This research hypothesized that using video evidence with audio, compared to without audio, would lead to a higher estimated likelihood of guilt and more final judgments of guilt. Furthermore, this...Show moreThis research hypothesized that using video evidence with audio, compared to without audio, would lead to a higher estimated likelihood of guilt and more final judgments of guilt. Furthermore, this research hypothesized that a written bias warning could help reduce a possible bias. These hypotheses were tested in four groups, with either video evidence with audio or without audio and either a bias warning or no bias warning. The participants were asked to fill in an online survey. Mixed evidence was found for the estimated likelihood of guilt and final judgments of guilt when comparing video evidence with audio to without audio. In addition, no evidence was found for an existing bias. It was also hypothesized that video evidence with audio would lead to a higher feeling of presence and vividness, compared to without audio. Video evidence with audio led to a higher feeling of presence, compared to video evidence without audio. No evidence was found for vividness. Limitations and implications of this research will be discussed.Show less
