2002
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.331482
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Empirical Assessment of Presentation Formats for Trace Evidence with a Relatively Large and Quantifiable Random Match Probability

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
29
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(30 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
29
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Research has generally found that simulated jurors are less responsive to forensic evidence than Bayesian models indicate they should be (Thompson & Schumann, 1987;Faigman & Baglioni, 1988;Goodman, 1992;Smith et al, 1996;Schklar & Diamond, 1999;Nance & Morris, 2002, 2005Martire et al, 2013Martire et al, , 2014; for reviews of the early studies see Koehler, 2001;Kaye & Koehler, 1991;Thompson, 1989). But Thompson, Kaasa, and Peterson (2013) recently questioned whether jurors always underutilize forensic evidence relative to Bayesian norms.…”
Section: Logical Coherencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Research has generally found that simulated jurors are less responsive to forensic evidence than Bayesian models indicate they should be (Thompson & Schumann, 1987;Faigman & Baglioni, 1988;Goodman, 1992;Smith et al, 1996;Schklar & Diamond, 1999;Nance & Morris, 2002, 2005Martire et al, 2013Martire et al, , 2014; for reviews of the early studies see Koehler, 2001;Kaye & Koehler, 1991;Thompson, 1989). But Thompson, Kaasa, and Peterson (2013) recently questioned whether jurors always underutilize forensic evidence relative to Bayesian norms.…”
Section: Logical Coherencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…A number of empirical studies have compared the judgments of simulated jurors in cases involving forensic evidence with Bayesian norms (Thompson & Schumann ; Faigman & Baglioni ; Goodman ; Smith et al. ; Schklar & Diamond ; Nance & Morris , ; for reviews of the early studies, see Koehler ; Kaye & Koehler ; Thompson ). Participants in these studies were sensitive to variations in the random match probability—they gave more weight to the forensic evidence when the RMP was low than when it was higher.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is an assumption that study participants may not have shared (Navon ; Schklar & Diamond ), hence participants' apparent conservatism relative to Bayesian norms might have been due, at least in part, to legitimate skepticism about the reliability of the evidence rather than to a failure to use the evidence appropriately. Three more recent studies (Nance & Morris , ; Schklar and Diamond ) employed better normative models that incorporated both the RMP and the FRP and found that participants' judgments were still, on average, more conservative than Bayesian norms. However, all three studies had another methodological limitation: they were designed in a manner that made it difficult for participants to give judgments that exceeded Bayesian norms.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In general, the research shows that study participants tend to give statistical information about the DNA match less weight than might be prescribed by probability theory (see, for example, Koehler, 2001;Nance & Morris, 2002Schklar & Diamond, 1999). Schklar and Diamond's (1999) important study found that their participants were concerned about laboratory error and other problems with the forensic DNA samples.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%