitan County Court viewed direct questioning of four lay witnesses who testified from a remote location via standard or enhanced video technology. Students differed significantly from jurors in their attitudes towards media and technology. In responding to technology enhancements, students were similar in rating changes in the quality of the technology, but differed significantly in how they rated changes to the design of remote witness facilities. Students were thus a suitable sample to measure the effect of technological change in court on perceptions of technology, but not on perceptions of design. We conclude by stressing such technology enhancements can improve the quality of experience for all jurors.

show abstract

Visual evidence

Cited by 28 publications

References 30 publications

Effects of a Visual Technology on Mock Juror Decision Making

Effects of a Visual Technology on Mock Juror Decision Making

Impact of Gruesome Photographic Evidence on Legal Decisions: A Meta-Analysis

Students vs. Jurors: Responding to Enhanced Video Technology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About