Department of Psychology, Florida International University.
Global Forensic and Justice Center, Florida International University.
Law Hum Behav. 2023 Oct;47(5):566-578. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000539. Epub 2023 Aug 21.
We explored whether an educational forensic science informational (FSI) video either alone or with specialized jury instructions would assist mock jurors in evaluating forensic expert testimony.
We predicted that the FSI video would help participants distinguish between low-quality and high-quality testimony, evidenced by lower ratings of the testimony and the expert when the testimonial quality was low compared with when it was high.
Jury-eligible adults ( = 641; = 38.18 years; 77.4% White; 8.1% Latino/a or Hispanic; 50.1% male) watched a mock trial and were randomly assigned to a no-forensic-evidence control condition or to a test condition (i.e., participants either watched the FSI video before the trial or did not and either received specialized posttrial instructions or did not). In the test conditions, a forensic expert provided low-quality or high-quality testimony about a latent impression, and participants rated the expert, their testimony, and the forensic evidence. All participants rendered verdicts.
The presence of the FSI video interacted with testimonial quality on ratings of the expert and forensic testimony: In the video-present condition, participants rated the expert in the low-quality testimony condition lower than did participants in the high-quality testimony condition (between-condition differences for credibility: = -0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.78, -0.27]; trustworthiness: = -0.67, 95% CI [-0.92, -0.42]; knowledgeability: = -0.54, 95% CI [-0.80, -0.29]). The pattern was the same for the expert's testimony (between-condition differences for convincingness: = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.66, -0.16]; validity: = -0.60, 95% CI [-0.86, -0.35]; presentation quality: = -0.51, 95% CI [-0.76, -0.25]). Participants' ratings in the video-absent condition did not differ on the basis of testimonial quality (s = -0.07-0.11). The ratings of the print evidence and verdicts were unaffected. Specialized jury instructions had no effect.
The FSI video may be a practical in-court intervention to increase jurors' sensitivity to low-quality forensic testimony without creating skepticism. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
我们探究了教育法医学信息(FSI)视频单独使用或结合专门的陪审团指示是否会帮助模拟陪审员评估法医专家证言。
我们预测 FSI 视频将帮助参与者区分低质量和高质量的证言,表现为当证言质量低时,对证言和专家的评价低于当证言质量高时。
符合陪审团条件的成年人(n=641;年龄中位数=38.18 岁;77.4%为白人;8.1%为拉丁裔/西班牙裔;50.1%为男性)观看模拟审判,并被随机分配到无法医证据对照条件或测试条件(即,参与者要么在审判前观看 FSI 视频,要么不观看,要么观看后接受专门的指示,要么不接受)。在测试条件下,一名法医专家提供了关于潜在印象的低质量或高质量证言,参与者对专家、他们的证言和法医证据进行了评分。所有参与者都做出了裁决。
FSI 视频的存在与证言质量相互作用,影响对专家和法医证言的评分:在视频呈现条件下,参与者对低质量证言条件下的专家的评分低于高质量证言条件下的评分(可信度的组间差异:β=-0.52,95%置信区间[CI] [-0.78,-0.27];可信赖性:β=-0.67,95%CI [-0.92,-0.42];知识:β=-0.54,95%CI [-0.80,-0.29])。专家证言的模式相同(说服力的组间差异:β=-0.41,95%CI [-0.66,-0.16];有效性:β=-0.60,95%CI [-0.86,-0.35];表达质量:β=-0.51,95%CI [-0.76,-0.25])。参与者在没有视频的情况下,基于证言质量没有差异(s=-0.07-0.11)。对印刷证据和裁决的评分没有影响。专门的陪审团指示没有效果。
FSI 视频可能是一种实用的法庭干预措施,可以提高陪审员对低质量法医证言的敏感性,而不会产生怀疑。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA,保留所有权利)。