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.

Causal Interpretations of Correlational Evidence Regarding Violence

Seven correlations between interpersonal violence and the progression of organised religion

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

Situation, context, and causality—On a core debate of violence research

Causal Inference and Related Statistical Methods

Exploring causality from observational data: An example assessing whether religiosity promotes cooperation

Through the lens of causal inference: Decisions and pitfalls of covariate selection

Causal inference on human behaviour

Values, Attitudes Toward Interpersonal Violence, and Interpersonal Violent Behavior

The Impact of Degree of Exposure to Violent Video Games, Family Background, and Other Factors on Youth Violence

Illusion of Causality in Visualized Data

Reasoning about causal relationships: Inferences on causal networks.

The causal interpretation of estimated associations in regression models

Are Jurors Intuitive Statisticians? Bayesian Causal Reasoning in Legal Contexts

Contiguity and covariation in human causal inference

A Causal Framework for Observational Studies of Discrimination

Statistical Approaches for Enhancing Causal Interpretation of the M to Y Relation in Mediation Analysis

Causal Inference in the Social Sciences

Inferring Causal Directions from Uncertain Data

Environmental causes of violence

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