Presenter(s): Morgan Bunch
Faculty Mentor(s): Robert Mauro
Poster 113
Session: Social Sciences & Humanities
Experts are relying increasingly on the use of computer-generated simulations or recreations of an incident that are constructed by entering data into a computer program, to effectively communicate complex information. However, the validity of a simulation is often based on key assumptions that are obscure and hidden while the imagery is vivid and compelling. This raises the question of whether simulations can be effective ways to enhance the ability of the courts to deal with arcane information, explain complex issues in ways that judges and jurors can understand, or allow judges and jurors to be swayed by presentations that are only loosely grounded in the facts and science. In the effort to enhance the clarity and persuasiveness of expert testimony, we seek to investigate the effect of simulations on individuals’ perceptions of the validity of expert testimony. The questions guiding our inquiry are as follows: How effective are simulations relative to traditional visualizations in persuading individuals? How can simulations be effectively cross-examined? In what ways are simulations persuasive and/or being potentially mistaken for fact? How do judges’ instructions about the nature of simulations as opinions be sufficient to counter this effect? To answer these questions, participants will be recruited through the University of Oregon Psychology Department human subjects pool and randomly assigned to one of four conditions derived from a 2 (simulation vs. traditional visualization) x 2 (accurate testimony vs. inaccurate testimony) design, used to measure the extent of the simulation’s persuasiveness and its effect on juror decision making.