Continuing from our discussion on the Google Effect (read Part 1 here), part two of this three-part series delves into two powerful cognitive biases: confirmation bias and priming. These psychological tendencies shape how we interact with the vast amount of information available at our fingertips, especially when Google’s algorithms tailor search results to fit our preferences. However the consequences of these biases can lead to distorted perceptions and even misinformation.
Confirmation Bias and the Temptation of Information-Seeking
Confirmation bias is the human tendency to search for, interpret, and remember information that confirms one’s pre-existing beliefs or opinions (American Psychological Association, 2024). In a jury setting, this bias can lead a juror to focus on evidence that aligns with their preconceived or initial impressions, while dismissing or undervaluing contradictory evidence (Bennett and Feldman, 1981). Jurors affected by confirmation bias may favor arguments or evidence that resonate with their worldview, even when such evidence is less credible or relevant. (Id.) For instance, one juror on a theft case could search for “average penalties for theft” and find sensational articles about harsh sentences, which could influence their perception of the appropriate punishment. Another juror, skeptical of eyewitness testimony, could read blogs or studies questioning its reliability, reinforcing their doubt about the validity of witness testimony.
Case Study of Confirmation Bias
A study conducted by J.J. Koehler (1993) posits that people are not entirely impartial judges when reviewing evidence that conflicts with their existing viewpoints. Instead, they often exhibit confirmation bias—the tendency to favor information that aligns with their beliefs while dismissing or scrutinizing evidence that contradicts them. Koehler conducted experiments where participants were presented with identical sets of data but were primed with varying contextual beliefs. The results revealed a striking trend: participants consistently rated evidence as more credible when it supported their pre-existing views. Conversely, they were more likely to find faults in evidence that challenged their beliefs.
Koehler’s study (1993) demonstrates that individuals are inclined to evaluate evidence in a way that reinforces their current beliefs. This bias persists even when the evidence is methodologically sound and objectively presented. When jurors have access to the internet, they may unconsciously seek out content that supports their initial judgment. For instance, a juror convinced of a defendant’s guilt might search for articles or legal precedents highlighting similar convictions, ignoring nuanced or contradictory details.
Understanding Priming
Priming is the subtle art of influencing behavior through exposure to stimuli, guiding individuals to act in ways that align with these cues, often without their conscious awareness (Bargh, 2006). For example, studies by Kay et al. (2004) suggest that the presence of either a briefcase or backpack in a room full of participants respectively primes their level of competitiveness or cooperation with one another, demonstrating how powerful, yet simple, environmental cues can be in swaying downstream behaviors. Or, in the trial context, a juror could Google “signs of a guilty person.” This would prime the juror to interpret specific behaviors, even neutral ones, like nervousness, as signs of guilt.
Priming in the Digital Age
In marketing, subtle environmental cues often direct attention toward specific brands during a web search (Berger & Fitzsimons, 2008). Similarly, other studies show that conversational themes can prompt individuals to seek related information online (Griskevicius et al., 2006). When applied to jurors, this means that carefully crafted language, themes, or questions during a trial can help attune them toward particular concepts or information moving forward, even if they do so unconsciously.
Words are not just carriers of meaning but tools of influence. Bornstein and Greene (2011) observed that specific word choices and thematic framing tend to activate jurors’ mental schemas, shaping how they evaluate evidence. For instance in criminal cases, describing a defendant as a “young entrepreneur” versus a “troubled youth” can evoke vastly different schemas. The former might prime jurors to view the defendant as ambitious and misunderstood, whereas the latter could lead them to perceive the individual as reckless or delinquent. These activated schemas, in turn, shape how jurors weigh or unconsciously seek out information as the case proceeds.
Case Study of Priming and Social Influence
In the Casey Anthony trial of 2008, where she was accused of murdering her toddler, Caylee, the case became a media spectacle due to its shocking narrative and the absence of direct evidence implicating Casey. The details of the case were covered extensively by media outlets worldwide, shaping public opinion to largely view Casey as guilty long before the courtroom proceedings began. Following the trial, Jennifer Ford, known as Juror No. 3, shared her experience, explaining the emotional toll of reaching a not-guilty verdict due to the lack of clear evidence tying Casey to the crime. “I did not say she was innocent,” Ford stated. She then spoke of the jurors’ legal duty to judge based on court evidence alone (ABC News, 2011). Another juror, speaking under anonymity to People magazine in 2021, expressed similar remorse over the final verdict. This deep contrast between personal belief and professional behavior in this case clearly highlights how powerful external information can be in infiltrating the deliberations of a jury.
In the final part of this series, we’ll explore how these biases can lead to misinterpretation of information, and more importantly, how we can mitigate their impact to make better, more informed decisions.
References
ABC News. (2011, July 6). Casey Anthony Juror: ‘Sick to Our Stomachs’ Over Not Guilty Verdict. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anthony_trial/casey-anthony-juror-jury-sick-stomach-guilty-verdict/story?id=14005609
American Psychological Association. Confirmation bias. In APA dictionary of psychology. Retrieved [2024], from https://dictionary.apa.org/confirmation-bias
Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom: Justice and Judgment in American Culture. By W. Lance Bennett and Martha S. Feldman. (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1981. Pp. x + 203. $14.50.) | American Political Science Review | Cambridge Core. Discusses how biases affect juror interpretation of evidence. Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom: Justice and Judgement in American Culture
Bargh J. A. (2006). What have we been priming all these years? On the development, mechanisms, and ecology of nonconscious social behavior. European journal of social psychology, 36(2), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.336
People Staff. (2021, May 21). Casey Anthony Juror Says ‘My Decision Haunts Me’ 10 Years After Acquittal. People. https://people.com/crime/casey-anthony-juror-speaks-out-10-years-later-my-decision-haunts-me/
Kay, A.C., Wheeler, S.C., Bargh, J.A., & Ross, L. (2004). Material priming: The influence of mundane physical objects on situational construal and competitive behavioral choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95, 83–96.
Koehler, J. J. (1993). The influence of prior beliefs on scientific judgments of evidence quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56(1), 28–55. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1993.1044
Berger, J., & Fitzsimons, G. (2008). Dogs on the Street, Pumas on Your Feet: How Cues in the
Environment Influence Product Evaluation and Choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 45(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.45.1.1
Bornstein, B. H., & Greene, E. (2011). Jury Decision Making: Implications For and From Psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1), 63-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410397282
Griskevicius, V., & Kenrick, D. T. (2013). Fundamental motives: How evolutionary needs influence consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(3), 372–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.03.003
