Literature DB >> 20382912

Visual evidence.

Neal Feigenson1.   

Abstract

Visual and other demonstrative evidence has become increasingly prevalent in American and other courtrooms in recent years. However, there have been relatively few experimental studies of the effects of this kind of evidence in legal settings. As a consequence, little is known about when and how it affects legal decision making. In this article, I survey the extant research, including studies of photographs, videos, computer animations, and PowerPoint displays. The research shows that visual evidence affects legal decisions in some circumstances but not in others. It also indicates that visual evidence sometimes enhances legal judgment by improving recall and understanding but sometimes impairs judgment by prompting undue emotional responses, cognitive and perceptual biases, and/or peripheral processing. The limitations of the research are discussed, and directions for future research are suggested.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20382912     DOI: 10.3758/PBR.17.2.149

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  9 in total

Review 1.  New visual technologies in court: directions for research.

Authors:  Neal Feigenson; Meghan A Dunn
Journal:  Law Hum Behav       Date:  2003-02

2.  The "saw-it-all-along" effect: demonstrations of visual hindsight bias.

Authors:  Erin M Harley; Keri A Carlsen; Geoffrey R Loftus
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 3.051

3.  Vivid persuasion in the courtroom.

Authors:  B E Bell; E F Loftus
Journal:  J Pers Assess       Date:  1985-12

4.  Gruesome evidence and emotion: anger, blame, and jury decision-making.

Authors:  David A Bright; Jane Goodman-Delahunty
Journal:  Law Hum Behav       Date:  2006-04

5.  The propensity effect: when foresight trumps hindsight.

Authors:  Neal J Roese; Florian Fessel; Amy Summerville; Justin Kruger; Michael A Dilich
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2006-04

6.  Seeing is believing: the effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning.

Authors:  David P McCabe; Alan D Castel
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2007-09-04

7.  Face-to-face confrontation: effects of closed-circuit technology on children's eyewitness testimony and jurors' decisions.

Authors:  G S Goodman; A E Tobey; J M Batterman-Faunce; H Orcutt; S Thomas; C Shapiro; T Sachsenmaier
Journal:  Law Hum Behav       Date:  1998-04

8.  The impact of graphic photographic evidence on mock jurors' decisions in a murder trial: probative or prejudicial?

Authors:  K S Douglas; D R Lyon; J R Ogloff
Journal:  Law Hum Behav       Date:  1997-10

9.  Camera perspective bias in videotaped confessions: experimental evidence of its perceptual basis.

Authors:  Jennifer J Ratcliff; G Daniel Lassiter; Heather C Schmidt; Celeste J Snyder
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Appl       Date:  2006-12
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.