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.

Police evaluation of evidence: statistical format and evidence type

Demonstrative Evidence and the Use of Algorithms in Jury Trials

Laypeople's beliefs about the effects of common estimator variables on memory

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

Suspect race affects defense attorney evaluations of preidentification evidence

The perfect match: Do criminal stereotypes bias forensic evidence analysis?

The effect of confession evidence on conviction, and considering alternative scenarios as remedy in a sample of police officers

Forensic science evidence: Naive estimates of false positive error rates and reliability

Are Jurors Intuitive Statisticians? Bayesian Causal Reasoning in Legal Contexts

The effect of following best practice reporting recommendations on legal and community evaluations of forensic examiners reports

Gauging Court Adjudication: Qualification And Quantification

Truth, knowledge, and the standard of proof in criminal law

The biasing nature of gang evidence: inducing memory errors for evidence of past criminal behavior

Improving the diagnostic value of lineup rejections

Accuracy and Preferences for Legal Error

A probabilistic formalization of contextual bias in forensic analysis: Evidence that examiner bias leads to systemic bias in the criminal justice system

Psychometric analysis of forensic examiner behavior

Do inconclusive forensic decisions disadvantage the innocent?

Commentary on Guyll et al. (2023): Misuse of Statistical Method Results in Highly Biased Interpretation of Forensic Evidence

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

The effect of confirmation bias and racial stereotypes on perceptions of guilt and interrogation strategy decisions