Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2440/131211
Type: Thesis
Title: Error vs. accuracy rates: Evaluating forensic expert credibility
Author: Koodrin, Jonica
Issue Date: 2020
School/Discipline: School of Psychology
Abstract: In a criminal trial, judges and jurors need to be able to quickly, easily, and confidently interpret forensic expert data. It is also important for them to determine the credibility of forensic experts in order to properly evaluate their opinion on legal evidence. Communicating forensic experts’ opinions on legal evidence has been in the spotlight for researchers. More recently, focus has begun to shift towards the importance of understanding and communicating forensic expert performance data. In a 2 x 2 x 2 fully between-subjects design three fictitious expert reports (extracted from Martire, et al., 2020) were used to communicate forensic expert performance data to mock jurors (N = 143). The framing of the data - (error rates vs. accuracy rates), presentation format (data presented as a mean value vs. individual data points on a scatterplot) and colour of the data (colour vs. greyscale) - were manipulated. To measure judgements of credibility in forensic experts the traits ‘reliable’, ‘accurate’, and ‘trustworthy’ were used. Negatively framed forensic expert performance data (i.e. error rates) lead to lower credibility ratings compared to positively framed forensic expert performance data (i.e. accuracy rates). Presentation format had no significant effect on participants’ credibility ratings. Finally, participants’ ratings of expert credibility were significantly greater when data was presented in colour compared with greyscale. The outcome of this study extends research on message framing to a legal decision making context looking at the communication of forensic data.
Dissertation Note: Thesis (B.PsychSc(Hons)) -- University of Adelaide, School of Psychology, 2020
Keywords: Honours; Psychology
Description: This item is only available electronically.
Provenance: This electronic version is made publicly available by the University of Adelaide in accordance with its open access policy for student theses. Copyright in this thesis remains with the author. This thesis may incorporate third party material which has been used by the author pursuant to Fair Dealing exceptions. If you are the author of this thesis and do not wish it to be made publicly available, or you are the owner of any included third party copyright material you wish to be removed from this electronic version, please complete the take down form located at: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/legals
Appears in Collections:School of Psychology

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
KoodrinJ_2020_Hons.pdf2.71 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.