The Jury Persuaded (and Not): Computer Animation in the Courtroom

In two experiments, we examined the persuasiveness of computer animation on juror decision making by comparing animation to diagrams in two mock trials - a plane crash case and a car accident case. The persuasiveness of the animation on verdicts was dependent on the case; in the plane crash case, participants rendered verdicts in favor of the side presenting the animation. In the car accident case, the animation had no effect on verdicts. The role of familiarity with the depicted scenario is discussed as a possible explanation for the differing impact of animation. Additionally, jurors' expectations about the persuasiveness of animations were discrepant with the animations' actual influence on jurors' verdicts.

[1]  R. Mayer,et al.  For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. , 1994 .

[2]  E F Loftus,et al.  Vivid persuasion in the courtroom. , 1985, Journal of personality assessment.

[3]  N. Pennington,et al.  Explanation-based decision making: effects of memory structure on judgment , 1988 .

[4]  Elizabeth F. Loftus,et al.  Degree of Detail of Eyewitness Testimony and Mock Juror Judgments1 , 1988 .

[5]  Robert B. Bennett,et al.  Seeing is believing; or is it? An emperical study of computer simulations as evidence. , 1999 .

[6]  Melvin Manis,et al.  Can the availability heuristic explain vividness effects , 1986 .

[7]  N. Kerr,et al.  Methodological considerations in the study of the psychology of the courtroom , 1981 .

[8]  N. Pennington,et al.  Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. , 1986 .

[9]  John Selbak.  Digital Litigation: The Prejudicial Effects of Computer-Generated Animation in the Courtroom , 1994 .

[10]  S. Penrod,et al.  Jury Deliberations: Discussion Content and Influence Processes in Jury Decision Making1 , 1986 .

[11]  Betsy S Fiedler.  Are Your Eyes Deceiving You?: The Evidentiary Crisis Regarding the Admissibility of Computer Generated Evidence , 2004 .

[12]  K. Douglas,et al.  The Impact of Graphic Photographic Evidence on Mock Jurors' Decisions in a Murder Trial: Probative or Prejudicial? , 1997, Law and human behavior.

[13]  Daniel C. Dennett.  Seeing is Believing--or is it? , 1996 .

[14]  H. Zeisel,et al.  The American Jury , 1966 .

[15]  E F Loftus,et al.  Trivial persuasion in the courtroom: the power of (a few) minor details. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[16]  Carole E. Powell.  Computer Generated Visual Evidence: Does Daubert Make a Difference? , 1996 .

[17]  S. Kassin,et al.  Blood and Guts: General and Trial-Specific Effects of Videotaped Crime Scenes on Mock Jurors , 1991 .

[18]  Harry Kalven,et al.  The American Jury , 1967 .

[19]  M. Ellenbogen.  Lights, Camera, Action: Computer-Animated Evidence Gets its Day in Court , 1993 .

[20]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. , 1977 .

[21]  D. C. Howell.  Statistical Methods for Psychology , 1987 .

[22]  L. Ross,et al.  Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. , 1981 .

[23]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Stalking the elusive "vividness" effect. , 1982 .

[24]  G. Bower,et al.  Judgmental biases resulting from differing availabilities of arguments. , 1980 .

[25]  D. Wasserman,et al.  Extra-Legal Influences, Group Processes, and Jury Decision-Making: A Psychological Perspective , 1980 .

[26]  Saul M. Kassin,et al.  Computer-Animated Displays and the Jury: Facilitative and Prejudicial Effects , 1997 .