본문 바로가기
KERD
논문

Influence of Inconsistent Evidence on Juror's Change of Mind

0

조회

0

다운로드

0

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

주제분류심리과학

초록

The present study aims to test whether the coherence of a juror’s mental model of a case is a function of the decisional phase (pre- or post-decision) in which inconsistent evidence is presented. Based on psychological and neurological theories of decision-making, it was hypothesized that inconsistent information could cause a shift in juror's verdict preference more often when the information is presented after the decision is almost shaped than when it is presented while the decision is still shaping. With an actual criminal case in which the evidence was generally skewed toward the guilty verdict, three hundred collage students established an initial verdict preference and rated the likelihood of guilt of the defendant after reading a description of the facts and the first two pieces of strongly incriminating evidence. Participants then read the rest of the evidence, and decided on a final verdict and re-rated the likelihood of guilt. One of the two types of inconsistent evidence, one weakening the prosecution's case and the other supporting the defense's case, was presented either soon after the initial verdict preference was made or just before the final verdict was made. The initial guilty preference shifted in the final verdict more often, and the rated likelihood of guilt decreased more with the late presentation than with the early presentation of the inconsistent evidence. Implications for juror's decision-making in court are discussed.

Abstract

The present study aims to test whether the coherence of a juror’s mental model of a case is a function of the decisional phase (pre- or post-decision) in which inconsistent evidence is presented. Based on psychological and neurological theories of decision-making, it was hypothesized that inconsistent information could cause a shift in juror's verdict preference more often when the information is presented after the decision is almost shaped than when it is presented while the decision is still shaping. With an actual criminal case in which the evidence was generally skewed toward the guilty verdict, three hundred collage students established an initial verdict preference and rated the likelihood of guilt of the defendant after reading a description of the facts and the first two pieces of strongly incriminating evidence. Participants then read the rest of the evidence, and decided on a final verdict and re-rated the likelihood of guilt. One of the two types of inconsistent evidence, one weakening the prosecution's case and the other supporting the defense's case, was presented either soon after the initial verdict preference was made or just before the final verdict was made. The initial guilty preference shifted in the final verdict more often, and the rated likelihood of guilt decreased more with the late presentation than with the early presentation of the inconsistent evidence. Implications for juror's decision-making in court are discussed.

참고문헌 (42)

