Publication | Open Access
The CSI Effect: Popular Fiction About Forensic Science Affects the Public's Expectations About Real Forensic Science
196
Citations
0
References
2007
Year
Forensic PsychologyLawInformation ForensicsResearch EthicsCrime ReconstructionDigital EvidenceJournalismMedia StudiesInvestigative StudyBiasForensic Science TestimonyDetective FictionForensic EngineeringForensic Science ViewersCsi EffectComputer ForensicsCriminal JusticeForensics AnalysisCrime ScienceIncident InvestigationReal Forensic ScienceScience And Technology StudiesArtsProcedural Justice
The CSI Effect hypothesis claims that exaggerated forensic science on television raises public expectations, potentially burdening trials, yet no empirical studies have tested this, and a weak case for conviction would rely on expert testimony. The study tested the CSI Effect by showing mock jurors a simulated trial transcript that included forensic expert testimony. Participants evaluated the transcript and reported their television viewing habits. CSI viewers found forensic evidence less believable, were less likely to convict (though not significantly), reported higher verdict confidence, whereas viewers of general crime programs showed no differences.
Two of a number of hypotheses loosely referred to as the CSI Effect suggest that the television program and its spin-offs, which wildy exaggerate and glorify forensic science, affect the public, and in turn affect trials either by (a) burdening the prosecution by creating greater expectations about forensic science than can be delivered or (b) burden the defense by creating exaggerated faith in the capabilities and reliability of the forensic sciences. Surprisingly, no published empirical research puts these hypotheses to a test. The present study did so by presenting to mock jurors a simulated trial transcript which included the testimony of a forensic scientist. The case for conviction was relatively weak, unless the expert testimony could carry the case across the threshold of reasonable doubt. In addition to reacting to the trial evidence, respondents were asked about their television viewing habits. Findings: Compared to non-CSI viewers, CSI viewers were more critical of the forensic evidence presented at the trial, finding it less believable. Regarding their verdicts, 29% of non-CSI viewers said they would convict, compared to 18% of CSI viewers (not a statistically significant difference). Forensic science viewers expressed more confidence in their verdicts than did non-viewers. Viewers of general crime program, however, did not differ significantly from their non-viewing counterparts on any of the other dependent measures, suggesting that skepticism toward the forensic science testimony was specific to those whose diet consisted of heavy doses of forensic science television programs.