Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scientific Evidence and Juror Decision Making: Theory, Empirical Research, and Future Directions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advances in Psychology and Law

Part of the book series: Advances in Psychology and Law ((APL,volume 2))

Abstract

Scientific evidence can be viewed as evidence arising from systematic application of the scientific method that yields diagnostic conclusions about the identity or characteristics of a target individual. Many types of evidence fit this description and are regularly admitted in the present-day courtroom. In this chapter, we review theory and empirical research relevant to understanding how scientific evidence influences juror decision making. We first summarize a number of theoretical models with implications for understanding how scientific evidence is processed by jurors, and then review the empirical literature on scientific evidence with a focus on three questions that have received substantial attention: (1) How well do jurors use scientific evidence? (2) What characteristics of scientific evidence influence juror decision making? (3) What contextual and dispositional variables affect the impact of scientific evidence? Following this, we identify and discuss major empirical findings that have emerged, offer an integrative conceptual framework for examining the impact of scientific evidence on jurors, and suggest a number of directions for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, N. H. (1981). Foundations of information integration theory. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Applebaum, P. S., & Scurich, N. (2014). Impact of behavioral genetic evidence on the adjudication of criminal behavior. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 42, 91–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Applebaum, P. S., Scurich, N., & Raad, R. (2015). Effects of behavioral genetic evidence on perceptions of criminal responsibility and appropriate punishment. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21, 134–144. doi:10.1037/law0000039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ask, K., Reinhard, M.-A., Marksteiner, T., & Granhag, P. A. (2011). Elasticity in evaluations of criminal evidence: Exploring the role of cognitive dissonance. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 16, 289–306. doi:10.1348/135532510X510153

    Google Scholar 

  • Baskin, D. R., & Sommers, I. B. (2010). Crime-show-viewing habits and public attitudes toward forensic evidence: The “CSI effect” revisited. The Justice System Journal, 31, 97–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, W. L. (1978). Storytelling in criminal trials: A model of social judgment. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 64, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, W. L., & Feldman, M. S. (1981). Reconstructing reality in the courtroom: Justice and judgment in American culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briody, M. (2004). The effects of DNA evidence on homicide cases in court. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 37, 231–252. doi:10.1375/acri.37.2.231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britton, R. L. (1997). Jurors’ sensitivity to variations in the diagnosticity and reliability of DNA typing evidence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Irvine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, S. C., Pasano, M. S., & Jannuzzo, J. A. (1977). The effect of lie detector evidence on jury deliberations: An empirical study. Journal of Police Sciences and Administration, 5, 148–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavoukian, A., & Heselgrave, R. J. (1980). The admissibility of polygraph evidence in court: Some empirical findings. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 117–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chin, J. M. (2014). Psychological science’s replicability crisis and what it means for science in the courtroom. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 225–238. doi:10.1037/law0000012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clancy, D., & Bull, R. (2015). The effect on mock-juror decision-making of power-of-speech within eyewitness testimony and types of scientific evidence. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 22, 425–435. doi:10.1080/13218719.2014.960029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dann, B. M., Hans, V. P., & Kaye, D. H. (2004). Testing the effects of selected jury trial innovations on juror comprehension of contested mtDNA evidence: Final technical report. National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/211000.pdf

  • Dartnall, S., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2006). Enhancing juror understanding of probabilistic DNA evidence. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 38, 85–96. doi:10.1080/00450610609410635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 U.S. 579–595 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • Devine, D. J. (2012). Jury decision making: The state of the science. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W., Lindman, H., & Savage, L. J. (1963). Bayesian statistical inference for psychological research. Psychological Review, 70, 192–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, H., Kleinmuntz, D., & Kleinmuntz, B. (1979). Linear regression and process-tracing models of judgment. Psychological Review, 86, 465–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagerlin, A., Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., Ubel, P. A., Jankovic, A., Derry, H. A., & Smith, D. M. (2007). Measuring numeracy without a math test: Development of the subjective numeracy scale. Medical Decision Making, 27, 672–680. doi:10.1177/0272989X07304449

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Faigman, D. L., & Baglioni, A. J, Jr. (1988). Bayes’ theorem in the trial process: Instructing jurors on the value of statistical evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federal Rules of Evidence. (2015). Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre

  • Frye v. United States, 29 F.1013 (1923).

