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.

Tort Liability And Unawareness

The Public Life of Private Law: Tort Law as a Risk Regulation Mechanism

Liability rules can rationalize greater victim vulnerability

On the state-space model of unawareness

Awareness of unawareness: A theory of decision making in the face of ignorance

If negligence is intentionality’s cousin, recklessness is it’s sibling: Differentiating negligence and recklessness from accidents and intentional harm

A partial-state space model of unawareness

Revisiting the state-space model of unawareness

Vicarious liability under a negligence rule

Responsibilitism and Knowledge of Illegality

Liability Design with Information Acquisition

The Studies of Negligent Crime

The Principle of Culpability and Foreseeablity in Negligent Crime

Culpable Control and Counterfactual Reasoning in the Psychology of Blame

Are Jurors Intuitive Statisticians? Bayesian Causal Reasoning in Legal Contexts

Study on Patient's Right of Informed Consent under the Tort Law Through the Method of Case Analysis

Autonomous Cars and Tort Liability

How expert witnesses' counterfactuals influence causal and responsibility attributions of mock jurors and expert judges

A survey of what legal populations believe and know about inattentional blindness and visual detection

Accident Compensation Liability Without Fault- the New Zealand Experience

"Loss of situation awareness" by medical staff: reflecting on the moral and legal status of a psychological concept