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.

Evidence of Herding and Stubbornness in Jury Deliberations

The Plaintiff Bias in Mock Civil Jury Decision Making: Consensus Requirements, Information Format and Amount of Consensus

Optimizing voting order on sequential juries: a median voter theorem and beyond

Are Jurors Intuitive Statisticians? Bayesian Causal Reasoning in Legal Contexts

Condorcet's Jury Theorem with Abstention

Jury Learning: Integrating Dissenting Voices into Machine Learning Models

Biased processing and opinion polarization: experimental refinement of argument communication theory in the context of the energy debate

Juror understanding of the weight of evidence presented as a likelihood ratio and the impact on the deliberative process: a response to Buckleton, et al.

Valence and interactions in judicial voting

Social Influence Undermines the Wisdom of the Crowd in Sequential Decision Making

Normative evidence weighting and accumulation in correlated environments

Correlated Information Reduces Accuracy of Pioneering Decision-Makers

Collective beliefs and individual stubbornness in the dynamics of public debates

The Tweedledum and Tweedledee of dynamic decisions: Discriminating between diffusion decision and accumulator models

The impact of misinformation presented during jury deliberation on juror memory and decision-making

Demonstrative Evidence and the Use of Algorithms in Jury Trials

Trial-history biases in evidence accumulation can give rise to apparent lapses in decision-making

The interdependence of social deliberation and judgment aggregation

Statistical Mechanics of the US Supreme Court

Voting with Limited Information and Many Alternatives

The Role of Emotion and Motivation in Jury Decision-Making