Location of Repository

The role of pre-trial attitudes about forensic science evidence: Developing and testing a forensic evidence evaluation bias scale

By Lisa L. Smith


The unique decision making task entrusted to lay juries in adversarial legal systems has attracted the attention of legal psychologists for decades, but more recently technological advances in forensic science have highlighted the importance of understanding how jurors perceive this often ambiguous and complicated type of evidence. This thesis begins by investigating the forensic awareness of lay participants, and the ability of mock jurors to discriminate between varying probative values of forensic evidence. The findings suggest that the perception of weak forensic evidence is affected by contextual information, and there was wide disagreement among participants about the probative value of weak evidence. In an effort to explain the variance in perceived evidence strength, a measure of pre-trial attitudes about forensic science was developed (the Forensic Evidence Evaluation Bias Scale – FEEBS) and administered to 446 participants ranging from students, to jury eligible members of the public, to actual jury venire persons. The results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses identified two distinct clusters of attitudes measured by the FEEBS, which correspond conceptually to the hypothesised juror beliefs described in the CSI Effect literature. These attitudes were found to have a significant indirect effect on verdict preference, for trial vignettes describing murder, robbery, and sexual assault scenarios containing weak (or absent) forensic DNA evidence. The implications of these findings for voir dire hearings are discussed, with reference to the cognitive models of juror decision making and the CSI Effect literature

Publisher: University of Leicester
Year: 2011
OAI identifier: oai:lra.le.ac.uk:2381/9896

Suggested articles



  1. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions.
  2. (2010). Advanced methods for conducting online behavioural research.
  3. (1978). An integration theory analysis of jurors’ presumptions of guilt or innocence.
  4. (2001). An introduction to psychological tests and scales (2nd ed.).
  5. (1981). Another look at social psychological aspects of juror bias. Law and Human Behavior,
  6. (2010). Are juries fair?
  7. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research.
  8. (1991). Attorneys' lay psychology and its effectiveness in selecting jurors: Three empirical studies.
  9. (1957). Authoritarian attitudes and personality maladjustment.
  10. (1978). Authoritarianism and decisions of mock juries: Evidence of jury bias and group polarisation.
  11. (2006). Bayesian networks and probabilistic inference in forensic science.
  12. (2009). Beliefs about factors affecting the reliability of eyewitness testimony: A comparison of judges, jurors, and the general public.
  13. (2007). Bias in jury selection: Justifying prohibited peremptory challenges.
  14. (2002). Citizen perceptions of community policing: Comparing internet and mail survey responses.
  15. (1982). Cognitive processes in the individual juror. In
  16. (2006). Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications.
  17. (2004). Crime scene to court: The essentials of forensic science (2nd ed.). Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry.
  18. (2007). Criminalistics: An introduction to forensic science (9th ed).
  19. (2007). CSI and its effects: Media, juries and the burden of proof.
  20. (2007). CSI and moral authority: The police and science.
  21. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.).
  22. (2007). Effects of pre-trial publicity and jury deliberations on juror bias and source memory errors.
  23. (2003). Effects of pretrial juror bias, strength of evidence and deliberation process on juror decisions.
  24. (1993). Error and exaggeration in the presentation of DNA evidence at trial.
  25. (1992). Establishing the evidential value of a small quantity of material found at a crime scene.
  26. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making.
  27. (2009). Examining the "CSI effect" in the cases of circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony: Multivariate and path analyses.
  28. (2002). Examining the construct validity of the original and revised JBS: A cross-validation of sample and method.
  29. (1987). Expectations and norms in models of consumer satisfaction.
  30. (1988). Explanation-based decision making: Effects of memory structure on judgement.
  31. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis.
  32. (2004). Fast and frugal heuristics: The tools of bounded rationality. In
  33. (2004). Fingerprints and other ridge skin impressions.
  34. Forensic Science Service (2003b, November). New service offers recovery of contact DNA material from fingerprint residues.
  35. Forensic Science Service (2006a). Marks & traces fact sheet:
  36. Forensic Science Service (2006c). Firearms and ballistics.
  37. Forensic Science Service (2007a). Marks & traces fact sheet:
  38. Forensic Science Service (2007b). Marks & traces fact sheet:
  39. Forensic Science Service (2007c). FDR fact sheet: Firearms discharge residue.
  40. (2008). Forensic science, wrongful convictions, and American prosecutor discretion. The Howard
  41. (2004). Forensic science. In P.C. White (Ed.), Crime scene to court: The essentials of forensic science (pp.1-20). Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry.
  42. (1982). Formal and empirical research on cascading inference in jurisprudence.
  43. (2010). Foundations of factor analysis (2nd ed.).
  44. (2008). Genetic policing: The use of DNA in criminal investigations. Collompton:
  45. (2004). Getting the best from DNA evidence.
  46. (2010). I’ve seen this on CSI’: Criminal investigators’ perceptions about the management of public expectations in the field.
  47. (2010). Identifying and measuring juror bias about forensic science evidence. Paper presented at the Jury Research Symposium,
  48. (2009). Improving jury understanding and use of DNA expert evidence. Report to the Criminological Research Council.
  49. (1990). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A case history of a variable.
  50. (1987). Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: The prosecutor’s and the defense attorney’s fallacy.
  51. (2005). Introduction to statistics in Psychology.
  52. (1993). Introduction. In
  53. (2005). Investigating the consequences of administering a standardized pre-trial juror bias assessment.
  54. (1991). Is attorney-conducted voir dire an effective procedure for the selection of impartial juries?
  55. (2008). Is it the CSI effect or do we distrust juries?
  56. (1987). Juror decision making: The importance of evidence.
  57. (2005). Juror understanding of DNA evidence.
  58. (1992). Jurors’ comprehension and assessment of probabilistic evidence.
  59. (1979). Jury decision making: An empirical study based on actual felony trials.
  60. (1977). Jury selection procedures: Our uncertain commitment to representative panels.
  61. (1977). Jury verdicts: The role of group size and decision rule.
  62. (1997). Justice, democracy and the jury.
  63. (2004). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural equation analysis (4th ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  64. (2000). Law 101: Everything you need to know about the American legal system.
  65. (2007). Lay peoples’ and police officers’ attitudes towards the usefulness of perpetrator voice identification.
  66. (2004). Limitations to empirical approaches to jury selection.
  67. (1991). On the effectiveness of voir dire in criminal cases with prejudicial pretrial publicity: An empirical study.
  68. (2010). Perceptions of rape victim blaming. Manuscript submitted for publication.
  69. (1978). Reducing the effects of juror bias.
  70. (1981). Retrieved from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981 Cooley,
  71. (2001). Review of the Criminal Courts of England &
  72. (2003). Specialist DNA services to aid in the investigation of serious crime.
  73. (2009). Strength of evidence, extraevidentiary influence, and the liberation hypothesis: Data from the field. Law and Human
  74. (2007). The 'CSI effect': Now playing in a courtroom near you?
  75. (2006). The ‘CSI Effect’: Better jurors through television and science?
  76. (2000). The “hired gun” effect: Assessing the effect of pay, frequency of testifying, and credentials on the perception of expert testimony.
  77. (2005). The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science.
  78. (2006). The CSI effect on real crime labs.
  79. (2006). The CSI effect: Fact or fiction.
  80. (2006). The CSI Effect’: Exposing the media myth. Fordham Intellectual Property,
  81. (1973). The defendant's dilemma: Effects of jurors' attitudes and authoritarianism on judicial decisions.
  82. (2009). The effect of mobility and relevance of forensic evidence on mock jurors’ perceptions of evidence strength. Poster presented at the BPS Division of Forensic Psychology Conference,
  83. (2009). The effect of mobility and relevance of forensic evidence on mock jurors’ perceptions of probative value. Paper presented at the PsyPAG Conference,
  84. (1978). The effect of peremptory challenges on jury and verdict: An experiment in a federal district court.
  85. (1994). The evidential foundations of probabilistic reasoning.
  86. (2005). The importance of expectation fulfilment on domestic violence victims’ satisfaction with the police in the UK.
  87. (2009). The influence of identification decision and DNA evidence on juror decision making.
  88. (1993). The influence of outcome information and attitudes on juror decision making in search and seizure cases. In
  89. (1999). The influence of police actions on victim satisfaction in burglary investigations.
  90. (2007). The influence of sample type, presentation format and strength of evidence on juror simulation research.
  91. (1995). The influence of size and decision rule in jury decision making. In
  92. The Law Commission (2009). The admissibility of expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales: A new approach to the determination of evidentiary reliability.
  93. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
  94. (1990). The myths and realities of attorney jury selection folklore and scientific jury selection: What works?
  95. (1999). The peremptory challenge accused of race or gender discrimination? Some data for one county.
  96. (2005). The psychology of jury and juror decision making. In
  97. (2004). The right to trial by jury.
  98. (2009). The testimony of forensic identification science: What expert witnesses say and what factfinders hear.
  99. (1991). The use of statistics in forensic science.
  100. (2009). Theoretical models of jury decision making. In
  101. (2004). Trace and contact evidence. In P.C. White (Ed.), Crime scene to court: The essentials of forensic science (pp.56-81). Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry.
  102. (2001). Trial consultation: A new direction in applied psychology.
  103. (2006). Tucker’s congruence coefficient as a meaningful index of factor similarity.
  104. (2006). Understanding world jury systems through social psychological research.
  105. (2005). Using confirmatory factor analysis for construct validation: An empirical review.
  106. (2004). Using social science research to inform and evaluate the contributions of trial consultants in the voir dire.
  107. (2004). Venirepersons' attitudes toward the insanity defense: Developing, refining, and validating a scale.
  108. (2006). Viewing CSI and the threshold of guilt: Managing truth and justice in reality and fiction.
  109. (2004). Walking with the scarecrow: The informationprocessing approach to decision research. In
  110. (1996). What do you expect? The influence of people’s prior knowledge of crime categories on fact-finding.
  111. (2001). When are people persuaded by the DNA match statistics? Law and Human Behavior,
  112. (1993). When prior knowledge and
  113. (2007). Wrightsman's psychology and the legal system. California: Thomson Higher Education.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.