Doctoral Dissertation Research: Improving Juror Assessments of Causality

博士论文研究：改进陪审员对因果关系的评估NSF提案编号#0616439PI：Michael SaksCo-Pi：Nicholas Schweitzer摘要长期以来，法律学者一直对非专业陪审员正确评估科学证词的能力提出质疑。在许多人看来，美国人中“科学文盲”的程度令人震惊，这突显了这些学者的担忧。现有的经验研究表明，普通陪审员很难理解科学证据，特别是根据概率或统计数据做出正确的因果推断。不幸的是，随着涉及科学证词的诉讼的增加，陪审员将被要求越来越频繁地做出这些判断。然而，社会科学文献中有证据表明，可以教会人们做出更准确的判断。例如，正规统计规则的普通教育已被证明可以提高不同教育水平的人的日常问题推理能力。此外，在日常遇到的问题与培训的背景完全无关的情况下，甚至在培训非常短(例如，25分钟)的情况下，可以看出统计方面的一般培训的效果。在这些发现的基础上，拟议的研究开发了一种陪审团教育技术，应该可以提高陪审员根据流行病学/统计数据做出因果推理的能力。这项技术的设计方式是，它可以在各种情况下使用，而不是特定于一种试验或一种类型的试验。我们的研究将在一系列研究中进行。我们将首先检查我们的参与者根据支持因果关系的不同证据对因果关系做出正确评估的能力。第一项研究在这一领域的研究中是独一无二的，因为它不仅评估了参与者的整体能力，还将探索因果关系的各个方面，并确定个人在进行因果评估时所协调的方面(也许更重要的是，它将确定被忽视的方面)。接下来，我们将使用第一项研究的结果来创建一个简短的教育程序，旨在提高陪审员对因果关系的理解，进而提高他们对因果关系做出适当评估的能力。最后，教育计划将在受过大学教育的样本和普通人群样本上进行测试，使用一系列模拟试验，这些试验涉及带有流行病学/统计学证据的因果问题。如果教育技术被证明是成功的，许多关于陪审员在评估某些类型的统计证据方面的能力的担忧可以得到缓解。此外，我们希望我们的教育项目不仅能让人们成为更好的陪审员，还能让他们成为更好的科学消费者。通过教授因果关系的基本原理，我们希望加强人们对他们可能听到的科学主张进行批判性评估的能力，无论这些主张来自专家证人、教师还是媒体。

Doctoral Dissertation Research: Improving Juror Assessments of CausalityNSF Proposal Number #0616439PI: Michael SaksCo-PI: Nicholas SchweitzerAbstractLegal scholars have long raised doubts over the ability of the lay juror to properly evaluate scientific testimony. These scholars' concerns are underscored by, what many perceive to be, an alarming level of "scientific illiteracy" among Americans. The available empirical research suggests that the average juror has considerable difficulty comprehending scientific evidence, and in particular, making correct causal inferences from probabilistic or statistical data. Unfortunately, as litigation involving scientific testimony increases, jurors will be called upon to make these judgments with increasing frequency. However, there is evidence among the social science literature demonstrating that people can be taught to make more accurate judgments. For example, a general education in the formal rules of statistics has been shown to improve the everyday-problem reasoning ability of individuals with a variety of educational levels. Furthermore, the effects of a general training in statistics can be seen when the everyday problem encountered is completely unrelated to the context of the training, and even when the training is very brief (e.g., 25 minutes). Building on these findings, the proposed research develops a jury education technique that should improve jurors' ability to make causal inferences based on epidemiological / statistical data. This technique is designed in such a way that it could be used under a wide variety of circumstances, and is not specific to one trial or type of trial. Our research will be conducted in a series of studies. We will begin by examining the ability of our participants to make correct assessments of causality based on evidence that varies in its support of a causal relationship. This first study is unique among research in this area, in that it will not only assesses the overall abilities of our participants, but will also explore various aspects of causal relationships, and determine the aspects to which individuals attune when making causal assessments (and perhaps more importantly, it will identify the aspects that are overlooked). Next, we will use the findings from the first study to create a short educational program designed to improve jurors' understanding of causality, and, in turn, improve their ability to make proper assessments of causality. Finally, the educational program will be tested on both a college-educated and general-population sample using a series of mock-trials that involve causal issues with epidemiological / statistical evidence. Should the educational technique prove to be successful, many of the concerns regarding jurors' competence in evaluating certain types of statistical evidence could be allayed. And in addition, we hope that our educational program will not only make people better jurors, but also make them better consumers of science. By teaching the basic principles of cause-and-effect relationships, we hope to strengthen people's ability to critically evaluate scientific claims that they may hear, regardless of whether those claims originate from an expert witness, a teacher or the media.