Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Although argument quality is considered to be very important to the outcome of the persuasion process, little research has been done on the question whether the strength of arguments is related to the type of evidence that is used. In three experiments, 494 participants indicated the extent to which they accepted claims that were either supported by anecdotal or statistical evidence. Statistical evidence is more persuasive than anecdotal evidence in support of a claim on a large number of unspecified entities (Experiment 1, 2). In support of a claim on a specific entity, anecdoctal evidence can be as persuasive as statistical evidence (Experiment 2, 3), as long as the case story in the anecdotal evidence is perceived as sufficiently similar to the entity in the claim (Experiment 3). These findings are in accordance with insights derived from argumentation theory.

Publication Type: Symposium Paper
Abstract: As reported previously (Burke & El Sibaey, 2008) an examination of the original case files from the more than 200 post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in the U.S. and Canada revealed that in many cases, exculpatory alibi evidence was not followed up, not mentioned in subsequent court documents, nor discussed in the official case summaries. Current research is now focused on the circumstances under which (presumably truthful) alibis are ignored or not followed up when other (presumably false) evidence, such as eyewitness testimony, is presented; The former is considered ‘weak’ evidence while the latter is considered ‘strong’. This, despite the fact that both types of evidence are to be treated as ‘equal’ under the law.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In the past several years, the debate over racial profiling has intensified. In the context of drug interdiction programs, racial profiling has come under significant, and often well-deserved, attacks. This paper investigates the efficacy of the Maryland State Police’s drug interdiction program from 1995 to 2001. Using a Bayesian framework, this paper develops new statistical methods to infer whether racial profiling while controlling for the Maryland State Police’s non-random selection of drivers to be stopped and searched. The study uses data enumerating all 2,146 searches from January 1995 through April 2000 on the 48.5 mile stretch of Interstate 95 in Maryland north of Baltimore and the 82,410 stops on the same stretch of highway from May 1997 to April 2000. Preliminary data analysis suggest that the non-random selection does affect the results, and that there is evidence of racial profiling by the Maryland State Police.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Can jurors draw appropriate conclusions from negative forensic evidence, such as the failure to find gunshot residue (GSR) on an alleged shooter? Experiment 1 found that undergraduates (N=572) undervalue negative GSR evidence, particularly when a negative result is merely probable rather than certain if a gun was fired. Experiment 2 presented the same materials to members of the jury pool at a county courthouse (N=164), and found the same pattern of results for jurors who were college graduates but a different (and even less appropriate) pattern for non-college graduates. Experiment 3, which also involved jury pool members (N=420), found similar results across a broader range of stimulus conditions. Legal and psychological implications will be discussed.

Publication Type: Poster
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Jurors are often presented with emotional-arousing evidence. Prior research has indicated that graphic evidence can induce negative mood states among mock-jurors, which subsequently predicts more guilty verdicts. No prior research offers an explanatory model of why graphic photographs have the effect they do on jurors. The authors propose the Need for Affect (NFA) construct can explain why jurors reach certain decisions after viewing graphic evidence. More specifically, the need for affect model proposes that individuals who are motivated to engage in emotional experiences are more likely to have a high need for cognition and process emotional information systematically