The psychology of interpreting expert evaluative opinions

Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences

Volumn 45, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 305-314

  Martire, Kristy A ^a   Kemp, Richard I ^a   Newell, Ben R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

decision making; expert evaluative opinions; likelihood ratios; probability; psychology

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; FORENSIC MEDICINE; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; PSYCHOLOGIST; PSYCHOLOGY; SCIENTIST; STANDARD; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 84882425762     PISSN: 00450618     EISSN: 1834562X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00450618.2013.784361     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (54)

1. Aitken, C, Berger, CEH, Buckleton, JS, Champod, C, Dawid, AP, Evett, IW, Gill, P, Gonzalez-Rodriguez, J, and, Jackson, G. 2011. Expressing evaluative opinions: a position statement. Sci Justice., 51 (1): 1-2.
2. Stoney, DA. 1991. What made us ever think we could individualize using statistics?. J Forensic Sci Soc., 31 (2): 197-199.
3. Inman, K., and, Rudin, N. 2001. Principles and practices of criminalistics: the profession of forensic science, 1st ed., Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
4. Osterburg, JW. 1969. The evaluation of physical evidence in criminalistics: subjective or objective process?. J Crim Law Crim., 60 (1): 97-101.
5. Saks, MJ, and, Koehler, JJ. 2008. Individualization fallacy in forensic science evidence. The Vand L Rev., 61: 199-219.
6. Page, M, Taylor, J, and, Blenkin, M. 2011. Uniqueness in the forensic identification sciences-fact or fiction?. Forensic Sci Int., 206 (1-3): 12-18.
7. Saks, MJ, and, Faigman, DL. 2008. Failed forensics: how forensic science lost its way and how it might yet find it. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci., 4: 149-171.
8. National Research Council Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. Washington: The National Academies Press; 2009.
9. Association of Forensic Science Providers. 2009. Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion. Sci Justice., 49 (3): 161-164.
10. R v T, England and Wales Court of Appeal, Criminal. 2010.
11. Morrison, GS. 2012. The likelihood-ratio framework and forensic evidence in court: a response to R v T. T Int J Ev Proof., 16 (1): 1-29.
12. Berger, CEH, Buckleton, J, Champod, C, Evett, IW, and, Jackson, G. 2011. Evidence evaluation: a response to the court of appeal judgment in R v T. Sci Justice., 51 (2): 43-49.
13. Redmayne, M, Roberts, P, Aitken, C, and, Jackson, G. 2011. Forensic science evidence in question. Crim Law Rev., 5: 347-356.
14. Robertson, B, Vignaux, G, and, Berger, CEH. 2011. Extending the confusion about Bayes. Mod Law Rev., 74 (3): 444-455.
15. Facey, OE, and, Davis, RJ. 2011. Re: Expressing evaluative opinions; a position statement. Sci Justice., 51 (4): 212-212.
16. Skerrett J, Neumann C, Mateos-Garcia I. A Bayesian approach for interpreting shoemark evidence in forensic casework: Accounting for wear features. Forensic Sci Int. 2011.
17. Neumann, C, Evett, IW, and, Skerrett, J. 2011. Quantifying the weight of evidence from a forensic fingerprint comparison: a new paradigm. J Roy Stat Soc., 175 (2): 371-345.
18. Ligertwood, A, and, Edmond, G. 2012. Expressing evaluative forensic science opinions in a court of law. Law Prob Risk., 11 (4): 289-302.
19. Edmond, G., and, Ligertwood, A. 2010. Australian evidence: a principled approach to the Common Law and Uniform Acts, 5th ed., Sydney: Butterworths.
20. Thompson, WC, and, Schumann, EL. 1987. Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: The prosecutors fallacy and the defense attorneys fallacy. Law Human Behav., 11 (3): 167-187.
21. Smith, LL, Bull, R, and, Holliday, R. 2011. Understanding juror perceptions of forensic evidence: investigating the impact of case context on perceptions of forensic evidence strength. J Forensic Sci., 56 (2): 409-414.
22. Kaye, DH, and, Koehler, JJ. 1991. Can jurors understand probabilistic evidence?. J Roy Stat Soc., 154 (1): 75-81.
23. Goodman, J. 1992. Jurors comprehension and assessment of probabilistic evidence. Am J Trial Advoc., 16: 361-390.
24. Faigman, DL, and, Baglioni, A. 1988. Bayes theorem in the trial process: instructing jurors on the value of statistical evidence. Law Human Behav., 12 (1): 1-17.
25. Trevena, LJ, Barratt, A, Butow, P, and, Caldwell, P. 2006. A systematic review on communicating with patients about evidence. J Eval Clin Pract., 12 (1): 13-23.
