How expert witnesses' counterfactuals influence causal and responsibility attributions of mock jurors and expert judges

Past research has shown that counterfactual (“If…then…”) thoughts influence causal and responsibility attribution in the judicial context. However, little is known on whether and how the use of counterfactuals in communication affects lay jurors' and judges' evaluations. In two studies, we asked mock lay jurors (Study 1) and actual judges (Study 2) to read a medical malpractice case followed by an expert witness report, which included counterfactuals focused on either the physician, the patient, or external factors. Results showed that counterfactual focus had a strong effect on both lay jurors' and judges' causal and responsibility attributions. Counterfactual focus also moderated the effect of outcome foreseeability on responsibility attribution. Discussion focuses on how counterfactual communication can direct causal and responsibility attribution and reduce the importance of other factors known to influence judicial decision‐making. The potential implications of these findings in training programs and debiasing interventions are also discussed.     

The psychology of confessions: A comparison of expert and lay opinions

Despite a body of confessions research that is generally accepted in the scientific community, courts often exclude experts on the ground that such testimony would not assist the jury, which can use its common sense. To examine whether laypeople know the contents of expert testimony on confessions, we asked 151 lay participants to indicate their beliefs about 30 confession‐related statements used in a recent survey of 87 confession experts (Kassin et al., American Psychologist, 2018, 73, 63–80). Participants agreed with experts on only 10 of the 30 propositions, suggesting that much of the psychology of confessions is not common knowledge and that expert testimony can assist the trier of fact.     

On Memory and the Collaborative Construction and Deconstruction of Custody Case Arguments

In a simulation of lay judges’ deliberations, it is shown how the participants selectively misconstrued courtroom evidence, depending on their overall story frameworks. All participants had received a common set of background information (drawn from an authentic custody case). In addition, one person in each group had, unknowingly, received some unique pieces of information. The “lay judges” produced several spontaneous misrepresentations of the background material. Moreover, they would often accept and retell false “facts” (introduced by a participant with different background information), unless these “facts” were integrated into opposing account frameworks. Hence it is shown how misrepresentations are often coconstituted.     

Lay theories and consumer perceptions of dietary supplements

Consumers lack awareness and concern of potential adverse reactions, interactions, and inappropriate usage associated with dietary supplements. The lack of strict governmental regulation of supplements accompanied by consumers' lack of knowledge often results in them relying on ordinary lay (naïve) beliefs and theories when making supplement‐based decisions. We use an accessibility–diagnosticity framework to explore the impact of lay theories/beliefs on consumers' perceptions and judgments of dietary supplements. Two experiments prime two lay theories relevant to dietary supplement decision making: “less is more” (LIM: Study 1) and “no‐pain no‐gain” (NPNG: Study 2). Supplement form (single‐ vs. multi‐ingredient) is also manipulated in both studies, and Study 2 includes a Food and Drug Administration disclaimer intervention. Findings show that when a LIM lay theory is primed (Study 1), supplement form is a diagnostic cue. Specifically, consumers perceive that multi‐ingredient supplements possess more severe adverse side effects compared with single‐ingredient supplements. In the presence of an NPNG mindset (Study 2), supplement form was not diagnostic in the decision process, and a disclaimer intervention that draws attention to the lack of government regulation and testing of supplements was ineffective at influencing perceived side effect severity and attitude. The data confirm that lay theories impact dietary supplement decision making and that the observed effects are consistent with an accessibility–diagnosticity framework. Implications for public policy are also discussed.     

La portée normative des avis d’expert dans l’élaboration de la décision administrative en matière de sécurité sanitaire

The development of scientific knowledge and the complexity of the issues of health safety have led to increase the use of expertise. The need for transparency following the “scandals” at the end of the last century has led the state to outsource its assessment procedures in health safety, by creating independent agencies. These agencies turn to outside experts because their own staff does not have all the necessary competence. So, the question is: what is the role of these experts in the elaboration of the standards made by the decisions of the agencies? The link between the decision and the expert advice may be almost considered as subordination: the administrative decision becomes stuck by the advice, due to the technical incompetence of the agency. But the circumstances of the administrative decision, especially the situation of scientific uncertainty, can impose a degree of autonomy. If the scope of expert advice seems considerable in certain aspects, it should not hide the full responsibility of policy makers.     

