Are Jurors Intuitive Statisticians? Bayesian Causal Reasoning in Legal Contexts.

In criminal trials, evidence often involves a degree of uncertainty and decision-making includes moving from the initial presumption of innocence to inference about guilt based on that evidence. The jurors' ability to combine evidence and make accurate intuitive probabilistic judgments underpins this process. Previous research has shown that errors in probabilistic reasoning can be explained by a misalignment of the evidence presented with the intuitive causal models that people construct. This has been explored in abstract and context-free situations. However, less is known about how people interpret evidence in context-rich situations such as legal cases. The present study examined participants' intuitive probabilistic reasoning in legal contexts and assessed how people's causal models underlie the process of belief updating in the light of new evidence. The study assessed whether participants update beliefs in line with Bayesian norms and if errors in belief updating can be explained by the causal structures underpinning the evidence integration process. The study was based on a recent case in England where a couple was accused of intentionally harming their baby but was eventually exonerated because the child's symptoms were found to be caused by a rare blood disorder. Participants were presented with a range of evidence, one piece at a time, including physical evidence and reports from experts. Participants made probability judgments about the abuse and disorder as causes of the child's symptoms. Subjective probability judgments were compared against Bayesian norms. The causal models constructed by participants were also elicited. Results showed that overall participants revised their beliefs appropriately in the right direction based on evidence. However, this revision was done without exact Bayesian computation and errors were observed in estimating the weight of evidence. Errors in probabilistic judgments were partly accounted for, by differences in the causal models representing the evidence. Our findings suggest that understanding causal models that guide people's judgments may help shed light on errors made in evidence integration and potentially identify ways to address accuracy in judgment.

The receptor tyrosine kinase Flt3 is required for dendritic cell development in peripheral lymphoid tissues.

Dendritic cell (DC) development begins in the bone marrow but is not completed until after immature progenitors reach their sites of residence in lymphoid organs. The hematopoietic growth factors regulating these processes are poorly understood. Here we examined the effects of signaling by the receptor tyrosine kinase Flt3 on macrophage DC progenitors in the bone marrow and on peripheral DCs. We found that the macrophage DC progenitor compartment was responsive to superphysiological amounts of Flt3 ligand but was not dependent on Flt3 for its homeostatic maintenance in vivo. In contrast, Flt3 was essential to the regulation of homeostatic DC development in the spleen, where it was needed to maintain normal numbers of DCs by controlling their division in the periphery.