  1. Brockner, J., "Entrapment in escalating conflicts: A social psychological analysis" (1985), Springer-Verlag
  2. Carlson, K. A., "Biased interpretation of evidence by mock jurors", Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7(2), pp.91~103 (2001)[DOI]
  3. Dennis J. Devine, "Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups.", Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(3), pp.622~727 (2001), American Psychological Association (APA)[DOI]
  4. Shari Seidman Diamond, "Blindfolding the Jury to Verdict Consequences: Damages, Experts, and the Civil Jury", Law & Society Review, 26(3), pp.513~ (1992), JSTOR[DOI]
  5. Festinger, L., "A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2)" (1962), Stanford university press
  6. Peter Fischer, "The process of selective exposure: Why confirmatory information search weakens over time", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114(1), pp.37~48 (2011), Elsevier BV[DOI]
  7. Gilbert, D. T., "How mental systems believe", American psychologist, 46(2), pp.107~119 (1991)[DOI]
  8. Andreas Glöckner, "Can We Trust Intuitive Jurors? Standards of Proof and the Probative Value of Evidence in Coherence Based Reasoning", SSRN Electronic Journal (2008), Elsevier BV[DOI]
  9. Joshua I. Gold, "The Neural Basis of Decision Making", Annual Review of Neuroscience, 30(1), pp.535~574 (2007), Annual Reviews[DOI]
  10. Peter M Gollwitzer, "From weighing to willing: Approaching a change decision through pre- or postdecisional mentation", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45(1), pp.41~65 (1990), Elsevier BV[DOI]
  11. Tobias Greitemeyer, "Biased assimilation: the role of source position", European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(1), pp.22~39 (2009), Wiley-Blackwell[DOI]
  12. Hannaford, P. L., "The timing of Opinion Formation by Jurors in Civil Cases : An Empirical Examination", Tennessee Law Review, 67, pp.627~ (1999)
  13. Hastie, R., "Inside the jury" (2013), The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd
  14. Ivan Hernandez, "Disfluency disrupts the confirmation bias", Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(1), pp.178~182 (2013), Elsevier BV[DOI]
  15. Janis, I. L., "Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment" (1977), Free Press
  16. Jonas, E., "Confirmation bias in sequential information search after preliminary decisions: An expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective exposure to information", Journal of personality and social psychology, 80(4), pp.557~571 (2001)[DOI]
  17. Lea-Rachel D. Kosnik, "Refusing to budge: a confirmatory bias in decision making?", Mind & Society, 7(2), pp.193~214 (2008), Springer Nature[DOI]
  18. Laura J Kray, "The debiasing effect of counterfactual mind-sets: Increasing the search for disconfirmatory information in group decisions", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 91(1), pp.69~81 (2003), Elsevier BV[DOI]
  19. Yanna Krupnikov, "When Does Negativity Demobilize? Tracing the Conditional Effect of Negative Campaigning on Voter Turnout", American Journal of Political Science, 55(4), pp.797~813 (2011), Wiley-Blackwell[DOI]
  20. Lawson, R. G., "Order of presentation as a factor in jury persuasion", Kentucky Law Journal, 56, pp.523~ (1967)
  21. Len B. Lecci, "Predicting guilt judgments and verdict change using a measure of pretrial bias in a videotaped mock trial with deliberating jurors", Psychology, Crime & Law, 15(7), pp.619~634 (2009), Informa UK Limited[DOI]
  22. Charles G. Lord, "Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence.", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), pp.2098~2109 (1979), American Psychological Association (APA)[DOI]
  23. Sheina Orbell, "Motivational and Volitional Processes in Action Initiation: A Field Study of the Role of Implementation Intentions1", Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(4), pp.780~797 (2000), Wiley-Blackwell[DOI]
  24. Pennington, N., "Evidence evaluation in complex decision making", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), pp.242~258 (1986)[DOI]
  25. Pennington, N., "Explaining the evidence: Tests of the Story Model for juror decision making", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(2), pp.189~206 (1992)[DOI]
  26. Roger Ratcliff, "A theory of memory retrieval.", Psychological Review, 85(2), pp.59~108 (1978), American Psychological Association (APA)[DOI]
  27. R. Ratcliff, "Modeling Response Times for Two-Choice Decisions", Psychological Science, 9(5), pp.347~356 (1998), SAGE Publications[DOI]
  28. Roger Ratcliff, "The Diffusion Decision Model: Theory and Data for Two-Choice Decision Tasks", Neural Computation, 20(4), pp.873~922 (2008), MIT Press - Journals[DOI]
  29. Arbora Resulaj, "Changes of mind in decision-making", Nature, 461(7261), pp.263~266 (2009), Springer Nature[DOI]
  30. J.Edward Russo, "The Distortion of Information during Decisions", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66(1), pp.102~110 (1996), Elsevier BV[DOI]
  31. Schulz-Hardt, S., "Biased information search in group decision making", Journal of personality and social psychology, 78(4), pp.655~660 (2000)[DOI]
  32. N. Kyle Smith, "Being bad isn't always good: Affective context moderates the attention bias toward negative information.", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(2), pp.210~220 (2006), American Psychological Association (APA)[DOI]
  33. Ola Svenson, "Differentiation and consolidation theory of human decision making: A frame of reference for the study of pre- and post-decision processes", Acta Psychologica, 80(1-3), pp.143~168 (1992), Elsevier BV[DOI]
  34. Svenson, O., "Emerging perspectives on judgment and decision research", pp.287~326 (2003)
  35. Simon, D., "A third view of the black box : Cognitive coherence in legal decision making", The University of Chicago Law Review, 71(2), pp.511~586 (2004)
  36. Dan Simon, "Construction of Preferences by Constraint Satisfaction", Psychological Science, 15(5), pp.331~336 (2004), SAGE Publications[DOI]
  37. Simon, D., "The emergence of coherence over the course of decision making", Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(5), pp.1250~1260 (2001)[DOI]
  38. Simon, R. J., "Judges' translation of burden of proof into statements of probability", Trial Lawyer's Guide, 13, pp.103~114 (1969)
  39. Rita James Simon, "Quantifying Burdens of Proof: A View from the Bench, the Jury, and the Classroom", Law & Society Review, 5(3), pp.319~ (1971), JSTOR[DOI]
  40. Stoffelmayr, E., "The conflict between precision and flexibility in explaining "beyond a reasonable doubt"", Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6(3), pp.769~787 (2000)[DOI]
  41. Christy A. Visher, "Juror decision making: The importance of evidence.", Law and Human Behavior, 11(1), pp.1~17 (1987), American Psychological Association (APA)[DOI]
  42. N. Yeung, "Metacognition in human decision-making: confidence and error monitoring", Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1594), pp.1310~1321 (2012), The Royal Society[DOI]

관련 논문AI추천

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (5건)