Lay knowledge of eyewitness issues: A Canadian evaluation

Lay opinions concerning eyewitness topics were surveyed in three community samples of juror‐eligible participants in Canada. The scientific reliability of these topics had been previously evaluated by eyewitness experts. The first survey assessed participant responses to the identically worded expert items. Participants responded to many statements with greater accuracy than anticipated. Two subsequent surveys assessed the consistency of lay knowledge across variations in the directionality and wording of items and the provision of additional contextual information. Taken together, jury‐eligible participants frequently responded to survey items in ways that closely resembled the responses of experts and suggested awareness and understanding of these topics at levels beyond those previously obtained. Further, the provision of contextual information increased response accuracy and reduced the frequencies of ‘Don't Know’ responses. Deficiencies in knowledge for 50% of the topics were also apparent; however, these topics were frequently those for which the experts themselves had not reached consensus. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

迫选规则体验法: 检验规范性和描述性风险决策理论的新尝试

为寻求检验规范性和描述性风险决策理论的通用标准, 本研究以期望价值理论和齐当别抉择模型为例, 探讨了“迫选规则体验法”的适用性。被试为120名大学生, 实验任务为要求被试分别完成自主决策(采用未知规则: 真规则)和规则迫选决策(遵循给定规则: 假规则)任务, 并对决策后的情感和认可程度进行评定。研究发现: (1) 被试在自主决策条件下比在规则迫选条件下体验到的正性情感程度更强, 负性情感的程度更弱; (2) 被试在自主决策与规则迫选决策两种条件下做出的相同决策越多, 该被试对迫选规则更加认可并体验到的正性情感程度越强, 负性情感的程度越弱; (3) 与期望价值理论相比, 齐当别抉择模型可能符合更多决策者的实际决策规则。这些结果表明, 作为检验规范性和描述性风险决策理论的新尝试, 迫选规则体验法可能更有助于回答“决策者实际采用的决策规则是什么”的问题。     

Poetic Justice: Engaging in Participatory Narrative Analysis to Find Solace in the “Killer Corridor”

The author engaged with adolescents at a community‐based youth organization as “co‐researchers” to delve deeper into the lived experiences of youth of color residing in an urban neighborhood undergoing change. Participatory narrative analysis was used to empower participants to produce texts to make sense of their lives and their home, school, and neighborhood contexts. The process of engaging youth as co‐researchers and experts in issues pertaining to their own neighborhood is discussed. Nuanced analyses of poems‐as‐data is shown to be critical in informing the recent surge of interdisciplinary, community‐engaged, place‐based initiatives focused on neighborhood revitalization, violence prevention, and positive youth development.     

Creating coherence in real‐life decision processes: Reasons,differentiation and consolidation

Svenson, O. & Jakobsson, M. (2009). Creating coherence in real‐life decision processes: Reasons, differentiation and consolidation. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 93–102. Differentiation and Consolidation Theory describes human decision making as a process in which attractiveness values are restructured in order to reach a decision and support the decision made. Here, the theory was developed to include reasons pro and con alternatives and tested on students making decisions between two university psychotherapy training programs (cognitive‐behavioral and psychodynamic therapy). Before and also after the decision, the attractiveness of the chosen alternative was upgraded and the non‐chosen alternative downgraded. Different measures of evaluations of an alternative, such as “best” or “worse” converged over time until shortly after the decision. The number of reasons pro and con alternatives give a more complete picture than attractiveness and increased from the first to the last session. The reasons supporting the chosen alternative increased in strength, but reasons against the non‐chosen alternative decreased. In informal comments participants reported that the study also served as a decision aid.     

