The impact of misinformation presented during jury deliberation on juror memory and decision-making.

When deliberating, jurors may introduce misinformation that may influence other jurors' memory and decision-making. In two studies, we explored the impact of misinformation exposure during jury deliberation. Participants in both studies read a transcript of an alleged sexual assault. In Study 1 (N = 275), participants encountered either consistent pro-prosecution misinformation, consistent pro-defense misinformation, or contradictory misinformation (pro-prosecution and pro-defense). In Study 2 (N = 339), prior to encountering either pro-prosecution or pro-defense misinformation while reading a jury deliberation transcript, participants either received or did not receive a judicial instruction about misinformation exposure during deliberation. Participants in both studies completed legal decision-making variables (e.g., defendant guilt rating) before and after deliberation, and their memory was assessed for misinformation acceptance via recall and source memory tasks. In Study 1, misinformation type did not influence legal decision-making, but pro-prosecution misinformation was more likely to be misattributed as trial evidence than pro-defense or contradictory misinformation. In Study 2, pro-defense misinformation was more likely to be misattributed to the trial than pro-prosecution misinformation, and rape myths moderated this. Furthermore, exposure to pro-defense misinformation skewed legal decision-making towards the defense's case. However, the judicial instruction about misinformation exposure did not influence memory or decision-making. Together, these findings suggest that misinformation in jury deliberations may distort memory for trial evidence and bias decision-making, highlighting the need to develop effective safeguards for reducing the impact of misinformation in trial contexts.

A survey of what legal populations believe and know about inattentional blindness and visual detection.

Inattentional blindness refers to when people fail to notice obvious and unexpected events when their attention is elsewhere. Existing research suggests that inattentional blindness is a poorly understood concept that violates the beliefs that are commonly held by the public about vision and attention. Given that legal cases may involve individuals who may have experienced inattentional blindness, it is important to understand the beliefs legal populations and members of the community have about inattentional blindness, and their general familiarity and experience with the concept. Australian police officers (n = 94) and lawyers (n = 98), along with psychology students (n = 99) and community members (n = 100) completed a survey where they: a) stated whether an individual would have noticed an event in six legal vignettes, b) rated whether factors would make an individual more, less, or just as likely to notice an unexpected event, c) reported their familiarity with and personal experiences of inattentional blindness, and d) indicated whether they believed individuals could make themselves more likely to notice unexpected events. Respondents in all populations frequently responded "yes" to detecting the unexpected event in most legal vignettes. They also held misconceptions about some factors (expertise and threat) that would influence the noticing of unexpected events. Additionally, personal experiences with inattentional blindness were commonly reported. Finally, respondents provided strategies for what individuals can do to make themselves more likely to notice of unexpected events, despite a lack of evidence to support them. Overall, these findings provide direction for where education and training could be targeted to address misconceptions about inattentional blindness held by legal populations, which may lead to improved decision-making in legal settings.

Does experiencing inattentional blindness for crime influence eyewitness recall?

Witnesses may not notice crimes occurring when their attention is elsewhere, which may affect their memory. In this study, 174 participants completed an attention-demanding task while viewing a video containing an assault. Whether participants noticed the assault or experienced inattentional blindness for it was assessed. Then, participants were exposed to post-event information (containing misinformation) before completing a cued-recall task under one of three recall instructions (free, forced, or no instruction). Most participants experienced inattentional blindness for the assault (65.5%), which had a negative effect on recall, regardless of recall instruction. Specifically, participants who experienced inattentional blindness were less confident, complete, and accurate, and were more likely to report misinformation, than participants who noticed the crime. Witnesses who experienced inattentional blindness reported that they relied purely on post-event information to answer some questions. The findings suggest that caution should be taken when interviewing witnesses who have not paid attention to a crime.

Stopping crime? The effect of crime re-enactments on eyewitness memory.

Crime re-enactments broadcast on television encourage witnesses to provide information regarding unsolved crimes. However, given that eyewitness memory can be altered through exposure to post-event information, it is possible that crime re-enactments may influence the memory of eyewitnesses. The current studies examined the effects of crime re-enactments on eyewitness memory. In two experiments (Experiment 1 with a distractor task, Experiment 2 without a distractor task), participants were shown one of three versions of a crime video that differed in their ambiguity. One week later half of the participants viewed a crime re-enactment. All participants then completed a guided free- and cued-recall task regarding the original event. Across both studies, exposure to the re-enactment did not improve eyewitness memory; instead, participants who viewed the re-enactment were more likely to accept the misinformation in the re-enactment. The findings shed light on potential issues with using crime re-enactments to elicit eyewitness accounts.