Doctoral Dissertation Research: Improving Juror Assessments of Causality

博士论文研究：改进陪审员对陪审员能力的评估NSF提案编号#0616439 PI：Michael SaksCo-PI：Nicholas Schweitzer摘要法律学者长期以来一直对非专业陪审员正确评估科学证词的能力表示怀疑。这些学者的担忧被许多人认为是美国人中令人震惊的“科学文盲”水平所强调。现有的实证研究表明，普通陪审员在理解科学证据方面有相当大的困难，特别是从概率或统计数据中做出正确的因果推断。不幸的是，随着涉及科学证据的诉讼的增加，陪审员将越来越频繁地被要求做出这些判断。然而，社会科学文献中有证据表明，人们可以被教导做出更准确的判断。例如，正规统计学规则的普通教育已被证明可以提高具有各种教育水平的个人的日常问题推理能力。此外，当日常遇到的问题与培训的背景完全无关时，甚至当培训非常简短时（例如，25分钟）。基于这些发现，拟议的研究开发了一种陪审团教育技术，应提高陪审员的能力，根据流行病学/统计数据作出因果推断。这种技术的设计方式是，它可以在各种情况下使用，而不是特定于一个试验或试验类型。我们的研究将在一系列研究中进行。我们将开始检查我们的参与者的能力作出正确的评估的因果关系的基础上的证据，在其支持的因果关系的变化。第一项研究在这一领域的研究中是独一无二的，因为它不仅评估了我们参与者的整体能力，而且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关注的方面（也许更重要的是，它将识别被忽视的方面）。接下来，我们将利用第一项研究的结果来创建一个简短的教育计划，旨在提高陪审员对因果关系的理解，从而提高他们对因果关系做出正确评估的能力。最后，将使用一系列涉及流行病学/统计学证据因果关系问题的模拟试验，对受过大学教育的样本和普通人群样本进行教育计划测试。如果这种教育方法被证明是成功的，那么对陪审员评估某些类型的统计证据的能力的许多关切就可以得到缓解。此外，我们希望我们的教育计划不仅能让人们成为更好的陪审员，也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则，我们希望加强人们批判性地评估他们可能听到的科学主张的能力，无论这些主张是来自专家证人，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.