Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Research Spotlight

Court Case Context and Fluency-Promoting Photos Inflate the Credibility of Forensic Science

Published Online:July 15, 2020https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000415

Abstract

Abstract. Faulty forensic science sometimes makes its way into the courtroom where jurors must evaluate its credibility. But at least two factors may inflate how credible jurors find claims about forensic science: the mere context of a court case and the cognitive fluency of the evidence. To investigate, we asked people to judge various claims about forensic science as true or false. In Experiment 1 (N = 287), we manipulated court case context by either attributing the claims to an expert in court or not specifying their origin. In Experiment 2 (N = 320), we manipulated courtroom setting orthogonal to source expertise. In both, we manipulated fluency via the presence of related but nonprobative photos. We found each factor increased people’s bias to judge forensic science claims true. Our findings suggest the justice system must improve the quality of forensic science upstream from the courtroom to ensure jurors’ credulity is warranted.

References

  • Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341564 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bell, S., Sah, S., Albright, T. D., Gates, S. J. Jr., Denton, M. B., & Casadevall, A. (2018). A call for more science in forensic science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 4541–4544. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1712161115 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460–473. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.460 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis. New York, NY: Routledge. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702 – Testimony by Expert Witnesses. Retrieved from https://www.rulesofevidence.org/article-vii/rule-702/ First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Garrett, B. L., & Neufeld, P. J. (2009). Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful convictions. Virginia Law Review, 95, 1–97. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Koehler, J. J., Schweitzer, N. J., Saks, M. J., & McQuiston, D. E. (2016). Science, technology, or the expert witness: What influences jurors’ judgments about forensic science testimony? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22, 401–413. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000103 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Michael, R. B., Newman, E. J., Vuorre, M., Cumming, G., & Garry, M. (2013). On the (non)persuasive power of a brain image. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 720–725. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0391-6 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council. (2009). Committee on identifying the needs of the forensic science community: Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Newman, E. J., & Feigenson, N. (2013). The truthiness of visual evidence. The Jury Expert, 25, 1–4. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Newman, E. J., Garry, M., Bernstein, D. M., Kantner, J., & Lindsay, D. S. (2012). Nonprobative photographs (or words) inflate truthiness. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 969–974. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0292-0 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Newman, E. J., Sanson, M., Miller, E. K., Quigley-McBride, A., Foster, J. L., Bernstein, D. M., & Garry, M. (2014). People with easier to pronounce names promote truthiness of claims. PLoS One, 9, e88671. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088671 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schweitzer, N. J., & Saks, M. (2009). The gatekeeper effect: The impact of judges’ admissibility decisions on the persuasiveness of expert testimony. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015290 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Stanislaw, H., & Todorov, N. (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 137–149. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207704 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Unkelbach, C. (2007). Reversing the truth effect: Learning the interpretation of processing fluency in judgments of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.1.219 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • United States v. Hines, 55 F. Supp. 2d 62, 64 (D. Mass. 1999). First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Westerman, D. L. (2008). Relative fluency and illusions of recognition memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 1196–1200. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.6.1196 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wickens, T. D. (2002). Elementary signal detection theory. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Wilson, J. C., & Westerman, D. L. (2018). Picture (im)perfect: Illusions of recognition memory produced by photographs at test. Memory & Cognition, 46, 1210–1221. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-018-0832-6 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar