Abstract：
We explored whether an educational forensic science informational (FSI) video either alone or with specialized jury instructions would assist mock jurors in evaluating forensic expert testimony.
We predicted that the FSI video would help participants distinguish between low-quality and high-quality testimony, evidenced by lower ratings of the testimony and the expert when the testimonial quality was low compared with when it was high.
Jury-eligible adults (N = 641; Mage = 38.18 years; 77.4% White; 8.1% Latino/a or Hispanic; 50.1% male) watched a mock trial and were randomly assigned to a no-forensic-evidence control condition or to a test condition (i.e., participants either watched the FSI video before the trial or did not and either received specialized posttrial instructions or did not). In the test conditions, a forensic expert provided low-quality or high-quality testimony about a latent impression, and participants rated the expert, their testimony, and the forensic evidence. All participants rendered verdicts.
The presence of the FSI video interacted with testimonial quality on ratings of the expert and forensic testimony: In the video-present condition, participants rated the expert in the low-quality testimony condition lower than did participants in the high-quality testimony condition (between-condition differences for credibility: d = -0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.78, -0.27]; trustworthiness: d = -0.67, 95% CI [-0.92, -0.42]; knowledgeability: d = -0.54, 95% CI [-0.80, -0.29]). The pattern was the same for the expert\'s testimony (between-condition differences for convincingness: d = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.66, -0.16]; validity: d = -0.60, 95% CI [-0.86, -0.35]; presentation quality: d = -0.51, 95% CI [-0.76, -0.25]). Participants\' ratings in the video-absent condition did not differ on the basis of testimonial quality (ds = -0.07-0.11). The ratings of the print evidence and verdicts were unaffected. Specialized jury instructions had no effect.
The FSI video may be a practical in-court intervention to increase jurors\' sensitivity to low-quality forensic testimony without creating skepticism. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
We predicted that the FSI video would help participants distinguish between low-quality and high-quality testimony, evidenced by lower ratings of the testimony and the expert when the testimonial quality was low compared with when it was high.
Jury-eligible adults (N = 641; Mage = 38.18 years; 77.4% White; 8.1% Latino/a or Hispanic; 50.1% male) watched a mock trial and were randomly assigned to a no-forensic-evidence control condition or to a test condition (i.e., participants either watched the FSI video before the trial or did not and either received specialized posttrial instructions or did not). In the test conditions, a forensic expert provided low-quality or high-quality testimony about a latent impression, and participants rated the expert, their testimony, and the forensic evidence. All participants rendered verdicts.
The presence of the FSI video interacted with testimonial quality on ratings of the expert and forensic testimony: In the video-present condition, participants rated the expert in the low-quality testimony condition lower than did participants in the high-quality testimony condition (between-condition differences for credibility: d = -0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.78, -0.27]; trustworthiness: d = -0.67, 95% CI [-0.92, -0.42]; knowledgeability: d = -0.54, 95% CI [-0.80, -0.29]). The pattern was the same for the expert\'s testimony (between-condition differences for convincingness: d = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.66, -0.16]; validity: d = -0.60, 95% CI [-0.86, -0.35]; presentation quality: d = -0.51, 95% CI [-0.76, -0.25]). Participants\' ratings in the video-absent condition did not differ on the basis of testimonial quality (ds = -0.07-0.11). The ratings of the print evidence and verdicts were unaffected. Specialized jury instructions had no effect.
The FSI video may be a practical in-court intervention to increase jurors\' sensitivity to low-quality forensic testimony without creating skepticism. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
摘要：
目的：我们探讨了教育法医学信息（FSI）视频单独或与专业陪审团指导是否有助于模拟陪审员评估法医专家证词。
目的：我们预测FSI视频将帮助参与者区分低质量和高质量的证词，证明较低的评级的证词和专家时，证言质量较低，与高相比。
方法：符合陪审团资格的成年人（N=641；法师=38.18岁；77.4％的白人；8.1％的拉丁裔或西班牙裔；50.1％的男性）观看了模拟试验，并被随机分配到无法医证据控制条件或测试条件（即，参与者要么在试验前观看了FSI视频,要么没有观看,要么接受了专门的试验后指导,要么没有).在试验条件下,法医专家提供了关于潜在印象的低质量或高质量的证词，参与者对专家进行了评级，他们的证词,还有法医证据.所有与会者均作出判决。
结果：FSI视频的存在与专家和法医证词的评级与证词质量相互作用：在视频存在的情况下，参与者对低质量证词条件下的专家评分低于高质量证词条件下的专家评分(可信度的条件间差异:d=-0.52,95%置信区间[CI][-0.78,-0.27];可信度:d=-0.67,95%CI[-0.92,-0.42];知识可知性:d=-0.54,95%CI[-0.80,-0.29]).专家的证词模式相同(令人信服的条件间差异:d=-0.41,95%CI[-0.66,-0.16];有效性:d=-0.60,95%CI[-0.86,-0.35];演示质量:d=-0.51,95%CI[-0.76,-0.25])。在没有视频的情况下，参与者的评分根据证词质量没有差异（ds=-0.07-0.11）。印刷证据和判决的评级不受影响。专门的陪审团指示没有效果。
结论：FSI视频可能是一种实用的庭内干预措施，以提高陪审员对低质量法医证词的敏感性，而不会引起怀疑。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023年APA，保留所有权利)。
目的：我们预测FSI视频将帮助参与者区分低质量和高质量的证词，证明较低的评级的证词和专家时，证言质量较低，与高相比。
方法：符合陪审团资格的成年人（N=641；法师=38.18岁；77.4％的白人；8.1％的拉丁裔或西班牙裔；50.1％的男性）观看了模拟试验，并被随机分配到无法医证据控制条件或测试条件（即，参与者要么在试验前观看了FSI视频,要么没有观看,要么接受了专门的试验后指导,要么没有).在试验条件下,法医专家提供了关于潜在印象的低质量或高质量的证词，参与者对专家进行了评级，他们的证词,还有法医证据.所有与会者均作出判决。
结果：FSI视频的存在与专家和法医证词的评级与证词质量相互作用：在视频存在的情况下，参与者对低质量证词条件下的专家评分低于高质量证词条件下的专家评分(可信度的条件间差异:d=-0.52,95%置信区间[CI][-0.78,-0.27];可信度:d=-0.67,95%CI[-0.92,-0.42];知识可知性:d=-0.54,95%CI[-0.80,-0.29]).专家的证词模式相同(令人信服的条件间差异:d=-0.41,95%CI[-0.66,-0.16];有效性:d=-0.60,95%CI[-0.86,-0.35];演示质量:d=-0.51,95%CI[-0.76,-0.25])。在没有视频的情况下，参与者的评分根据证词质量没有差异（ds=-0.07-0.11）。印刷证据和判决的评级不受影响。专门的陪审团指示没有效果。
结论：FSI视频可能是一种实用的庭内干预措施，以提高陪审员对低质量法医证词的敏感性，而不会引起怀疑。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023年APA，保留所有权利)。
