Perception Versus Reality

Yael Granot presented her research on minimizing biases in the processing of video evidence by establishing regulations and interventions for the presentation of video evidence in court. Video evidence along with other forms of sensory evidence has become accepted and commonly used in courts. The reason behind this is because the general public tends to rely on the misconception that video evidence represents situations and relevant pieces of evidence for what they are. The formats of video evidence and the neuroscience behind perception both may contribute to biased decision-making by jurors in courts. The article, “In the Eyes of the Law: Perception Versus Reality in Appraisals of Video Evidence”, questions the reliability of human perception of video evidence and thus the credibility of decisions made in court based upon visual evidence. As a result, it is critical to conduct research that aims to develop systems and methods which reduce biases in judgement and decision-making. 

An article from Psychology Today titled “Perception Is Not Reality” by Jim Taylor Ph.D. discusses the common misconception people hold that what they perceive is in fact reality. However, just because an individual may think something is reality, does not make it reality. Perception often creates a sense of relativism in circumstances that are rather absolute. It is important to keep in mind that reality exists outside of the mind and is difficult to manipulate into what it is not. With that being said however, an individual’s specific perception of something can become their personal reality.  Dr. Taylor explains, “The problem is that the lens through which we perceive is often warped in the first place by our genetic predispositions, past experiences, prior knowledge, emotions, preconceived notions, self-interest, and cognitive distortions.” (Taylor) Additionally, this article argues that our senses are a disadvantage when analyzing reality through the perceive’s point of view. I wish to redirect our attention to vision in particular. Vision, along with other senses, diverges our thought formation from reality. One might wonder; So what? One major problem that arrises is the fact that visual perception can deviate from reality and that, within itself, can become a liability in certain situations. 

Research regarding visual presentation of evidence to juries in court rooms shows that many of the problems that arise with evidence in the video category are due to various visual discriminatory and visual misperception biases due to perception deviation from reality. Errors of over belief, failures of discrimination, and lack of awareness are all problems that commonly arise in court rooms in which video/visual evidence is presented to a jury. The major issue that comes along with the usage of video evidence in court rooms is that each jury member, just like every human, has their own individualized perception of what they are being shown. Yael Granot informed us about research that showed that not every juror will see the same thing in the same video. Granot focused on showing a video of police/civilian altercation to 152 undergraduate students from NYU and monitoring their eye movement throughout in order to identify the central focus of each participant. Turns out, the participants’ focuses varied among the sample. With that being said, it is important to consider how this is applicable in real life circumstances such as a court room with a jury. The Illusory causation effect is very real and needs to be strongly considered in such situations. Because people are susceptible to sensory biases to this extent, we should not feel this comfortable relying on the jury’s decision-making in court. 

I know that sometimes judges will review the visual evidence (videos, photos, etc.) before hand and then will either allow to show them in court or not, however, judges, too, are susceptible to biases. Thus, I believe that one research method for mitigating this effect could be to conduct a study where a board of trained professionals sit down and review visual/other sensory evidence that will be presented to a jury and have this board work on eliminating stimuli that could create biases in the minds of the jury members. With multiple people reviewing the evidence and editing out perspectives that “change the true story” I predict that the jurors would make less biased final decisions when it comes to sentencing and other legal decisions. 

In Class Research Article:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hdluh1vfs2cphhz/AACqNFxKZ0QYojYVsPg3HafLa/(02.25.20)%20-%20Yael%20Granot?dl=0&preview=Granotetal_3PL.pdf&subfolder_nav_tracking=1

Outside Source on Perception:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-power-prime/201908/perception-is-not-reality