Law and order effects: on cognitive dissonance and belief perseverance

Order of evidence presentation affects the evaluation and the integration of evidence in mock criminal cases. In this study, we aimed to determine whether the order in which incriminating and exonerating evidence is presented influences cognitive dissonance and subsequent display of confirmation bias. Law students (N = 407) were presented with a murder case vignette, followed by incriminating and exonerating evidence in various orders. Contrary to a predicted primacy effect (i.e. early evidence being most influential), a recency effect (i.e. late evidence being most influential) was observed in ratings of likelihood of the suspect's guilt. The cognitive dissonance ratings and conviction rates were not affected by the order of evidence presentation. The effects of evidence presentation order may be limited to specific aspects of legal decisions. However, there is a need to replicate the results using procedures and samples that are more representative of real-life criminal law trials.

Differential effects of direct and cross examination on mock jurors' perceptions and memory in cases of child sexual abuse

When children testify in cases of child sexual abuse (CSA), they often provide minimal responses to attorneys' questions. Thus, how attorneys ask questions may be particularly influential in shaping jurors' perceptions and memory for case details. This study examined mock jurors' perceptions after reading an excerpt of a CSA trial transcript. Participants' memory of the excerpt was tested after a two-day delay. We examined how reading a direct or cross-examination excerpt that included either high or low temporal structure impacted participants' perceptions, verdict decisions and memory reports. We found that participants who read a direct examination excerpt rated the child witness as more credible, were more likely to convict the defendant and had more accurate memory reports than those who read a cross-examination excerpt, regardless of temporal structure. Suggestions for improving jurors' comprehension and recall of child statements presented as evidence in CSA cases are discussed.

The impact of individual differences on jurors' note taking during trials and recall of trial evidence, and the association between the type of evidence recalled and verdicts

Although note taking during trials is known to enhance jurors’ recall of trial evidence, little is known about whether individual differences in note taking underpin this effect. Individual differences in handwriting speed, working memory, and attention may influence juror’s note taking. This, in turn, may influence their recall. It may also be the case that if jurors note down and recall more incriminating than non-incriminating evidence (or vice versa), then this may predict their verdict. Three studies examined the associations between the aforementioned individual differences, the amount of critical evidence jurors noted down during a trial, the amount of critical evidence they recalled, and the verdicts they reached. Participants had their handwriting speed, short-term memory, working memory, and attention assessed. They then watched a trial video (some took notes), reached a verdict, and recalled as much trial information as possible. We found that jurors with faster handwriting speed (Study 1), higher short-term memory capacity (Study 2), and higher sustained attention capacity (Study 3) noted down, and later recalled, the most critical trial evidence. However, working memory storage capacity, information processing ability (Study 2) and divided attention (Study 3) were not associated with note taking or recall. Further, the type of critical evidence jurors predominantly recalled predicted their verdicts, such that jurors who recalled more incriminating evidence were more likely to reach a guilty verdict, and jurors who recalled more non-incriminating evidence were less likely to do so. The implications of these findings are discussed.

The Impact of Prior Trial Experience on Mock Jurors' Note Taking During Trials and Recall of Trial Evidence

Although jurors’ recall of trial evidence is often incomplete and inaccurate, courts rely on jurors’ ability to remember trial evidence to reach just verdicts. Note taking has been found to enhance jurors’ memory of trial evidence. However, the impact of serving on multiple trials on juror note taking and recall has not been examined. Findings from the educational literature demonstrate that students who are more experienced at note taking will take more notes and recall more lecture material. Thus, the current study is the first to investigate if similar benefits are obtained in jurors. Sixty participants attended two experimental sessions and acted as mock jurors. In each session, they watched one of two trial videos, a criminal and a civil trial (order of trials was counterbalanced). All jurors were permitted to take notes whilst watching the trials. Lastly, they were asked to reach a verdict and recall as much trial evidence as they could remember (none of the jurors had access to their notes during the recall task). Jurors wrote down more correct and critical evidence during the second session when compared to the first session. However, there was no statistically significant difference between session one and session two with regards to the quantity of correct and critical evidence jurors recalled. Thus, the present study demonstrates that trial experience enhances mock jurors’ note taking, however, there is no additional enhancement regarding recall.

The impact of note taking style and note availability at retrieval on mock jurors' recall and recognition of trial information

Jurors forget critical trial information and what they do recall can be inaccurate. Jurors' recall of trial information can be enhanced by permitting them to take notes during a trial onto blank sheets of paper (henceforth called freestyle note taking). A recent innovation is the trial-ordered-notebook (TON) for jurors, which is a notebook containing headings outlining the trial proceedings and which has space beneath each heading for notes. In a direct comparison, TON note takers recalled more trial information than freestyle note takers. This study investigated whether or not note taking improves recall as a result of enhanced encoding or as a result of note access at retrieval. To assess this, mock jurors watched and freely recalled a trial video with one-fifth taking no notes, two-fifths taking freestyle notes and two-fifths using TONs. During retrieval, half of the freestyle and TON note takers could access their notes. Note taking enhanced recall, with the freestyle note takers and TON note takers without note access performing equally as well. Note taking therefore enhances encoding. Recall was greatest for the TON note takers with note access, suggesting a retrieval enhancement unique to this condition. The theoretical and applied implications of these findings are discussed.