Decision Workshops for the Improvement of Decision-Making Skills and Confidence

This article describes the development and evaluation of a workshop program to help people become more confident and effective as decision makers. The workshops, based on conflict theory, consisted of five 2-hour sessions, in which participants learned about the major decisional coping patterns and the critical steps of decision making. Participants also practiced decision-making skills and learned how to use decisional balance sheets, future diaries, and other aids to vigilant decision making. The 76 participants were classified as “problem clients” (N = 44, “learners” (N = 30), and “others” (N = 2). A follow-up questionnaire administered 3 months after the final session revealed that the workshops had promoted increased confidence in decision making and less reported use of maladaptive patterns of decision making.     

No decision‐maker is an Island: integrating expert advice with information acquisition

The present research examined the social context of information acquisition. The main purpose was to examine how decision‐makers' information acquisition processes changed when they were provided access to expert advice. Results indicated that all decision‐makers opted to acquire advice; however, they typically did so only after completing over 75% of their own information search. Decision‐makers agreed more with the advice as task complexity increased, but, in general, searched information in two stages—i.e., a pre‐advice “hypothesis generation” stage and a post‐advice “hypothesis testing” stage. To behave in an adaptive manner, decision‐makers could have used expert advice either to increase their decision accuracy or to reduce their effort expenditure (or both); they chose the former. Implications and further extensions are discussed. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The role of self‐esteem and anxiety in decision making for self versus others in relationships

Previous research has documented a tendency for people to make more risk‐seeking decisions for others than for themselves in relationship scenarios. Two experiments investigated whether this self–other difference is moderated by participants' self‐esteem and anxiety levels. In Experiment 1, lower self‐esteem and higher anxiety levels were associated with more risk‐averse choices for personal decisions but not for decisions for others. Therefore, participants with lower self‐esteem/higher anxiety showed greater self–other differences in comparison to participants with higher self‐esteem/lower anxiety levels. Experiment 2 demonstrated that this effect was largely mediated by participants' expectations of success and feelings about potential negative outcomes. These results are discussed in the context of “threats to the self,” with a central role played by anxiety and self‐esteem threats in personal decision making but not in decision making for others. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Seeing Like a Geologist: Bayesian Use of Expert Categories in Location Memory

Memory for spatial location is typically biased, with errors trending toward the center of a surrounding region. According to the category adjustment model (CAM), this bias reflects the optimal, Bayesian combination of fine‐grained and categorical representations of a location. However, there is disagreement about whether categories are malleable. For instance, can categories be redefined based on expert‐level conceptual knowledge? Furthermore, if expert knowledge is used, does it dominate other information sources, or is it used adaptively so as to minimize overall error, as predicted by a Bayesian framework? We address these questions using images of geological interest. The participants were experts in structural geology, organic chemistry, or English literature. Our data indicate that expertise‐based categories influence estimates of location memory—particularly when these categories better constrain errors than alternative (“novice”) categories. Results are discussed with respect to the CAM.     

Consumer Trust and Advice Acceptance: The Moderating Roles of Benevolence,Expertise, and Negative Emotions

I explored advice acceptance for high‐stakes decisions (i.e., those with subjectively important and risky outcomes), focusing on the relative influence of two components of consumer trust—benevolence and expertise—as well as perceived emotional decision difficulty. Participants solicited advice from experts when their decisions were low in perceived emotional difficulty but favored the advice of predominantly benevolent providers when making highly emotionally difficult decisions. Although consumers who faced emotionally difficult decisions were willing to trade off expertise for benevolence, they did not perceive this non‐normative trade‐off to influence decision quality. Instead, the results support a “stress buffering” effect whereby consumers were more confident in the accuracy of predominantly benevolent providers’ advice.     