26. Koehler, JJ. 2001. When are people persuaded by DNA match statistics?. Law Human Behav., 25 (5): 493-513.
27. Koehler, JJ. 1996. On conveying the probative value of DNA evidence: frequencies, likelihood ratios, and error rates. Uni Colo Law Rev., 67: 859-886.
28. Koehler, JJ, and, Macchi, L. 2004. Thinking about low-probability events an exemplar-cuing theory. Psychol Sci., 15 (8): 540-546.
29. Lindsey, S, Hertwig, R, and, Gigerenzer, G. 2002. Communicating statistical DNA evidence. Jurimetrics., 43: 147-164.
30. Gigerenzer, G, Herwig, R, Van Den Broek, E, Fasolo, B, and, Katsickopoulos, KV. 2005. A 30% chance of rain tomorrow: how does the public understand probabilistic weather forecasts?. Risk Anal., 25 (3): 623-629.
31. de Keijser, J, and, Elffers, H. 2012. Understanding of forensic expert reports by judges, defense lawyers and forensic professionals. Psychol Crime Law., 18 (2): 191-207.
32. Berger, CEH. 2010. Criminalistics is reasoning backwards. Nederlands Juistenblad., 85: 784-789.
33. Koehler JJ. If the shoe fits they might acquit: the value of forensic science testimony. J Empir Legal Stud. 2011;8(s1):21-48.
34. Brun, W, and, Teigen, KH. 1988. Verbal probabilities: ambiguous, context-dependent, or both?. Organ Behav Hum Dec., 41 (3): 390-404.
35. Shaw, N, and, Dear, P. 1990. How do parents of babies interpret qualitative expressions of probability?. Arch Dis Child., 65 (5): 520-523.
36. Weber, EU, and, Hilton, DJ. 1990. Contextual effects in the interpretations of probability words: perceived base rate and severity of events. J Exp Psychol Human., 16 (4): 781-789.
37. Patt, AG, and, Schrag, DP. 2003. Using specific language to describe risk and probability. Climatic Change., 61 (1): 17-30.
38. Wogalter, MA, Young, SL, Brelsford, JW, and, Barlow, T. 1999. The relative contributions of injury severity and likelihood information on hazard-risk judgments and warning compliance. J Safety Res., 30 (3): 151-162.
39. Wallsten, TS, and, Budescu, DV. 1995. A review of human linguistic probability processing: General principles and empirical evidence. Knowl Eng Rev., 10 (1): 43-62.
40. Fox, CR, and, Irwin, JR. 1998. The role of context in the communication of uncertain beliefs. Basic Appl Soc Psych., 20 (1): 57-70.
41. Politi, MC, Han, PJK, and, Col, NF. 2007. Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Medi Decis Making., 27 (5): 681-695.
42. Budescu, DV, and, Wallsten, TS. 1990. Dyadic decisions with numerical and verbal probabilities. Organ Behav Hum Dec., 46 (2): 240-263.
43. Karelitz, TM, and, Budescu, DV. 2004. You say probable and I say likely: improving interpersonal communication with verbal probability phrases. J Exp Psychol-Appl., 10 (1): 25-41.
44. Visschers, VHM, Meertens, RM, Passchier, WWF, and, De Vries, NNK. 2009. Probability information in risk communication: a review of the research literature. Risk Anal., 29 (2): 267-287.
45. Budescu, DV, Broomell, S, and, Por, HH. 2009. Improving communication of uncertainty in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Psychol Sci., 20 (3): 299-308.
46. Budescu DV. Por HH. Broomell S. Effective communicating of uncertainty in the IPCC reports. Climatic Change. 2011;DOI: 10.1007/s10584-011-0330-3.
47. McQuiston-Surrett, D, and, Saks, MJ. 2007. Communicating opinion evidence in the forensic identification sciences: Accuracy and impact. Hastings LJ., 59: 1159-1190.
48. Martire KA, Kemp RI, Watkins I, Sayle MA, Newell BR. The expression and interpretation of uncertain forensic science evidence: verbal equivalence, evidence strength and the weak evidence effect. Law Human Behav. In press.
49. Fernbach, PM, Darlow, A, and, Sloman, SA. 2011. When good evidence goes bad: the weak evidence effect in judgment and decision-making. Cognition., 119 (3): 459-467.
50. McKenzie, CRM, Lee, SM, and, Chen, KK. 2002. When negative evidence increases confidence: Change in belief after hearing two sides of a dispute. J Behav Decis Making., 15 (1): 1-18.
51. Friedrich, J., and, Smith, P. 1998. Suppressive influence of weak arguments in mixed-quality messages: an exploration of mechanisms via argument rating, pretesting, and order effects. Basic Appl Soc Psych., 20 (4): 293-304.
52. Harris A, Corner A, Hahn U. Damned by faint praise: a Bayesian account. 2009. Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society.
53. Fenton N, Neil M. On limiting the use of Bayes in presenting forensic evidence. 2012; https://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~norman/papers/likelihood-ratio.pdf
54. Mosteller, F, and, Youtz, C. 1990. Quantifying probabilistic expressions. Stat Sci., 5 (1): 2-12.