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, B., & Mitchell, G. (2013). How jurors evaluate fingerprint evidence: The relative importance of match language, method information, and error acknowledgment. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 10, 484–511. doi:10.1111/jels.12017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • General Electric Co., v Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • Golding, J. M., Stewart, T. L., Yozwiak, J. A., Djadali, Y., & Sanchez, R. P. (2000). The impact of DNA evidence in a child sexual assault trial. Child Maltreatment, 5, 373–383. doi:10.1177/1077559500005004009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, J. (1992). Jurors’ comprehension and assessment of probabilistic evidence. American Journal of Trial Advocacy, 16, 361–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Hewson, L. (2010). Enhancing fairness in DNA jury trials. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 392, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, E., & Cahill, B. S. (2012). Effects of neuroimaging evidence on mock juror decision making. Behavioral Sciences & Law, 30, 280–296. doi:10.1002/bsl.1993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurley, J. R., & Marcus, D. K. (2008). The effects of neuroimaging and brain injury on insanity defenses. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 26, 85–97. doi:10.1002/bsl.797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hans, V. P., Kaye, D. H., Dann, B. M., Farley, E. J., & Albertson, S. (2011). Science in the jury box: Jurors’ comprehension of mitochondrial DNA evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 60–71. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9222-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R. (1993). Introduction. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making (pp. 2–41). New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511752896

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, R. M., & Levett, L. M. (2013). Community members’ perceptions of the CSI effect. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 216–235. doi:10.1007/s12103-012-9166-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes-Smith, R. M., & Levett, L. M. (2011). Jury’s still out: How television and crime show viewing influences jurors’ evaluations of evidence. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 7, 29–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmgren, J. A., & Fordham, J. (2011). The CSI effect and the Canadian and the Australian jury. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 56, S63–S71. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01621.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Holyoak, K. J., & Thagard, P. (1989). Analogical mapping by constraint satisfaction. Cognitive Science, 13, 295–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houck, M. M. (2006). CSI: Reality. Scientific American, 295, 84–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, G., & Schuller, R. A. (2007). The impact of negative forensic evidence on mock jurors’ perceptions of a trial of drug-facilitated sexual assault. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 369–380. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9068-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaasa, S. O., Peterson, T., Morris, E. K., & Thompson, W. C. (2007). Statistical inference and forensic evidence: Evaluating a bullet lead match. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 433–447. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9074-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kaye, D. H., Hans, V. P., Dann, B. M., Farley, E., & Albertson, S. (2007). Statistics in the jury box: How jurors respond to mitochondrial DNA match probabilities. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4, 797–834. doi:10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00107.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaye, D. H., & Koehler, J. J. (1991). Can jurors understand probabilistic evidence? Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 154, 75–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khoshbin, L. S., & Khoshbin, S. (2007). Imaging the mind, minding the image: An historical introduction to brain imaging and the law. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 33, 171–192. doi:10.1177/009885880703300202

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Y. S., Barak, G., & Shelton, D. E. (2009). Examining the CSI-effect in the cases of circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony: Multivariate and path analyses. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 452–460. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.07.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, J. J. (1996). On conveying the probative value of DNA evidence: Frequencies, likelihood ratios and error rates. University of Colorado Law Review, 67, 859–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, J. J. (2001). When are people persuaded by DNA match statistics? Law and Human Behavior, 25, 493–513. doi:10.1023/A:1012892815916

