Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
N. Pennington, R. Hastie (1990)
Practical Implications of Psychological Research on Juror and Jury Decision MakingPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16
D. Kagehiro, W. Stanton (1985)
Legal vs. quantified definitions of standards of proofLaw and Human Behavior, 9
W. Thompson, Edward Schumann (1987)
Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trialsLaw and Human Behavior, 11
N. Pennington, R. Hastie (1993)
Reasoning in explanation-based decision makingCognition, 49
M. Saks, R. Kidd (1980)
Human Information Processing and Adjudication: Trial by HeuristicsLaw & Society Review, 15
D. Kaye, J. Koehler (1991)
Can Jurors Understand Probabilistic EvidenceJournal of The Royal Statistical Society Series A-statistics in Society, 154
Jacob Cohen, P. Cohen, S. West, L. Aiken (1979)
Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences
P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein (1971)
Comparison of Bayesian and Regression Approaches to the Study of Information Processing in Judgment.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6
Michael Finkelstein, W. Fairley (1970)
A Bayesian Approach to Identification EvidenceHarvard Law Review, 83
N. Pennington, R. Hastie (1992)
Explaining the evidence: Tests of the Story Model for juror decision making.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62
D. Kagehiro, W. Laufer (1992)
Handbook of psychology and law
L. Aiken, S. West (1991)
Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions
Nicky Phillips (2022)
She was convicted of killing her four children. Could a gene mutation set her free?Nature, 611
N. Kerr, R. Bray (1981)
The Psychology of the courtroom
M. Doherty, Clifford Mynatt (1990)
Inattention to P(H) and to P(D⧹ ∼ H): A converging operationActa Psychologica, 75
David Faigman, A. Baglioni (1988)
Bayes' theorem in the trial processLaw and Human Behavior, 12
J. Kaplan (1968)
Decision Theory and the Factfinding ProcessStanford Law Review, 20
C. McCormick, J. Strong, Kenneth Broun (1984)
Mccormick on Evidence
N. Pennington, R. Hastie (1981)
Juror decision-making models: The generalization gap.Psychological Bulletin, 89
W. Thompson (1989)
Are Juries Competent to Evaluate Statistical EvidenceLaw and contemporary problems, 52
G. Wells (1993)
What do we know about eyewitness identification?The American psychologist, 48 5
Randolph Jonakait (1991)
Forensic Science: The Need for Regulation
M. Kaplan (1989)
Judgements of Murder Mysteries as a Means of Studying Juror CognitionBasic and Applied Social Psychology, 10
D. Schum, Anne Martin (1982)
Formal and empirical research on cascaded inference in jurisprudence.Law & Society Review, 17
N. Pennington, R. Hastie (1986)
Evidence evaluation in complex decision making.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51
P. Green, B. Winer, Donald Brown, K. Michels (1963)
Statistical Principles in Experimental Design
J. Koehler (1992)
Probabilities in the Courtroom: An Evaluation of the Objections and Policies
M. Birnbaum, B. Mellers (1983)
Bayesian inference: Combining base rates with opinions of sources who vary in credibility.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45
Daniel Katz (1955)
Handbook of Social Psychology.Psychological Bulletin
H. Bernstein, D. Horowitz, David Lange, H. Powell, Melvin Shimm, J. Weistart, R. Danner, Claire Germain, B. Baccari, Lisa Eichhorn, James Farrin, K. Cashion, Steven Chabinsky, Thomas Contois, James Glenister, Stephen Armitage, J. Cannon, C. Connolly, David Dabbs, Katherine Flanagan, P. Franklin, Donald Nielsen, Christopher Hart, Charles North, William O'Neil, Jane Schaefer, Eric Lieberman, Janet Moore, A. Walsh, Raymond Wierciszewski (1990)
LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS
Mock jurors’ use of probabilistic evidence was examined in a fractional factorial design manipulating 7 variables: strength of nonstatistical evidence; quantification of nonstatistical evidence; strength of statistical evidence; combination of 2 pieces of statistical evidence; instruction in use of Bayes’ theorem; and presentation of fallacies (both prosecutor’s and defense attorney’s) concerning use of statistical evidence. One hundred eighty-nine subjects viewed 1 of 16 videotapes presenting a condensed mock trial Subjects completed dependent measures after each of 4 witnesses and at the end of trial. The strength of both nonstatistical and probabilistic evidence affected verdicts; the other manipulations did not. Overall, subjects slightly underused the probabilistic evidence, as compared to their individualized Bayesian norms, and subjects did not succumb to fallacies. However, subjects greatly varied in over- or underutilization, even after Bayesian instruction. Future research should examine use of weak nonstatistical evidence, and should test different probabilistic instructions.
Law and Human Behavior – American Psychological Association
Published: Feb 1, 1996
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.