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.

Verbal framing of statistical evidence drives children's preference inferences

Children's Knowledge of Free Choice Inferences

Is Working Memory Necessary for Both Selection and Calculation in Level 1 Visual Perspective Taking? Evidence from Children and Adults

Children's Knowledge of Free Choice Inferences and Scalar Implicatures

Linguistic Cues Facilitate Children’s Understanding of Belief-Reporting Sentences

Understanding Others’ Minds: Social Inference in Preschool Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Young Children Use Statistical Sampling to Infer the Preferences of Other People

Children's On-Line Processing of Epistemic Modals.

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

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

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

Young children’s use of statistical sampling evidence to infer the subjectivity of preferences

A confidence framing effect: Flexible use of evidence in metacognitive monitoring

Are Jurors Intuitive Statisticians? Bayesian Causal Reasoning in Legal Contexts

YOUNG CHILDREN’S PROBABILISTIC AND STATISTICAL REASONING IN THE CONTEXT OF INFORMAL STATISTICAL INFERENCE

3 to 5 Years Old Children’s Behavioral and Verbal Performances in Level 1 Perspective-Taking: 3 to 5 Years Old Children’s Behavioral and Verbal Performances in Level 1 Perspective-Taking

Now you Bayes, now you don't: effects of set-problem and frequency-format mental representations on statistical reasoning

3 to 5 Years Old Children's Behavioral and Verbal Performances in Level 1 Perspective-Taking

Evaluations of epistemic and practical reasons for belief in a predominantly White U.S. sample of preschoolers

Is the framing effect a framing affect?

Deep thoughts and shallow frames: on the susceptibility to framing effects