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.

Cultural Influences on Children's Probabilistic Thinking

Piagetian and Information Processing Approaches to Concepts of Chance and Probability: Relationships among Methods, Age, and Locus of Control

Deterministic or probabilistic: U.S. children's beliefs about genetic inheritance

Young Children Use Probability to Infer Happiness and the Quality of Outcomes

A Computational Model of Children's Learning and Use of Probabilities Across Different Ages

Primary-school children's knowledge of transitivity of probability and of bounds of probability

YOUNG CHILDREN’S PROBABILISTIC AND STATISTICAL REASONING IN THE CONTEXT OF INFORMAL STATISTICAL INFERENCE

FAIRNESS IN GAMES: A STUDY ON CHILDREN’S AND ADULTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF PROBABILITY

Collaboration promotes proportional reasoning about resource distribution in young children.

Infant Statisticians: The Origins of Reasoning Under Uncertainty

Calculated Feelings: How Children Use Probability to Infer Emotions

Three- and four-year-old children represent mutually exclusive possible identities

Heuristic Strategy of Intuitive Statistical Inferences in 7- to 10-Year-old Children

When Choices Are Not Personal: The Effect of Statistical and Social Cues on Children's Inferences About the Scope of Preferences

Is it personal or is it social? The interaction of knowledge domain and statistical evidence in U.S. and Chinese preschoolers' social generalizations.

Are Jurors Intuitive Statisticians? Bayesian Causal Reasoning in Legal Contexts

Preschoolers use probabilistic evidence to flexibly change or maintain expectations on an active search task

Studies in subjective probability l: Prediction of random events

Could probability be out of proportion? Self-explanation and example-based practice help students with lower proportional reasoning skills learn probability

Understanding Others’ Knowledge Certainty from Inference and Information-Seeking Behaviors in Children.

Robust, Source-Independent Biases in Children's Use of Socially and Individually Acquired Information