Visual evidence

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 149-154

  Feigenson, Neal ^a  

^a QUINNIPIAC UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CRIME; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGAL ASPECT; PHOTOGRAPHY; PHYSIOLOGY; RECALL; RESEARCH; UNITED STATES; VIDEORECORDING; VISION;

CRIME; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; JURISPRUDENCE; MENTAL RECALL; PHOTOGRAPHY; RESEARCH; UNITED STATES; VIDEO RECORDING; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 77954685934     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/PBR.17.2.149     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Bell, B. E., & Loftus, E. F. (1985). Vivid persuasion in the courtroom. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 659-664.
2. Bennett, R. B., Jr., Leibman, J. H., & Fetter, R. E. (1999). Seeing is believing; or is it? An empirical study of computer simulations as evidence. Wake Forest Law Review, 34, 257-294.
3. Binder, D. (2006). The relationship between need for cognition, argument strength, and the persuasiveness of courtroom technology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wyoming, Laramie.
4. Bright, D. A., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2006). Gruesome evidence and emotion: Anger, blame, and jury decision-making. Law & Human Behavior, 30, 183-202.
5. Bright, D. A., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2009). Mock juror decision making in a civil negligence trial: The impact of gruesome evidence, injury severity and information processing route. Unpublished manuscript.
6. Center for Legal and Court Technology (2007). Retrieved June 23, 2009, from www.legaltechcenter.net.
7. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
8. Dahir, V. B. (2005). The effect of presentation mode and argument quality on memory, comprehension, and decision-making: Implications for computer display usage and evidence strength in the courtroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nevada, Reno.
9. Douglas, K. S., Lyon, D. R., & Ogloff, J. R. (1997). The impact of graphic photographic evidence on mock jurors' decisions in a murder trial: Probative or prejudicial? Law & Human Behavior, 21, 485-501.
10. Dunn, M. A., Salovey, P., & Feigenson, N. (2006). The jury persuaded (and not): Computer animation in the courtroom. Law & Policy, 28, 228-248.
11. Dunn, R. (2000). Capitalizing on college students' learning styles: Theory, practice, and research. In R. Dunn & S. A. Griggs (Eds.), Practical approaches to using learning styles in higher education (pp. 3-18). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
12. Eisenberg, T., & Wells, M. T. (2002). Trial outcomes and demographics: Is there a Bronx effect? Texas Law Review, 80, 1839-1875.
13. Federal Judicial Center/National Institute for Trial Advocacy (2001). Effective use of courtroom technology: A judge's guide to pretrial and trial. Washington, DC: Author.
14. Federal Rules of Evidence (2009). St. Paul, MN: West.
15. Feigenson, N., & Dunn, M. A. (2003). New visual technologies in court: Directions for research. Law & Human Behavior, 27, 109-126.
16. Feigenson, N., & Spiesel, C. (2009). Law on display: The digital transformation of legal persuasion and judgment. New York: New York University Press.
17. Fishfader, V. L., Howells, G. N., Katz, R. C., & Teresi, P. S. (1996). Evidential and extralegal factors in juror decisions: Presentation mode, retention, and level of emotionality. Law & Human Behavior, 20, 565-572.
18. Goodman, G. S., Tobey, A. E., Batterman-Faunce, J. M., Orcutt, H., Thomas, S., Shapiro, C., & Sachsenmaier, T. (1998). Face-to-face confrontation: Effects of closed-circuit technology on children's eyewitness testimony and jurors' decisions. Law & Human Behavior, 22, 165-203.
19. Goodman-Delahunty, J., Greene, E., & Hsiao, W. (1998). Construing motive in videotaped killings: The role of jurors' attitudes toward the death penalty. Law & Human Behavior, 22, 257-271.
20. Harley, E. M. (2007). Hindsight bias in legal decision making. Social Cognition, 25, 48-63.
21. Harley, E. M., Carlsen, K. A., & Loftus, G. R. (2004). The "saw-it-allalong" effect: Demonstrations of visual hindsight bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 30, 960-968.
22. Hartmus, D. M. (1996). Videotrials. Ohio Northern University Law Review, 23, 1-15.
23. Hewson, L., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2008). Using multimedia to support jury understanding of DNA profiling evidence. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 40, 55-64.
