Abstract:In criminal trials, evidence often involves a degree of uncertainty and decision-making includes moving from the initial presumption of innocence to inference about guilt based on that evidence. The jurors’ ability to combine evidence and make accurate intuitive probabilistic judgments underpins this process. Previous research has shown that errors in probabilistic reasoning can be explained by a misalignment of the evidence presented with the intuitive causal models that people construct. This has been explored in abstract and context-free situations. However, less is known about how people interpret evidence in context-rich situations such as legal cases. The present study examined participants’ intuitive probabilistic reasoning in legal contexts and assessed how people’s causal models underlie the process of belief updating in the light of new evidence. The study assessed whether participants update beliefs in line with Bayesian norms and if errors in belief updating can be explained by the causal structures underpinning the evidence integration process. The study was based on a recent case in England where a couple was accused of intentionally harming their baby but was eventually exonerated because the child’s symptoms were found to be caused by a rare blood disorder. Participants were presented with a range of evidence, one piece at a time, including physical evidence and reports from experts. Participants made probability judgments about the abuse and disorder as causes of the child’s symptoms. Subjective probability judgments were compared against Bayesian norms. The causal models constructed by participants were also elicited. Results showed that overall participants revised their beliefs appropriately in the right direction based on evidence. However, this revision was done without exact Bayesian computation and errors were observed in estimating the weight of evidence. Errors in probabilistic judgments were partly accounted for, by differences in the causal models representing the evidence. Our findings suggest that understanding causal models that guide people’s judgments may help shed light on errors made in evidence integration and potentially identify ways to address accuracy in judgment.

Testimony and observation of statistical evidence interact in adults' and children's category-based induction

Evidence of a transition from perceptual to category induction in 3- to 9-year-old children

The effect of generic statements on children's causal attributions: Questions of mechanism.

Children Prefer Diverse Samples for Inductive Reasoning in the Social Domain

Children's recognition of causal system categories across superficially distinct events

Diversity Effect In Category-Based Inductive Reasoning Of Young Children: Evidence From Two Methods

Is it personal or is it social? The interaction of knowledge domain and statistical evidence in U.S. and Chinese preschoolers' social generalizations.

More than true: Developmental changes in use of the inductive strength for selective trust

Verbal framing of statistical evidence drives children's preference inferences

Anecdata: children’s and adults’ evaluation of anecdotal and statistical evidence

Feedback and observational learning differ in effectiveness during category learning in early school aged children and adults

The influence of language input on 3-year-olds' learning about novel social categories

Inferring Unseen Causes: Developmental and Evolutionary Origins

The role of category label in adults' inductive reasoning

On the interaction of prior knowledge and stimulus structure in category learning

Reconciling categorization and memory via environmental statistics

When Choices Are Not Personal: The Effect of Statistical and Social Cues on Children's Inferences About the Scope of Preferences

Don't throw the associative baby out with the Bayesian bathwater: Children are more associative when reasoning retrospectively under information processing demands

Says who? Children consider informants' sources when deciding whom to believe.

Are Jurors Intuitive Statisticians? Bayesian Causal Reasoning in Legal Contexts

Appealing to consequences, or authority? The influence of explanations on children's moral judgments across two cultures