The Effect of Electrophysiological Neuroscientific Deception Detection Evidence on Juror Judgments in a Criminal Trial

Abstract

There are concerns that if neuroscientific deception detection evidence becomes admissible in court, jurors may weigh it inappropriately. We investigated whether mock jurors were influenced more by electrophysiological than behavioral evidence that a defendant in a criminal trial was lying. Participants’ perceptions of evidence quality predicted verdict choice, and quality ratings were higher for neuroscientific than for behavioral evidence. However, both types of evidence increased guilty verdicts similarly, and the inclusion of neuroimages had no additional impact. These findings suggest that neuroscientific evidence may be processed differently than other types of deception evidence, but it is not necessarily more persuasive.

Notes

¹The text of the trial summaries are available from the authors upon request.

Note. SD = standard deviation. First six questions relate to expert quality and the last three to expert impact. Responses (measured on 7-point Likert scale) are presented for all participants, and then separated by verdict for each condition.

^† p < .1. *p < .05.

Note. SD = standard deviation. Responses measured on 7-point Likert scale.

^† p < .1. *p < .05.