Evidence Evaluation and Evidence Integration in Legal Decision-Making: Order of Evidence Presentation as a Moderator of Context Effects

Legal decision-making studies often demonstrate context effects: People's initial beliefs about a suspect's guilt influence their evaluation of subsequent evidence. We examine three potential moderators of these context effects: Order of evidence presentation, ability to ruminate, and valence of the initial belief (innocence or guilt). College students (n=382) were presented with DNA evidence (incriminating or exonerating) and an ambiguous alibi in one of two orders (or just the alibi), and then evaluated how strongly the alibi incriminated the suspect and the suspect's likelihood of guilt. Results indicated that alibi evaluation exhibited context effects when (i) initial beliefs were of guilt (but not of innocence) and when (ii) evaluating subsequent evidence (but not when retroactively evaluating prior evidence). Rumination failed to moderate any effects. The integration of evidence exhibited recency effects: DNA had a greater impact on participants' beliefs in the suspect's guilt when presented last rather than first. Copyright (c) 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.