Individual differences in attentional capability are linked to creative decision making

There is a link between visual attention and creativity concerning the generation of rare and flexible decisions/solutions. However, the relationship between individual differences in attentional capability and creative decision making has not yet been investigated in detail. The current study scrutinized this link in a sport‐specific divergent thinking task including videos of real game situations and compared performances between football players being divided into two different expertise levels (expert and amateur football players). We conducted a multiple linear regression analysis to assess whether attentional capability along the attentional focus’ meridians (horizontal, vertical, diagonal) and participants’ expertise level predict creative decision making. The attentional capability along the horizontal meridian of participants’ attentional focus and participants’ expertise level emerged as positive predictors. The findings provide evidence of a relationship between football players’ spatial distribution of attention that match the demands of their sport and an expertise advantage in sport‐specific creative decision making. Implications are not only important for sports, but also for all areas in which spatial attention is required in order to generate unusual solutions.     

The Witness Credibility Scale: An outcome measure for expert witness research

The judge or jury makes a subjective determination of when an expert is credible. However, no published measure exists for assessment of the credibility of expert witnesses. The current study addressed this gap by developing and cross‐validating the Witness Credibility Scale (WCS). Drawing on the narrative literature, we hypothesized that credibility was a product of four factors: “likeability,” “believability,” “trustworthiness,” and “intelligence.” A 41‐item measure was initially constructed based on successive iterations of ratings by a panel of judges using items from the Osgood Semantic Differential measure and was subsequently administered to 264 undergraduates. A factor analysis of the data yielded a factor structure that consisted of four factors labeled, “knowledge,” “likeability,” “trustworthiness,” and “confidence.” The final version of the WCS used 20 adjectives with four subscales of five items, each subscale reflecting high loadings on the respective factors. The scale was then tested in five additional studies, in which the scale successfully differentiated between groups of videotaped experts testifying in manipulated conditions. The empirical data from these studies permit a foundation for comparing outcome data in future research investigations. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Simultaneous motor demands affect decision making under objective risk

Previous studies on factors influencing decision making focused on the effects of additional cognitive load, stress, psychological disorders, and the process of aging. The potential effects of simultaneously performing motor demands have been neglected, so far. However, previous motor / cognitive dual-task studies provide evidence for both negative as well as facilitating effects of simultaneously performing cognitive and motor tasks. The study at hand, aimed to investigate the effects of decision making under objective risk while performing additional motor demands. Seventy-two participants ranging from 18 to 30 years performed the Game of Dice Task either while sitting or while standing on one leg. Participants were asked to put similar effort on the decision task and the motor demand. The results revealed a significant main effect for “choice”, as well as a significant interaction of “choice”?×?“group”. Participants standing on one leg more frequently selected the most disadvantageous choice (one single number), whereas the “sitting group” most often selected the advantageous combination of four numbers. The findings are discussed under the aspects of executive functions, working memory, stress, somatic markers and the dual-process theory.     

High‐Stakes Decision‐Making Within Complex Social Environments: A Computational Model of Belief Systems in the Arab Spring

People experiencing similar conditions may make different decisions, and their belief systems provide insight about these differences. An example of high‐stakes decision‐making within a complex social context is the Arab Spring, in which large numbers of people decided to protest and even larger numbers decided to stay at home. This study uses qualitative analyses of interview narratives and social media addressing individual decisions to develop a computational model tracing the cognitive decision‐making process. The model builds on work by Abelson and Carroll (1965), Schank and Abelson (1977), and Axelrod (1976) to systematically trace the inferences connecting beliefs to decisions. The findings show that protest decisions were often based on positive emotions such as pride, hope, courage, and solidarity, triggered by beliefs about successful protest and self‐sacrifice. By contrast, decisions to stay at home were triggered by beliefs about safety, state approval, and living conditions. As one participant said, “When I heard about the revolution in Tunisia, my heart was filled with solidarity for the people.” In the words of a non‐participant: “When people are killed, we must be careful. There are more important things than protest: safety and stability.” This study of individual explanations about events identifies the role of emotions in high‐stakes decision‐making within complex social environments.