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, J. J. (2011). If the shoe fits they might acquit: The value of forensic science testimony. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 8, 21–48. doi:10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01225.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, J. J., Chia, A., & Lindsey, J. S. (1995). The random match probability (RMP) in DNA evidence: Irrelevant and prejudicial? Jurimetrics Journal, 35, 201–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, J. J., & Macchi, L. (2004). Thinking about low-probability events: An exemplar cuing theory. Psychological Science, 15, 540–546. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00716.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Koffler, J. (1957). The lie detector: A critical appraisal of the technique as a potential undermining factor in the judicial process. New York Law Forum, 3, 123–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumho Tire Co. Ltd., v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, J. D., Carrell, C. A., Miethe, T. D., & Krauss, D. A. (2008). Gold versus platinum: Do jurors recognize the superiority and limitations of DNA evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14, 27–62. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.14.1.27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipkus, I. M., Samsa, G., & Rimer, B. K. (2001). General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Medical Decision Making, 21, 37–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maeder, E. M., & Corbett, R. (2015). Beyond frequency: Perceived realism and the CSI effect. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 57, 83–114. doi:10.3138/cjccj.2013.E44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mancini, D. E. (2011). The CSI effect reconsidered: Is it moderated by need for cognition? North American Journal of Psychology, 13, 155–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markwart, A., & Lynch, B. E. (1979). The effect of polygraph evidence on mock jury decision-making. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 7, 324–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martire, K. A., Kemp, R. I., Sayle, M., & Newell, B. R. (2014). On the interpretation of likelihood ratios in forensic science evidence: Presentation formats and the weak evidence effect. Forensic Science International, 240, 61–68. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.04.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martire, K. A., Kemp, R. I., Watkins, I., Sayle, M. A., & Newell, B. R. (2013). The expression and interpretation of uncertain forensic science evidence: Verbal equivalence, evidence strength, and the weak evidence effect. Law and Human Behavior, 37, 197–207. doi:10.1037/lhb0000027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, D. P., Castel, A. D., & Rhodes, M. G. (2011). The influence of fMRI lie detection evidence on juror decision-making. Behavioral Sciences & Law, 29, 566–577. doi:10.1002/bsl.993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McQuiston-Surrett, D., & Saks, M. J. (2009). The testimony of forensic identification science: What expert witnesses say and what factfinders hear. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 436–453. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9169-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, B., & Arbuthnot, J. (1997). Polygraph testimony and juror judgments: A comparison of the guilty knowledge test and the control question test. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1421–1437. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb01606.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, B., Latter, R., & Abdollahi-Arena, M. K. (2006). The court of public opinion: Lay perceptions of polygraph testing. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 509–523. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9041-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, B., Rosol, A., & Boelter, E. (2003). Polygraph evidence: The impact of corroborating evidence on guilt judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 948–962. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01933.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nance, D. A., & Morris, S. B. (2002). An empirical assessment of presentation formats for trace evidence with a relatively large and quantifiable random match probability. Jurimetrics, 42, 403–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nance, D. A., & Morris, S. B. (2005). Juror understanding of DNA evidence: An empirical assessment of presentation formats for trace evidence with a relatively small random-match probability. Journal of Legal Studies, 34, 395–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). The evaluation of forensic DNA evidence. Washington, DC: National Academic Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5141/the-evaluation-of-forensic-dna-evidence

  • Niedermeier, K. E., Kerr, N. L., & Messé, L. A. (1999). Jurors’ use of naked statistical evidence: Exploring bases and implications of the Wells effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 533–542. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.4.533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1981). Juror decision-making models: The generalization gap. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 246–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993). The story model for juror decision making. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making (pp. 192–221). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986a). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986b). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podlas, K. (2006). The CSI effect: Exposing the media myth. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal, 16, 429–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pozzulo, J. D., Lemieux, J. M. T., Wilson, A., Crescini, C., & Girardi, A. (2009). The influence of identification decision and DNA evidence on juror decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 2069–2088. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00516.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Read, S. J., & Miller, L. C. (1998). Connectionist models of social reasoning and social behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, L. A. (2015). The impact of narrative consistency on jurors’ utilization of DNA evidence. Master’s thesis. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.ulib.uits.iu.edu/pqdtglobal/docview/1738628885/ED7C83A0F5D447E9PQ/2?accountid=7398

  • Rhodes, R. E., Rodriguez, F., & Shah, P. (2014). Explaining the alluring influence of neuroscience information on scientific reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1432–1440. doi:10.1037/a0036844

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rouse, W. B., & Morris, N. M. (1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 349–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saks, M. J., Schweitzer, N. J., Aharoni, E., & Kiehl, K. A. (2014). The impact of neuroimages in the sentencing phase of capital trials. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 11, 105–131. doi:10.1111/jels.12036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schklar, J., & Diamond, S. S. (1999). Juror reactions to DNA evidence: Errors and expectancies. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 159–184. doi:10.1023/A:1022368801333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweitzer, N. J., & Saks, M. J. (2007). The CSI effect: Popular fiction about forensic science affects the public’s expectations about real forensic science. Jurimetrics, 47, 357–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweitzer, N. J., & Saks, M. J. (2011). Neuroimage evidence and the insanity defense. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29, 592–607. doi:10.1002/bsl.995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweitzer, N. J., Saks, M. J., Murphy, E. R., Roskies, A. L., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., & Gaudet, L. M. (2011). Neuroimages as evidence in a mens rea defense: No impact. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 357–393. doi:10.1037/a0023581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scurich, N. (2015). The differential effect of numeracy and anecdotes on the perceived fallibility of forensic science. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 22, 616–623. doi:10.1080/13218719.2014.965293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scurich, N., & John, R. S. (2011). Trawling genetic databases: When a DNA match is just a naked statistic. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 8, 49–71. doi:10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01231.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scurich, N., & John, R. S. (2013). Mock jurors’ use of error rates in DNA database trawls. Law and Human Behavior, 37, 424–431. doi:10.1037/lhb0000046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shelton, D. E., Kim, Y. S., & Barak, G. (2006). A study of juror expectations and demands concerning scientific evidence: Does the CSI effect exist? Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 9, 331–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, D. (2012). In doubt: The psychology of criminal justice processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, D., Snow, C. J., & Read, D. J. (2004). The redux of cognitive consistency theories: Evidence judgments by constraint satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 814–837. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.814

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. C., Penrod, S. D., Otto, A. L., & Park, R. C. (1996). Jurors’ use of probabilistic evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 49–82. doi:10.1007/BF01499132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. L., & Bull, R. (2012). Identifying and measuring juror pre-trial bias for forensic evidence: Development and validation of the forensic evidence evaluation bias scale. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 797–815. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2011.561800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. L., & Bull, R. (2014). Validation of the factor structure and predictive validity of the Forensic Evidence Evaluation Bias Scale for robbery and sexual assault trial scenarios. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20, 450–466. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2013.793340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. L., Bull, R., & Holliday, R. (2011). Understanding juror perceptions of forensic evidence: Investigating the impact of case context on perceptions of forensic evidence strength. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 56, 409–414. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01671.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spanos, N. P., Myers, B., Dubreuil, S. C., & Pawlak, A. E. (1992–1993). The effects of polygraph evidence and eyewitness testimony on the beliefs and decisions of mock jurors. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 12, 103–113. doi:10.2190/1AB2-3WLX-BFY1-8YCP

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, W. C. (1989). Are juries competent to evaluate statistical evidence? Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 9–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, W. C., Kaasa, S. O., & Peterson, T. (2013). Do jurors give appropriate weight to forensic identification evidence? Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 10, 359–397. doi:10.1111/jels.12013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, W. C., & Newman, E. J. (2015). Lay understanding of forensic statistics: Evaluation of random match probabilities, likelihood ratios, and verbal equivalents. Law and Human Behavior, 39, 332–349. doi:10.1037/lhb0000134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, W. C., & Schumann, E. L. (1987). Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: The prosecutors’ fallacy and the defense attorney’s fallacy. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 167–187. doi:10.1007/BF01044641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tryon, W. W. (2012). A connectionist network approach to psychological science: Core and corollary principles. Review of General Psychology, 12, 305–317. doi:10.1037/a0027135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, P. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 470–477.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. L. (1992). Naked statistical evidence of liability: Is subjective probability enough? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 739–752. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.5.739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, M. L., Lawson, V. Z., & Grose-Fifer, J. (2014). The effect of electrophysiological neuroscientific deception detection evidence on juror judgments in a criminal trial. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36, 133–144. doi:10.1080/01973533.2014.881288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyer, R. S, Jr. (2007). Principles of mental representation. In A. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 285–307). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., Smith, D. M., Ubel, P. A., & Fagerlin, A. (2007). Validation of the subjective numeracy scale: Effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Medical Decision Making, 27, 663–671. doi:10.1177/0272989X07303824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, USA

    Dennis J. Devine & Shelbi Macken

Authors
  1. Dennis J. Devine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shelbi Macken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dennis J. Devine .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

    Brian H. Bornstein

  2. Criminal Justice Department, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, USA

    Monica K. Miller

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Devine, D.J., Macken, S. (2016). Scientific Evidence and Juror Decision Making: Theory, Empirical Research, and Future Directions. In: Bornstein, B., Miller, M. (eds) Advances in Psychology and Law. Advances in Psychology and Law, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43083-6_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation