Visual Demonstrative Evidence in a Mock Jury Setting

• In Event: Learning With Static and Dynamic Visualizations

Abstract

This investigation aimed to expand on the findings of Park and Feigenson (2013). In their study, case arguments and graphic materials were presented to mock jurors who were then asked to evaluate and ultimately judge the guilt or innocence of a fictitious company. Results indicated that visual evidence influenced evaluations of the lawyer, and mediated juror’s decisions about the company’s guilt. However, this study was limited by its lack of experimental control over the graphics and colors used—an issue we address here.
Similar to Park and Feigenson (2013), we included multiple framed text perspectives that differentially presented the to-be-read information, consistent with Levin, Schneider and Gaeth (1998). Whereas Park and Feigenson (2013) found that the framing effect was enhanced when a graphic was shown, Garcia-Retamero and Galesic (2010) found that depiction of a part-whole relation graphic nullified the framing effect.
To explain the influences of text and graphics on evaluation and decision-making, we adopted Petty and Cacioppo’s (1986) Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM). This model argues that text and graphics may provide direct or peripheral route processing cues that influence evaluation and decision-making. An example of an informational cue is provided by Isberner et al. (2013) who found that statistical graphics provided a plausibility cue that influenced learners’ evaluations of to-be-learned scientific material.
Due to these conflicting findings, we aimed to investigate the influence of experimentally controlled graphics and color with framed arguments on evaluations and judgments of guilt. Specifically, we examined the influence of an additional informational cue (color), which has been found to interact with framed messages (Gerend & Sias, 2009).
All analyses were performed on a sample of 103 U.S. college students. Our results indicated that viewing any graphic, regardless of the framed text, resulted in individuals being 2.24 times more likely to have little doubt that the company was guilty compared to not viewing a graphic, supporting Park and Feigenson’s (2013) finding (see Table 1). However, this graphic main effect was elucidated by a significant three-way interaction between the levels of the framed text, color and graphic outcome.
Results revealed that individuals were 4.8 times more likely to have doubts about the company’s guilt when they read a negatively framed text with a graphic depicting failure in red, compared to reading a negatively framed text and viewing a graphic depicting success in red (see Table 2).
These results indicate that viewing the color red depicting specific graphic content may be capable of offsetting the well documented framing effect.
These results are substantive when couched in relation to the high standards of objectivity we place on our legal system. Communicating information verbally and visually is a ubiquitous process that can be intentionally or unintentionally biased to accomplish a specific goal. In this study, we show that the seemingly unimportant decision of filling in a graphic with color may produce systematic and profound differences on high-level decision making tasks.

Authors

• Neil Garrett Jacobson, California State University - Chico

• Neil H. Schwartz, California State University - Chico

• Robert William Danielson, University of Southern California

• Marie Lippmann, Dresden University of Technology

• Ulrich Ludewig, University Tuebingen

• Anna N. Bartel, California State University - Chico