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.

Extending a rational process model of causal reasoning: Assessing Markov violations and explaining away with inhibitory causal relations.

A Quantum Probability Model of Causal Reasoning

Reasoning about causal relationships: Inferences on causal networks.

Causal inference for psychologists who think that causal inference is not for them

Revisiting causal pluralism: Intention, process, and dependency in cases of double prevention

Probabilistic causal reasoning under time pressure

A cautious approach to constraint-based causal model selection

An improved probabilistic account of counterfactual reasoning.

Contiguity and covariation in human causal inference

Causality in Cognitive Neuroscience: Concepts, Challenges, and Distributional Robustness

That’s a Lot to Process! Pitfalls of Popular Path Models

Causal intuition in the indefinite world: Meta-analysis and simulations

Is causation deterministic or probabilistic? A critique of Frosch and Johnson-Laird (2011)

Causal modelling without introducing counterfactuals or abstract distributions

Causal inference using the algorithmic Markov condition

Towards Bounding Causal Effects under Markov Equivalence

Avoidance of causality outside experiments: Hypotheses from cognitive dissonance reduction

New normative standards of conditional reasoning and the dual-source model

Are Jurors Intuitive Statisticians? Bayesian Causal Reasoning in Legal Contexts

Rethinking the framework constructed by counterfactual functional model