The expression and interpretation of uncertain forensic science evidence: Verbal equivalence, evidence strength, and the weak evidence effect

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 197-207

  Martire, Kristy A ^a   Kemp, Richard I ^a   Watkins, Ian ^a   Sayle, Malindi A ^a   Newell, Ben R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

evidence strength; forensic science; interpretation; juror decision making

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT WITNESS; FEMALE; FORENSIC SCIENCE; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; STATISTICAL MODEL; VERBAL BEHAVIOR; VERY ELDERLY; YOUNG ADULT; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT TESTIMONY; FEMALE; FORENSIC SCIENCES; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; VERBAL BEHAVIOR; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84885450103     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/lhb0000027     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Aitken, C., Berger, C. E. H., Buckleton, J. S., Champod, C., Curran, J., Dawid, A., Jackson G. (2011). Expressing evaluative opinions: A position statement. Science & Justice, 51, 1-2. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011 .01.002
2. Association of Forensic Science Providers. (2009). Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion. Science & Justice, 49, 161-164. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2009.07.004
3. Barbato, G., Barini, E., Genta, G., & Levi, R. (2011). Features and performance of some outlier detection methods. Journal of Applied Statistics, 38, 2133-2149. doi:10.1080/02664763.2010.545119
4. Berger, C. E. H. (2010). Criminalistics is reasoning backwards. Nederlands Juistenblad, 85, 784-789.
5. Brun, W., & Teigen, K. H. (1988). Verbal probabilities: Ambiguous, context-dependent, or both? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 390-404. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(88)90036-2
6. Budescu, D. V., Broomell, S., & Por, H. H. (2009). Improving communication of uncertainty in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Psychological Science, 20, 299-308. doi:10.1111/j .1467-9280.2009.02284.x
7. Budescu, D. V., Por, H. H., & Broomell, S. (2012). Effective communicating of uncertainty in the IPCC reports. Climatic Change, 113, 181-200. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0330-3
8. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5. doi:10.1177/ 1745691610393980
9. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10. de Keijser, J., & Elffers, H. (2012). Understanding of forensic expert reports by judges, defense lawyers and forensic professionals. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 191-207. doi:10.1080/10683161003736744
11. Fagerlin, A., Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., Ubel, P. A., Jankovic, A., Derry, H. A., & Smith, D. M. (2007). Measuring numeracy without a math test: Development of the subjective numeracy scale. Medical Decision Making, 27, 672-680. doi:10.1177/0272989X07304449 (Pubitemid 47547594)
12. Faigman, D. L., & Baglioni, A. (1988). Bayes' theorem in the trial process. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 1-17. doi:10.1007/BF01064271
13. Fernbach, P. M., Darlow, A., & Sloman, S. A. (2011). When good evidence goes bad: The weak evidence effect in judgment and decision-making. Cognition, 119, 459-467. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.01.013
14. Gigerenzer, G., & Edwards, A. (2003). Simple tools for understanding risks: From innumeracy to insight. British Medical Journal, 27, 741-744. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7417.741 (Pubitemid 37176763)
15. Goodman, J. (1992). Jurors' comprehension and assessment of probabilistic evidence. American Journal of Trial Advocacy, 16, 361.
16. Kaye, D. H., & Koehler, J. J. (1991). Can Jurors Understand Probabilistic Evidence? Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 75-81. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2982696
17. Koehler, J. J. (1996). On conveying the probative value of DNA evidence: Frequencies, likelihood ratios, and error rates. University of Colorado Law Review, 67, 859-886.
18. Koehler, J. J., & Saks, M. J. (2010). Individualization claims in forensic science: Still unwarranted (June 1, 2010). Brooklyn Law Review, 75, 1187.
19. Lopes, L. L. (1987). Procedural debiasing. Acta Psychologica, 64, 167-185. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(87)90005-9
20. McKenzie, C. R. M., Lee, S. M., & Chen, K. K. (2002). When negative evidence increases confidence: Change in belief after hearing two sides of a dispute. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 1-18. doi: 10.1002/bdm.400 (Pubitemid 37282707)
21. McQuiston-Surrett, D., & Saks, M. J. (2008). Communicating opinion evidence in the forensic identification sciences: Accuracy and impact. Hastings Law Journal, 59, 1159-1190.
22. Morrison, G. S. (2011). Measuring the validity and reliability of forensic likelihood-ratio systems. Science & Justice, 51, 91-98. doi:10.1016/j .scijus.2011.03.002
23. Nance, D. A., & Morris, S. B. (2005). Juror understanding of DNA evidence: An empirical assessment of presentation formats for trace evidence with a relatively small random match probability. The Journal of Legal Studies, 34, 395-444. (Pubitemid 41482202)
24. National Academies of Science. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
25. Neumann, C., Evett, I. W., & Skerret, J. (2012). Quantifying the weight of evidence from a forensic fingerprint comparison: A new paradigm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society), 175, 371-415. doi:10.1111/j.1467-985X.2011.01027.x
26. Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411-419.
27. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
28. R v T, EWCA Crim 2439 (Court of Appeal-Criminal Division, 2010).
29. Schum, D. A., & Martin, A. W. (1982). Formal and empirical research on cascaded inference in jurisprudence. Law and Society Review, 17, 105-151.
30. Smith, B. C., Penrod, S. D., Otto, A. L., & Park, R. C. (1996). Jurors' use of probabilistic evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 49-82. doi: 10.1007/BF01499132 (Pubitemid 26044331)
31. Smith, L. L., Bull, R., & Holliday, R. (2011). Understanding juror perceptions of forensic evidence: Investigating the impact of case context on perceptions of forensic evidence strength. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 56, 409-414. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01671.x
32. Stoel, R. (2012). A practitioners view on the application of the likelihood ratio approach in cartridge case and bullet comparison. In the 21st International Symposium on the Forensic Sciences: Convicts to criminalistics. Retrieved from http://events.cdesign.com.au/ei/viewpdf.esp?id-314&file-// srv3/events/ eventwin/docs/pdf/anzfss2012abstract00374.pdf
33. Thompson, W. C. (1989). Are juries competent to evaluate statistical evidence? Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 9-41.
34. Thompson, W. C., & Schumann, E. L. (1987). Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: The prosecutor's fallacy and the defense attorney's fallacy. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 167-187. doi:10.1007/ BF01044641
35. Thornton, J., & Peterson, J. (2007). The general assumptions and rationale of forensic identification. In D. L. Faigman, D. Kaye, M. J. Saks, J. Sanders, & E. Cheng (Eds.), Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (pp. 157-222). St Paul, MN: Thomson West.
36. Wallsten, T. S., & Budescu, D. V. (1995). A review of human linguistic probability processing: General principles and empirical evidence. Knowledge Engineering Review, 10, 43- 62. doi:10.1017/ S0269888900007256