Division of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Arizona State University, 85306 Glendale, AZ, USA.
Law Hum Behav. 2009 Oct;33(5):436-53. doi: 10.1007/s10979-008-9169-1. Epub 2009 Mar 4.
This research examined how variations in the presentation of forensic science information affect factfinders' judgments in a trial. Participants read a summary of a murder case, the critical testimony being the results of a microscopic hair comparison given by a forensic expert. Across two experiments we manipulated how the expert expressed his results, whether he gave an explicit conclusion concerning identity of the hair, and whether the limitations of forensic science were expressed during trial. Qualitative testimony was more damaging to the defense than quantitative testimony, conclusion testimony increased the defendant's culpability ratings when findings were presented quantitatively, and expressing limitations of forensic science had no appreciable effect. Results are discussed in terms of factfinders' interpretation of forensic identification evidence.
本研究考察了法医学信息呈现方式的变化如何影响审判中事实发现者的判断。参与者阅读了一起谋杀案的摘要，关键证词是法医专家给出的微观毛发比对结果。在两个实验中，我们操纵了专家表达结果的方式，是否给出了关于毛发身份的明确结论，以及在审判过程中是否表达了法医学的局限性。定性证词对辩方的损害大于定量证词，当结果以定量形式呈现时，结论证词会增加被告的罪责评级，而表达法医学的局限性则没有明显影响。研究结果从事实发现者对法医鉴定证据的解释角度进行了讨论。
