On the interpretation of likelihood ratios in forensic science evidence: Presentation formats and the weak evidence effect

Forensic Science International

Volumn 240, Issue , 2014, Pages 61-68

  Martire, K A ^a   Kemp, R I ^a   Sayle, M ^a   Newell, B R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Communicating uncertainty; Evidence interpretation; Expert evaluative opinions; Likelihood ratios

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COURT; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT WITNESS; FORENSIC SCIENCE; HUMAN; LEGAL EVIDENCE; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MATHEMATICAL PARAMETERS; OFFENDER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; VERBAL COMMUNICATION; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CRIMINAL LAW; FEMALE; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; STATISTICAL MODEL; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CRIMINAL LAW; FEMALE; FORENSIC SCIENCES; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84899836403     PISSN: 03790738     EISSN: 18726283     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.04.005     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Inman K., Rudin N. Principles and Practices of Criminalistics: The Profession of Forensic Science 2001, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
2. Osterburg J.W. The evaluation of physical evidence in criminalistics: subjective or objective process?. J. Crim. Law, Criminol. Police Sci. 1969, 60:97-101.
3. Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, National Research Council Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward 2009, The National Academies Press.
4. Evett I. Towards a uniform framework for reporting opinions in forensic science casework. Sci. Justice 1998, 38:198-202.
5. Berger C.E.H. Criminalistics is reasoning backwards. Ned. Juristenblad 2010, 85:784-789.
6. Aitken C., Berger C.E.H., Buckleton J.S., Champod C., Curran J., Dawid A., et al. Expressing evaluative opinions: a position statement. Sci. Justice 2011, 51:1-2.
7. Association of Forensic Science Providers Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion. Sci. Justice 2009, 3:161-164.
8. McQuiston-Surrett D., Saks M.J. The testimony of forensic identification science: what expert witnesses say and what factfinders hear. Law Hum. Behav. 2009, 33:436-453.
9. McQuiston-Surrett D., Saks M.J. Communicating opinion evidence in the forensic identification sciences: accuracy and impact. Hastings Law J. 2008, 59:1159.
10. Smith B.C., Penrod S.D., Otto A.L., Park R.C. Jurors' use of probabilistic evidence. Law Hum. Behav. 1996, 20:49-82.
11. Smith L.L., Bull R., Holliday R. Understanding juror perceptions of forensic evidence: investigating the impact of case context on perceptions of forensic evidence strength. J. Forensic Sci. 2011, 56:409-414.
12. de Keijser J., Elffers H. Understanding of forensic expert reports by judges, defense lawyers and forensic professionals. Psychol. Crime Law 2012, 18:191-207.
13. Kaye D.H., Koehler J.J. Can jurors understand probabilistic evidence?. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A (Stat. Soc.) 1991, 154:75-81.
14. Hans V.P., Kaye D.H., Dann B.M., Farley E.J., Albertson S. Science in the jury box: jurors' comprehension of mitochondrial DNA evidence. Law Hum. Behav. 2011, 35:60-71.
15. Juanchich M., Teigen K.H., Villejoubert G. Is guilt 'likely' or 'not certain'?: contrast with previous probabilities determines choice of verbal terms. Acta Psychol. 2010, 135:267-277.
16. Jackson G. Understanding forensic science opinions. Handbook of Forensic Science 2009, 419-445. Willan, Devon, UK. J. Fraser, R. Williams (Eds.).
17. Special issue: papers on the R v T debate. Law Probability and Risk 2012, 11:255-375. C. Aitken (Ed.).
18. Morrison G.S. Measuring the validity and reliability of forensic likelihood-ratio systems. Sci. Justice 2011, 51(3):91-98.
19. Campbell P. Understanding the receivers and the reception of science's uncertain messages. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Ser. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2011, 369:4891-4912.
20. Thompson W.C., Kaasa S.O., Peterson T. Do jurors give appropriate weight to forensic identification evidence?. J. Empirical Legal Stud. 2013, 10:359-397.
21. Faigman D.L., Baglioni A. Bayes' theorem in the trial process. Law Hum. Behav. 1988, 12:1-17.
22. Goodman J. Jurors' comprehension and assessment of probabilistic evidence. Am. J. Trial Advoc. 1992, 16:361.
23. Corner A., Harris A.J.L., Hahn U. Conservatism in belief revision and participant skepticism. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society 2010, 1625-1630. Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX.
24. Wallsten T.S., Budescu D.V. A review of human linguistic probability processing: general principles and empirical evidence. Knowledge Eng. Rev. 1995, 10:43-62.
25. Budescu D.V., Broomell S., Por H.H. Improving communication of uncertainty in the reports of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Psychol. Sci. 2009, 20:299-308.
26. Brun W., Teigen K.H. Verbal probabilities: ambiguous, context-dependent, or both. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes 1988, 41:390-404.
27. Shaw N., Dear P. How do parents of babies interpret qualitative expressions of probability. Arch. Dis. Child. 1990, 65:520-523.
28. Budescu D.V., Por H.H., Broomell S. Effective communicating of uncertainty in the IPCC reports. Clim. Change 2012, 113:181-200.
29. Visschers V.H.M., Meertens R.M., Passchier W.W.F., De Vries N.N.K. Probability information in risk communication: a review of the research literature. Risk Anal. 2009, 29:267-287.
30. Budescu D.V., Wallsten T.S. Consistency in interpretation of probabilistic phrases. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes 1985, 36:391-405.
31. Dieckmann N.F., Peters E., Gregory R., Tusler M. Making sense of uncertainty: advantages and disadvantages of providing an evaluative structure. J. Risk Res. 2012, 15:717-735.
32. Fox C.R., Irwin J.R. The role of context in the communication of uncertain beliefs. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 20:57-70.
33. Politi M.C., Han P.K.J., Col N.F. Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Med. Decis. Making 2007, 27:681-695.
34. Martire K.A., Kemp R.I., Watkins I., Sayle M.A., Newell B.R. The expression and interpretation of uncertain forensic science evidence: verbal equivalence, evidence strength and the weak evidence effect. Law Hum. Behav. 2013, 37:197-207.
35. Petty R.E., Cacioppo J.T. Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches 1996, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, US.
36. Fernbach P.M., Darlow A., Sloman S.A. When good evidence goes bad: the weak evidence effect in judgment and decision-making. Cognition 2011, 119:459-467.
37. Lopes L.L. Procedural debiasing. Acta Psychol. 1987, 64:167-185.
38. Harris A., Corner A., Hahn U. James is polite and punctual (and useless): a Bayesian formalisation of faint praise. THINK REASONING 2013, 10.1080/13546783.2013.801367.
39. McKenzie C.R.M., Lee S.M., Chen K.K. When negative evidence increases confidence: change in belief after hearing two sides of a dispute. J. Behav. Decis. Making 2002, 15:1-18.
40. Buhrmester M., Kwang T., Gosling S.D. Amazon's Mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2011, 6:3-5.
41. Paolacci G., Chandler J., Ipeirotis P.G. Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. JUDGM DECIS MAK 2010, 5:411-419.
42. Barbato G., Barini E., Genta G., Levi R. Features and performance of some outlier detection methods. J. Appl. Stat. 2011, 38:2133-2149.
43. Fagerlin A., Zikmund-Fisher B.J., Ubel P.A., Jankovic A., Derry H.A., Smith D.M. Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the subjective numeracy scale. Med. Decis. Making. 2007, 27:672-680.
44. N. Fenton, D. Berger, D. Lagnado, M. Neil, A. Hsu, When 'neutral' evidence still has probative value (with implications from the Barry George Case), Sci. Justice. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2013.07.002.