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.

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

Are Jurors Intuitive Statisticians? Bayesian Causal Reasoning in Legal Contexts

"If it didn't happen, why would I change my decision?": How Judges Respond to Counterfactual Explanations for the Public Safety Assessment

Is justice blind or myopic? An examination of the effects of meta-cognitive myopia and truth bias on mock jurors and judges

Perceptions of bias and credibility of male and female clinical psychologist and psychiatrist expert witnesses presenting clinical information in the courtroom

Counterfactual thoughts in complex causal domain: content, benefits, and implications for their function

Culpable Control and Counterfactual Reasoning in the Psychology of Blame

The importance of epistemic intentions in ascription of responsibility

Counterfactuals in mainstream media: A pathway for blame attribution and policy endorsement in police lethal force incidents

Gauging Court Adjudication: Qualification And Quantification

Jurors’ Responses to Expert Witness Testimony: The Effects of Gender Stereotypes

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

When jurors’ moral judgments result in jury nullification: moral outrage at the law as a mediator of euthanasia attitudes on verdicts

Bayesian persuasion in lawyer-client communication

Causality and Association: The Statistical and Legal Approaches

How people reason with counterfactual and causal explanations for Artificial Intelligence decisions in familiar and unfamiliar domains

Feedback and Learning: The Causal Effects of Reversals on Judicial Decision-Making

Mock jurors' evaluations of eyewitness identification evidence based on appearance change and associated instructions

Actual and counterfactual effort contribute to responsibility attributions in collaborative tasks

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

The effects of cognitive bias, examiner expertise, and stimulus material on forensic evidence analysis