The Differential Effect of Numeracy and Anecdotes on the Perceived Fallibility of Forensic Science

References

• Bolstad, W. M. (2007). Introduction to Bayesian statistics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75–91. doi: 10.1023/A:1022326807441
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borgida, E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1977). The differential impact of abstract vs. concrete information on decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 258–271.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fagerlin, A., Wang, C., & Ubel, P. A. (2005). Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people's health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics? Medical Decision Making, 25, 398–405. doi: 10.1177/0272989×05278931
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koehler, J. J. (1997). Why DNA likelihood ratios should account for error (even when a National Research Council report says they should not). Jurimetrics Journal, 37, 425–437.
   Google Scholar
• Koehler, J. J. (2006). Train our jurors. In G. Gigerenzer & C. Engel (Eds.) Heuristics in the law (pp. 303–326). Cambridge MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Koehler, J. J. (2013). Proficiency tests to estimate error rates in forensic science. Law, Probability, & Risk, 12, 89–98. doi:10.1093/lpr/mgs013
   Google Scholar
• Koehler, J. J., Chia, A., & Lindsey, S. (1995). The random match probability in DNA evidence: irrelevant and prejudicial? Jurimetrics Journal, 35, 201–219.
   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. doi: 10.1177/0272989×0102100105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyon, T. D., & Koehler, J. J. (1996). The relevance ratio: Evaluating the probative value of expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases. Cornell Law Review, 82, 43–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 1–23. doi: 10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mosteller, F., & Tukey, J. (1977). Data analyses and regression. Reading: MA, Addison-Wesley.
   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. doi: 10.1086/428020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867–872. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paulos, J. A. (1988). Innumeracy: Mathematical illiteracy and its consequences. New York: Hill & Wang.
   Google Scholar
• People v. Johnson (2006) 43 Cal.Rptr.3d. 587.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, E., Hibbard, J., Slovic, P., & Dieckmann, N. (2007). Numeracy skill and the communication, comprehension, and use of risk–benefit information. Health Affairs, 26, 741–748. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.26.3.741
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, E., Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Mazzocco, K., & Dickert, S. (2006). Numeracy and decision making. Psychological Science, 17, 407–413. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01720.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (2007). The importance of mathematics in health and human judgment: numeracy, risk communication, and medical decision making. Learning and Individual Differences, 17, 147–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saks, M. J., & Koehler, J. J. (2005). The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science, 309, 892–895. doi: 10.1126/science.1111565
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schklar, J., & Diamond, S. S. (1999). Juror reactions to DNA evidence: error and expectancies. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 159–184. doi: 10.1023/A:1022368801333
   Web of Science ®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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scurich, N., Monahan, J., & John, R. S. (2012). Innumeracy and unpacking: bridging the nomothetic/idiographic divide in violence risk assessment. Law & Human Behavior, 36, 548–554. doi: 10.1037/h0093994
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, M. B., Tangen, J. M., & McCarthy, D. J. (in press). Human matching performance of genuine crime scene latent fingerprints. Law and Human Behavior. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, W. C. (2012). Forensic DNA evidence: the myth of infallibility. In S. Krimsky (Ed.), Genetic explanations: Sense and non-sense (pp. 227–255). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, W. C., Taroni, F., & Aitken, C. G. G. (2003). How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence. Journal of Forensic Science, 48, 47–54. doi: 10.1520/JFS2003315
   Google Scholar
• Tyler, T. R. (2006). Viewing CSI and the threshold of guilt: managing truth and justice in reality and fiction. Yale Law Journal, 115, 1050–1085. doi: 10.2307/20455645
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ubel, P. A., Jepson, C., & Baron, J. (2001). The inclusion of patient testimonials in decision aids effects on treatment choices. Medical Decision Making, 21, 60–68. doi: 10.1177/0272989×0102100108
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winterbottom, A., Bekker, H. L., Conner, M., & Mooney, A. (2008). Does narrative information bias individual's decision making? A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 67, 2079–2088.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar