Search

Expert opinions admitted by courts are not always valid and reliable. However, we know little about how indicators of opinion quality affect the persuasiveness of an expert. In this study 25 Australian magistrates and 22 jury-eligible lay people rated the persuasiveness (via credibility, value and weight) of either a high- or a low-quality expert opinion. Opinion quality was determined using attributes specified in the Expert Persuasion Expectancy (ExPEx) framework: Field, Specialty, Ability and Trustworthiness. Both magistrates and jurors were significantly more persuaded by the high- than the low-quality expert opinion. Magistrates were also significantly more sceptical of the expert opinion than lay people, and when given the opportunity sought information that was logically relevant to their decision. These results suggest that magistrates can differentiate between high- and low-quality expert opinions, but it is unclear whether the information they need for the task is actually available for use during trials.

Emerging research has demonstrated that statistical learning is a modality-specific ability governed by domain-general principles. Yet limited research has investigated different forms of statistical learning within modality. This paper explores whether there is one unified statistical learning mechanism within the visual modality, or separate task-specific abilities. To do so, we examined individual differences in spatial and nonspatial conditional and distributional statistical learning. Participants completed four visual statistical learning tasks: conditional spatial, conditional nonspatial, distributional spatial, and distributional nonspatial. Performance on all four tasks significantly correlated with each other, and performance on all tasks accounted for a large portion of the variance across tasks (57%). Interestingly, a portion of the variance of task performance (between 11% and 18%) was also accounted for by performance on each of the individual tasks. Our results suggest that visual statistical learning is the result of the interplay between a unified mechanism for extracting conditional and distributional statistical regularities across time and space, and an individual’s ability to extract specific types of regularities.

Forensic feature-comparison examiners in select disciplines are more accurate than novices when comparing samples of visual evidence. This article examines a key cognitive mechanism that may contribute to this superior visual comparison performance: the ability to learn how often stimuli occur in the environment (distributional statistical learning). We examined the relationship between distributional learning and visual comparison performance and the impact of training on the diagnosticity of distributional information in visual comparison tasks. We compared performance between novices given no training (uninformed novices; n = 32), accurate training (informed novices; n = 32), or inaccurate training (misinformed novices; n = 32) in Experiment 1 and between forensic examiners (n = 26), informed novices (n = 29), and uninformed novices (n = 27) in Experiment 2. Across both experiments, forensic examiners and novices performed significantly above chance in a visual comparison task in which distributional learning was required for high performance. However, informed novices outperformed all participants, and only their visual comparison performance was significantly associated with their distributional learning. It is likely that forensic examiners' expertise is domain specific and doesn't generalize to novel visual comparison tasks. Nevertheless, diagnosticity training could be critical to the relationship between distributional learning and visual comparison performance.

Past research suggests that an uncritical or ‘lazy’ style of evaluating evidence may play a role in the development and maintenance of implausible beliefs. We examine this possibility by using a quasi-experimental design to compare how low- and high-quality evidence is evaluated by those who do and do not endorse implausible claims. Seven studies conducted during 2019–2020 provided the data for this analysis (N = 746). Each of the seven primary studies presented participants with high- and/or low-quality evidence and measured implausible claim endorsement and evaluations of evidence persuasiveness (via credibility, value, and/or weight). A linear mixed-effect model was used to predict persuasiveness from the interaction between implausible claim endorsement and evidence quality. Our results showed that endorsers were significantly more persuaded by the evidence than non-endorsers, but both groups were significantly more persuaded by high-quality than low-quality evidence. The interaction between endorsement and evidence quality was not significant. These results suggest that the formation and maintenance of implausible beliefs by endorsers may result from less critical evidence evaluations rather than a failure to analyse. This is consistent with a limited rather than a lazy approach and suggests that interventions to develop analytical skill may be useful for minimising the effects of implausible claims.

Purpose: Factfinders in trials struggle to differentiate witnesses who offer genuinely expert opinions from those who do not. The Expert Persuasion Expectancy (ExPEx) framework proposes eight attributes logically relevant to this assessment: foundation, field, specialty, ability, opinion, support, consistency, and trustworthiness. We present two experiments examining the effects of these attributes on the persuasiveness of a forensic gait analysis opinion. Methods: Jury-eligible participants rated the credibility, value, and weight of an expert report that was either generally strong (Exp. 1; N = 437) or generally weak (Exp. 2; N = 435). The quality of ExPEx attributes varied between participants. Allocation to condition (none, foundation, field, specialty, ability, opinion, support, consistency, trustworthiness) determined which attribute in the report would be weak (cf. strong; Exp. 1), or strong (cf. weak; Exp. 2). Results: In Experiment 1, the persuasiveness of a strong report was significantly undermined by weak versions of ability, consistency, and trustworthiness. In Experiment 2, a weak report was significantly improved by strong versions of ability and consistency. Unplanned analyses of subjective ratings also identified effects of foundation, field, specialty, and opinion. Conclusions: We found evidence that ability (i.e., personal proficiency), consistency (i.e., endorsement by other experts), and trustworthiness (i.e., objectivity) attributes influence opinion persuasiveness in logically appropriate ways. Ensuring that factfinders have information about these attributes may improve their assessments of expert opinion evidence.

Forensic scientists endeavour to explain complex scientific principles to legal decision-makers with limited scientific training (e.g., police, lawyers, judges, and jurors). Much of the time this communication is limited to written opinions in expert reports. Notwithstanding considerable scientific research and debate about the best way to communicate forensic science opinions, it is unclear how much of the advice has translated into forensic science practice. In conducting this descriptive study, we examined the reporting practices adopted by forensic scientists across a range of forensic science disciplines. Specifically, we used a quantitative content analysis approach to identify the conclusion types and additional information submitted by forensic scientists in proficiency tests during 2016 (“What would be the wording of the Conclusions in your report?”). Our analysis of 500 randomly selected responses in eight disciplines indicated that the conclusion type which has received the most criticism in recent years (categorical statements) remains the preferred means of expression in a clear majority of responses. We also found that the provision of additional information often considered necessary for rational evaluation of the evidence (e.g., information about reliability and validity) was rarely reported. These results suggest limited engagement with recent recommendations and are concerning given the gravity of the legal decisions that hinge on accurate and transparent forensic science communication.

We do not know how often false positive reports are made in a range of forensic science disciplines. In the absence of this information it is important to understand the naive beliefs held by potential jurors about forensic science evidence reliability. It is these beliefs that will shape evaluations at trial. This descriptive study adds to our knowledge about naive beliefs by: (1) measuring jury-eligible (lay) perceptions of reliability for the largest range of forensic science disciplines to date, over three waves of data collection between 2011 and 2016 (n = 674); (2) calibrating reliability ratings with false positive report estimates; and (3) comparing lay reliability estimates with those of an opportunity sample of forensic practitioners (n = 53). Overall the data suggest that both jury-eligible participants and practitioners consider forensic evidence highly reliable. When compared to best or plausible estimates of reliability and error in the forensic sciences these views appear to overestimate reliability and underestimate the frequency of false positive errors. This result highlights the importance of collecting and disseminating empirically derived estimates of false positive error rates to ensure that practitioners and potential jurors have a realistic impression of the value of forensic science evidence.

Despite playing a critical role in our criminal justice system, very little is known about the expertise of forensic scientists. Here, we review three disciplines where research has begun to investigate such expertise: handwriting analysis, fingerprint examination, and facial image comparison. We assess expertise against the scientific standard, but conclude that meeting this standard does not provide a sufficiently high benchmark for the forensic sciences. Forensic scientists must demonstrate a minimum standard of performance, the ability to defer judgement in cases at high risk of error, and the ability to effectively communicate the strength of their evidence to factfinders. We discuss the limitations of current forensic science expertise research to adequately capture factors affecting operational accuracy and outline crucial differences between studies assessing perceptual skill and operational accuracy. Finally, we identify key areas for future research and encourage cognitive scientists to engage in forensic science research.

Based on a plenary lecture presented at the 50th Anniversary of the Australian Academy of Forensic Sciences Symposium (November 2017) this article reviews the literature relating to the communication of forensic science evidence using statistical statements. Five dimensions of communication are identified: consistency, sensitivity, coherence, ability and orthodoxy. The review also considers the strengths and weaknesses of lay comprehension as well as opportunities for improving understanding through reflection and collaboration.

Background and aims Little is known about the factors associated with retention in smoking cessation trials, especially for low-socioeconomic status (low-SES) smokers. This study examined the factors associated with retention of low-SES smokers in the Australian Financial Interventions for Smoking Cessation Among Low-Income Smokers (FISCALS) trial. Design A two-group parallel block randomised open-label trial with allocation concealment. Setting Australia. The study was conducted primarily by telephone-based interviews with nicotine replacement therapy delivered via mail. Participants 1047 low-SES smokers interested in quitting smoking were randomised. Measurements Participants completed computer assisted telephone interviews (CATIs) at baseline, 2-month and 8-month follow-up. Smoking-related, substance use, mental or physical health, general psychological constructs, sociodemographic and recruitment sources association with retention at 8-month follow-up were examined using binary logistic regression. Findings 946 participants (90%) completed the 2-month follow-up interview and 880 participants (84%) completed the 8-month follow-up interview. Retention at 8-months was associated with higher motivation to quit (OR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.27 p < 0.01), more recent quit attempts (OR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.40 p < 0.05), increasing age (OR: 1.05; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.07 p < 0.01), and higher level of education (OR: 2.24; 95% CI: 1.45, 3.46 p < 0.01). Lower retention at 8-months occurred for those participants recruited from posters placed in Department of Human Service Centrelink Offices (OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.35, 0.89, p < 0.05) compared to participants recruited from Quitline services. No significant differences in retention were found for participants recruited via newspaper advertisements or word of mouth compared to Quitline services. No significant associations were found between health-related or behavioural factors and retention. Conclusions In the context of high overa

Introduction: Tobacco smoking co-occurs with behavioural risk factors including diet, alcohol use and obesity. However, the association between behavioural risk factors and heavy smoking (> 20 cig/day) compared to light-moderate smoking is unknown. The link between behavioural risk factors and future smoking for both ex and current smokers is also unknown. This study sought to examine these relationships. It is hypothesised that behavioural risk factors will be more strongly associated with heavy smoking. Method: Data from Wave 7 (2007) of the Household and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey was analysed using logistic regression to determine relationships between diet (fruit and vegetable consumption, and unhealthy diet choices), alcohol consumption, obesity and physical activity with light-moderate smoking and heavy smoking. The association between these risk factors and future smoking (2008) was assessed for current and ex-smokers (2007). Results: Obese respondents were less likely to be light/moderate smokers (RRR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.43, 0.66) but not heavy smokers. Those who consume confectionary weekly were less likely to be light/moderate smokers (RRR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.61, 0.87), but not heavy smokers. Smokers in 2007 were more likely to continue smoking in 2008 if they consumed 1-4 drinks per occasion (OR: 2.52; 95% CI: 1.13, 5.62). Ex-smokers in 2007 were less likely to relapse in 2008 if they consumed recommended levels of both fruit and vegetables (OR: 0.31; CI: 0.10, 0.91). Conclusion: The relationships between heavy smoking and behavioural risk factors differ from moderate-light smoking. Future primary care interventions would benefit from targeting multiple risk factors, particularly for heavy smokers.

Background: Smoking cessation research output should move beyond descriptive research of the health problem to testing interventions that can provide causal data and effective evidence-based solutions. This review examined the number and type of published smoking cessation studies conducted in low-socioeconomic status (low-SES) and disadvantaged population groups. Methods: A systematic database search was conducted for two time periods: 2000–2004 (TP1) and 2008–2012 (TP2). Publications that examined smoking cessation in a low-SES or disadvantaged population were coded by: population of interest; study type (reviews, non-data based publications, data-based publications (descriptive, measurement and intervention research)); and country. Intervention studies were coded in accordance with the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care data collection checklist and use of biochemical verification of self-reported abstinence was assessed. Results: 278 citations were included. Research output (i.e., all study types) had increased from TP1 27% to TP2 73% (χ² = 73.13, p < 0.001), however, the proportion of data-based research had not significantly increased from TP1 and TP2: descriptive (TP1 = 23% vs. TP2 = 33%) or intervention (TP1 = 77% vs. TP2 = 67%). The proportion of intervention studies adopting biochemical verification of self-reported abstinence had significantly decreased from TP1 to TP2 with an increased reliance on self-reported abstinence (TP1 = 12% vs. TP2 = 36%). Conclusions: The current research output is not ideal or optimal to decrease smoking rates. Research institutions, scholars and funding organisations should take heed to review findings when developing future research and policy.

While the concept of sampling variation is well understood by most researchers in the field of deception detection, previous studies have failed to account for the multiple sources of sampling variation present in typical experimental designs and use participant-level data as the dependant measure in analyses. These aggregated data, however, contain inherent biases that can mislead researchers. We argue that to appropriately test hypotheses and make inferences beyond a particular sample of participants, the decision-level data must be modelled directly. To illustrate how this can be achieved we provide an introduction to generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs) for the analysis of deception data and present Monte Carlo simulations demonstrating both the seriousness of the inherent biases present in participant-level data and the benefits of the GLMM approach. These simulations suggest that the empirical Type 1 and Type 2 error rates associated with main effects testing in deception research may be as high as 35% when data are aggregated ‘by-judge’ and as high as 60% when data are aggregated ‘by-sender’, respectively. When decision-level data are modelled directly, however, these rates are likely to be close to nominal levels (6% and 28%, respectively). Implications for past and future research are discussed.

This article is a resource for lawyers approaching the cross-examination offorensic scientists (and other expert witnesses). Through a series ofexamples, it provides information that will assist lawyers to explore theprobative value of forensic science evidence, in particular forensiccomparison evidence, on the voir dire and at trial. Questions covering abroad range of potential topics and issues, including relevance, theexpression of results, codes of conduct, limitations and errors, aresupplemented with detailed commentary and references to authoritativereports and research on the validity and reliability of forensic sciencetechniques.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Reducing smoking prevalence among smokers from low socio-economic status (SES) is a preventative health priority. Financial stress (e.g. shortage of money or inability to pay bills) may be a major barrier to quitting smoking. This study evaluates the efficacy of a financial education and support programme coupled with pharmacotherapy at improving cessation rates at 8-month follow-up among Australian low SES smokers (people receiving a government pension or allowance).

Objectives This paper used national survey data to investigate ‘hardcore’ smoking as predicted by the ‘hardening hypothesis’, and to examine the relationship between ‘hardcore’ smoking and socioeconomic status (SES).Methods Analyses were performed using data from four waves of the Australian National Drug Strategy Household Survey between 2001 and 2010, a large national survey with a sample size of approximately 24 000 participants per wave. The primary outcome variable was ‘hardcore’ smoking, comprised of the variables: ‘no quit attempt in past 12 months’; ‘no plan to quit’; and smoking more than 15 cigarettes per day. The main predictor variables used were SES assessed by the Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), and survey wave. Other sociodemographic variables were also examined.Results Overall, ‘hardcore’ smoking remained stable from 2001 to 2010. However, ‘hardcore’ smoking declined among high-SES smokers (from 1.8% to 1.0%), but not among low-SES smokers (around 3.4%). ‘Hardcore’ smoking was strongly associated with SEIFA quintile (p<0.001). There was a significant interaction effect between top and bottom SEIFA quintiles and wave (p=0.025), with a decline in ‘hardcore’ smoking measures over the four waves among those in the top two SEIFA quintiles, with odds in 2010 of 0.39 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.87; p=0.012), down from 0.64 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.82; p<0.001) in 2001, while ‘hardcore’ smoking remained stable among those in the bottom two SEIFA quintiles.Conclusions The results from high SES smokers suggest ‘hardcore’ smokers are able to quit, but outcomes among low-SES smokers are less encouraging.

Likelihood ratios are increasingly being adopted to convey expert evaluative opinions to courts. In the absence of appropriate databases, many of these likelihood ratios will include verbal rather than numerical estimates of the support offered by the analysis. However evidence suggests that verbal formulations of uncertainty are a less effective form of communication than equivalent numerical formulations. Moreover, when evidence strength is low a misinterpretation of the valence of the evidence – a “weak evidence effect” – has been found. We report the results of an experiment involving N = 404 (student and online) participants who read a brief summary of a burglary trial containing expert testimony. The expert evidence was varied across conditions in terms of evidence strength (low or high) and presentation method (numerical, verbal, table or visual scale). Results suggest that of these presentation methods, numerical expressions produce belief-change and implicit likelihood ratios which were most commensurate with those intended by the expert and most resistant to the weak evidence effect. These findings raise questions about the extent to which low strength verbal evaluative opinions can be effectively communicated to decision makers at trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this research was to examine the use of quit smoking services and support options in Australia with national survey data to determine whether use of quit smoking services and pharmacotherapy contributes to socioeconomic status (SES) differences in smoking.

Over four years ago, the 2009 US National Academy of Sciences report on forensic science was published, revealing that few formal standards existed in the forensic sciences. The second recommendation of the NAS report related to the language of reporting. This two-fold recommendation urged that templates for expert reports be developed and that the language and terminology of the reports and related expert testimony be standardized. This paper offers a response to Recommendation 2 of the NAS report and a research update. Since the release of the NAS report, Standards Australia has developed a set of forensic standards, including one for reporting. In light of Recommendation 2 of the NAS report and the Australian Standard for reporting, we outline current reporting practices of forensic science in the Australian context, and review research about the communication of forensic science, highlighting recent Australian research undertaken at two universities. We discuss the progress made to date in the development of best practice in expert reports and language use, introduce new directions for developing communicative excellence amongst forensic scientists, and suggest future research directions.

Standards published by the Association of Forensic Science Providers (2009, Standards for the formulation of evaluative forensic science expert opinion, Science & Justice, Vol. 49, pp. 161–164) encourage forensic scientists to express their conclusions in the form of a likelihood ratio (LR), in which the value of the evidence is conveyed verbally or numerically. In this article, we report two experiments (using undergraduates and Mechanical Turk recruits) designed to investigate how much decision makers change their beliefs when presented with evidence in the form of verbal or numeric LRs. In Experiment 1 (N = 494), participants read a summary of a larceny trial containing inculpatory expert testimony in which evidence strength (low, moderate, high) and presentation method (verbal, numerical) varied. In Experiment 2 (N = 411), participants read the same larceny trial, this time including either exculpatory or inculpatory expert evidence that varied in strength (low, high) and presentation method (verbal, numerical). Both studies found a reasonable degree of correspondence in observed belief change resulting from verbal and numeric formats. However, belief change was considerably smaller than Bayesian calculations would predict. In addition, participants presented with evidence weakly supporting guilt tended to “invert” the evidence, thereby counterintuitively reducing their belief in the guilt of the accused. This “weak evidence effect” was most apparent in the verbal presentation conditions of both experiments, but only when the evidence was inculpatory. These findings raise questions about the interpretability of LRs by jurors and appear to support an expectancy-based account of the weak evidence effect

The standards for expressions of evaluative opinions in the forensic sciences are increasingly being challenged and refined. Where once categorical statements regarding the origin of a trace were standard practice, criminalists are now being encouraged to represent the uncertainty associated with their inferential process by using numerical or verbal likelihood ratios. Although there are valid reasons to support this shift, the approach is not without limitations. Decades of psychological research investigating the interpretation and integration of probabilistic expressions, and the equivalence of verbal and numerical formulations for uncertainty, reveals a disconnect between what is intended by experts and what is understood by decision-makers. In this paper we present an indicative review of the psychological evidence to foster communication and collaboration between forensic scientists and psychologists and reduce instances of miscommunication in our criminal justice system. © 2013 Australian Academy of Forensic Sciences.