OBJECTIVE We explored whether an educational forensic science informational (FSI) video either alone or with specialized jury instructions would assist mock jurors in evaluating forensic expert testimony. HYPOTHESES We predicted that the FSI video would help participants distinguish between low-quality and high-quality testimony, evidenced by lower ratings of the testimony and the expert when the testimonial quality was low compared with when it was high. METHOD Jury-eligible adults (N = 641; Mage = 38.18 years; 77.4% White; 8.1% Latino/a or Hispanic; 50.1% male) watched a mock trial and were randomly assigned to a no-forensic-evidence control condition or to a test condition (i.e., participants either watched the FSI video before the trial or did not and either received specialized posttrial instructions or did not). In the test conditions, a forensic expert provided low-quality or high-quality testimony about a latent impression, and participants rated the expert, their testimony, and the forensic evidence. All participants rendered verdicts. RESULTS The presence of the FSI video interacted with testimonial quality on ratings of the expert and forensic testimony: In the video-present condition, participants rated the expert in the low-quality testimony condition lower than did participants in the high-quality testimony condition (between-condition differences for credibility: d = -0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.78, -0.27]; trustworthiness: d = -0.67, 95% CI [-0.92, -0.42]; knowledgeability: d = -0.54, 95% CI [-0.80, -0.29]). The pattern was the same for the expert's testimony (between-condition differences for convincingness: d = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.66, -0.16]; validity: d = -0.60, 95% CI [-0.86, -0.35]; presentation quality: d = -0.51, 95% CI [-0.76, -0.25]). Participants' ratings in the video-absent condition did not differ on the basis of testimonial quality (ds = -0.07-0.11). The ratings of the print evidence and verdicts were unaffected. Specialized jury instructions had no effect. CONCLUSION The FSI video may be a practical in-court intervention to increase jurors' sensitivity to low-quality forensic testimony without creating skepticism. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

改进陪审员对法医证词的评估及其对决策和证据评估的影响。

目的 我们探讨了教育法医学信息 (FSI) 视频（无论是单独的还是带有专门的陪审团指示）是否可以帮助模拟陪审员评估法医专家证词。假设 我们预测，FSI 视频将帮助参与者区分低质量和高质量的证词，证据是当证言质量较低时，证词和专家的评级较低，与证言质量较高时相比。方法 符合陪审团资格的成年人（N = 641；法师 = 38.18 岁；77.4% 白人；8.1% 拉丁裔或西班牙裔；50.1% 男性）观看模拟审判，并被随机分配到无法医证据对照条件或测试条件（即，参与者要么在试验前观看或不观看 FSI 视频，要么接受专门的试验后指示，要么不接受）。在测试条件下，法医专家提供有关潜在印象的低质量或高质量证词，参与者对专家、他们的证词和法医证据进行评分。所有参与者均作出了判决。结果 FSI 视频的存在与专家和法医证词评级的证词质量相互作用：在视频存在条件下，参与者对低质量证词条件下的专家的评分低于参与者在高质量证词条件下的评分（条件间可信度差异：d = -0.52，95% 置信区间 [CI] [-0.78，-0.27]；可信度：d = -0.67，95% CI [-0.92，-0.42]；知识能力：d = - 0.54，95% CI [-0.80，-0.29]）。专家证词的模式相同（条件间的说服力差异：d = -0.41，95% CI [-0.66，-0.16]；有效性：d = -0.60，95% CI [-0.86，-0.35] ；呈现质量：d = -0.51，95% CI [-0.76，-0.25]）。在没有视频的情况下，参与者的评分没有因推荐质量而异（ds = -0.07-0.11）。印刷证据和判决的评级不受影响。专门的陪审团指示没有效果。结论 FSI 视频可能是一种实用的法庭干预措施，可以提高陪审员对低质量法医证词的敏感度，而不会引起怀疑。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2023 APA，保留所有权利）。