A systematic review of factors influencing student ratings in undergraduate medical education course evaluations

BACKGROUND

Student ratings are a popular source of course evaluations in undergraduate medical education. Data on the reliability and validity of such ratings have mostly been derived from studies unrelated to medical education. Since medical education differs considerably from other higher education settings, an analysis of factors influencing overall student ratings with a specific focus on medical education was needed.

METHODS

For the purpose of this systematic review, online databases (PubMed, PsycInfo and Web of Science) were searched up to August 1st, 2013. Original research articles on the use of student ratings in course evaluations in undergraduate medical education were eligible for inclusion. Included studies considered the format of evaluation tools and assessed the association of independent and dependent (i.e., overall course ratings) variables. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were checked by two independent reviewers, and results were synthesised in a narrative review.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Qualitative research (2 studies) indicated that overall course ratings are mainly influenced by student satisfaction with teaching and exam difficulty rather than objective determinants of high quality teaching. Quantitative research (23 studies) yielded various influencing factors related to four categories: student characteristics, exposure to teaching, satisfaction with examinations and the evaluation process itself. Female gender, greater initial interest in course content, higher exam scores and higher satisfaction with exams were associated with more positive overall course ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the heterogeneity and methodological limitations of included studies, results must be interpreted with caution. Medical educators need to be aware of various influences on student ratings when developing data collection instruments and interpreting evaluation results. More research into the reliability and validity of overall course ratings as typically used in the evaluation of undergraduate medical education is warranted.

What factors affect students' overall ratings of a course?

PURPOSE

Medical students are typically asked to complete course evaluations, but little is known about how students decide to rate courses. This study sought to examine the student feedback process by exploring the dimensionality of a course evaluation tool and examining the relationship between resulting factors and the overall rating of a course.

METHOD

During the 2007-2008 academic year, all first- and second-year students were asked to provide feedback on various aspects of curricular content, delivery, and assessment for seven courses taught in the first two years of a clinical presentation curriculum. The authors examined the structure of the evaluation instrument using principal component factor analysis and used multiple linear regression to study the relationship between factors and overall course ratings.

RESULTS

Four stable and reliable factors were identified (assessment of students, small-group learning, basic science teaching, and teaching diagnostic approaches) that accounted for about 50% of the total variance in overall course ratings. Student assessment displayed the strongest association with overall course ratings, and for second-year students it was the only variable associated with overall course ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

Of the four factors, student assessment was by far the strongest predictor of overall course ratings, and this association strengthened over time. These results are consistent with the "peak-end rule" and "negativity dominance" for rating emotional experiences.

Investigating investigators: how presentation order influences participant-investigators' interpretations of eyewitness identification and alibi evidence

Presentation order of ID and Alibi evidence was manipulated for undergraduate participants who conducted a simulated police investigation. Experiment 1 found a recency effect when an eyewitness rejected the investigator's suspect. Experiment 2 also examined order effects, exploring how participant-investigators evaluated alibi information in addition to eyewitness ID information. When investigators saw the witness identify the suspect but also received a strong alibi for that suspect a recency effect occurred, such that whichever piece of information occurred at the end of the procedure had the strongest impact on investigators. Thus, type of evidence and evidence order both had a dramatic influence on participant-investigators' decisions.

Influence of order effects and mode of judgement on assessments of ability in sport

We examined the influence of order effects on assessments of sporting ability. Club-standard ultimate frisbee players (n = 240) viewed footage of a target player performing a series of ultimate frisbee skills. Participants viewed either a declining (successful to unsuccessful) pattern of performance or an ascending (unsuccessful to successful) pattern. Ratings were made on three descriptors of ultimate frisbee ability. One group of participants made ratings at the end of the sequence of clips, one group updated their ratings after each clip in a step-by-step manner, and one group used an extended step-by-step processing strategy. Finally, a fourth group made end-of-sequence ratings, but a delay condition was used to control for the time taken to make step-by-step ratings. Analyses of covariance (order vs. judgement condition) were conducted on the ratings. Results revealed primacy effects for the ratings of the target player in the end-of-sequence and delay conditions, and in the first step-by-step condition, but no order effects in the second step-by-step condition. Findings indicate order effects can be reduced by using a more thorough step-by-step processing strategy.