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.

The Belief in a Just World and Immanent Justice Reasoning in Adults

The Relationship Between Belief in a Just World and Antisocial Behavior Through Anticipated Guilt, Victim Deservedness, and Punishment Frame

Eye movements to audiovisual scenes reveal expectations of a just world.

Preschoolers' retrospective and prospective judgements of immanent justice following distributive actions

A Self-Regulation Hypothesis of Coping with an Unjust World: Ego-Depletion and Self-Affirmation as Underlying Aspects of Blaming of Innocent Victims

Neurocognitive mechanisms of reactions to second- and third-party justice violations

Moral appraisals guide intuitive legal determinations.

The Intuition of Punishment: A Study of Fairness Preferences and Cognitive Ability

Intuitive Jurisprudence: Early Reasoning About the Functions of Punishment

Chinese Conceptions Of Justice And Reward Allocation

Not General Belief in a Just World But Injustice Perception of Concrete Situations Is Associated With Embitterment

Are Jurors Intuitive Statisticians? Bayesian Causal Reasoning in Legal Contexts

Racial ideology, system justification, and just world belief in African Americans

From outcome to process: A developmental shift in judgments of good reasoning

Presumed innocent? How tacit assumptions of intentional structure shape moral judgment.

Neural mechanisms of the mood effects on third-party responses to injustice after unfair experiences

Just-World Beliefs and Attributions of Causal Responsibility Among Korean Adolescents

Belief-bias reasoning in non-clinical delusion-prone individuals

Do smart people have better intuitions?

Intuitive anger in the context of crime and punishment

Retributive reactions to suspected offenders: the importance of social categorizations and guilt probability