24. Houston, J. M., Joiner, C. L., Uddo, F., Harper, C., & Stroll, A. (1995). Computer animation in mock juries' decision making. Psychological Reports, 76, 987-993.
25. Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1971). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
26. Joseph, G. P. (1997). Modern visual evidence. New York: Law Journal Seminars Press.
27. Kahan, D. M., Hoffman, D. A., & Braman, D. (2009). Whose eyes are you going to believe? Scott v. Harris and the perils of cognitive illiberalism. Harvard Law Review, 122, 837-906.
28. Kassin, S. M., & Dunn, M. A. (1997). Computer-animated displays and the jury: Facilitative and prejudicial effects. Law & Human Behavior, 21, 269-281.
29. Kassin, S. M., & Garfield, D. A. (1991). Blood and guts: General and trial-specific effects of videotaped crime scenes on mock jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1459-1472.
30. Kosslyn, S. (1994). Image and brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
31. Lassiter, G. D., Geers, A. L., Munhall, P. J., Handley, I. M., & Beers, M. J. (2001). Videotaped confessions: Is guilt in the eye of the camera? In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 189-254). New York: Academic Press.
32. Marylandv. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 1990
33. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 389-401.
35. McCabe, D. P., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition, 107, 343-352.
36. Mnookin, J. (1998). The image of truth: Photographic evidence and the power of analogy. Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, 10, 1-74.
37. Modin, K. (2006). The impact of photographic crime scene evidence on juror verdicts, jurors' feelings of confidence, beliefs about impartiality, and emotional reactions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Alliant International University, San Diego.
38. Morell, L. C. (1999). New technology: Experimental research on the influence of computer-animated displays on jurors. Southwestern University Law Review, 28, 411-415.
39. Nemeth, R. (2002). The impact of gruesome evidence on mock juror decision making: The role of evidence characteristics and emotional response. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.
40. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.
41. Oliver, E., & Griffitt, W. (1976). Emotional arousal and "objective" judgment. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 8, 399-400.
42. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
43. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
44. Park, J., & Feigenson, N. (2009). Effects of a visual technology on mock juror decision making. Manuscript submitted for publication.
45. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
46. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 41-72). New York: Guilford.
47. Ratcliff, J. J., Lassiter, G. D., Schmidt, H. C., & Snyder, C. J. (2006). Camera perspective bias in videotaped confessions: Experimental evidence of its perceptual basis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 197-206.
48. Ray, R. E. (2001). Computer animation as demonstrative evidence: Does prior knowledge matter? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
49. Roese, N. J., Fessel, F., Summerville, A., Kruger, J., & Dilich, M. A. (2006). The propensity effect: When foresight trumps hindsight. Psychological Science, 17, 305-310.
50. Rosado, T. (1998). The influence of computer-generated simulations on mock juror and jury decision making. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
51. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007).
52. Visher, C. A. (1987). Juror decision making: The importance of evidence. Law & Human Behavior, 11, 1-17.
53. Weichselbaum, S. (2009, July 7). Cyclist sues NYPD for $1.5M after YouTube vid captures cop body slam. The Daily News. Retrieved August 14, 2009, from www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/07/07/2009-07-07_cyclist_seeks_15m_from_city_for_body_slam.html.
54. Whalen, D. H., & Blanchard, F. A. (1982). Effects of photographic evidence on mock juror judgment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 12, 30-41.
55. Williams, K. D., & Jones, A. (2005). Trial strategy and tactics. In N. Brewer & K. D. Williams (Eds.), Psychology and law: An empirical perspective (pp. 276-321). New York: Guilford.
56. Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Reber, R., & Fazendeiro, T. A. (2003). Cognitive and affective consequences of visual fluency: When seeing is easy on the mind. In L. M. Scott & R. Batra (Eds.), Persuasive imagery (pp. 75-89). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.