{"title":"群体-个人概率混淆:刑事调查中嫌疑人优先排序的含义","authors":"D. Kim Rossmo, Angela M. Jones","doi":"10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2025.102452","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Suspect prioritization is a critical function in criminal investigations suffering from information overload. As this effort involves probability ranking, it is important to avoid confusing group and individual selection probabilities, an ecological fallacy related to Kahneman and Tversky's hit-and-run taxicab color exercise.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>We studied this tendency using an experimental survey administered to 1017 university students. The survey involved both individual- and group-level probability questions, presented in randomized order. Participants completed the Subjective Numeracy Scale to assess whether accuracy correlated with SNS self-assessment.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>Subjects averaged 39 % correct responses across scenarios on the individual-level probability question, only half their accuracy on the group-level probability questions (74 %). Interestingly, subjects who did not select the correct response to individual-level questions almost always chose the corresponding group-level answer.</div></div><div><h3><em>Practical implications</em></h3><div>Probability confusion can distort suspect prioritization, an important task in criminal investigations involving information overload. It may also contribute to algorithmic discrimination in the criminal justice system. Our analysis suggests why some people answer incorrectly to the Kahneman and Tversky taxicab exercise.</div></div><div><h3><em>Originality</em></h3><div>This is a novel study. While previous research has explored ecological fallacies, cognitive biases, and common probability errors, this is the first analysis to directly examine group-individual probability confusion.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48272,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Criminal Justice","volume":"99 ","pages":"Article 102452"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Group-individual probability confusion: Implications for suspect prioritization in criminal investigations\",\"authors\":\"D. Kim Rossmo, Angela M. Jones\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2025.102452\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Suspect prioritization is a critical function in criminal investigations suffering from information overload. As this effort involves probability ranking, it is important to avoid confusing group and individual selection probabilities, an ecological fallacy related to Kahneman and Tversky's hit-and-run taxicab color exercise.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>We studied this tendency using an experimental survey administered to 1017 university students. The survey involved both individual- and group-level probability questions, presented in randomized order. Participants completed the Subjective Numeracy Scale to assess whether accuracy correlated with SNS self-assessment.</div></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><div>Subjects averaged 39 % correct responses across scenarios on the individual-level probability question, only half their accuracy on the group-level probability questions (74 %). Interestingly, subjects who did not select the correct response to individual-level questions almost always chose the corresponding group-level answer.</div></div><div><h3><em>Practical implications</em></h3><div>Probability confusion can distort suspect prioritization, an important task in criminal investigations involving information overload. It may also contribute to algorithmic discrimination in the criminal justice system. Our analysis suggests why some people answer incorrectly to the Kahneman and Tversky taxicab exercise.</div></div><div><h3><em>Originality</em></h3><div>This is a novel study. While previous research has explored ecological fallacies, cognitive biases, and common probability errors, this is the first analysis to directly examine group-individual probability confusion.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48272,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Criminal Justice\",\"volume\":\"99 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102452\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Criminal Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235225001011\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Criminal Justice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235225001011","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Group-individual probability confusion: Implications for suspect prioritization in criminal investigations
Purpose
Suspect prioritization is a critical function in criminal investigations suffering from information overload. As this effort involves probability ranking, it is important to avoid confusing group and individual selection probabilities, an ecological fallacy related to Kahneman and Tversky's hit-and-run taxicab color exercise.
Design
We studied this tendency using an experimental survey administered to 1017 university students. The survey involved both individual- and group-level probability questions, presented in randomized order. Participants completed the Subjective Numeracy Scale to assess whether accuracy correlated with SNS self-assessment.
Findings
Subjects averaged 39 % correct responses across scenarios on the individual-level probability question, only half their accuracy on the group-level probability questions (74 %). Interestingly, subjects who did not select the correct response to individual-level questions almost always chose the corresponding group-level answer.
Practical implications
Probability confusion can distort suspect prioritization, an important task in criminal investigations involving information overload. It may also contribute to algorithmic discrimination in the criminal justice system. Our analysis suggests why some people answer incorrectly to the Kahneman and Tversky taxicab exercise.
Originality
This is a novel study. While previous research has explored ecological fallacies, cognitive biases, and common probability errors, this is the first analysis to directly examine group-individual probability confusion.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Criminal Justice is an international journal intended to fill the present need for the dissemination of new information, ideas and methods, to both practitioners and academicians in the criminal justice area. The Journal is concerned with all aspects of the criminal justice system in terms of their relationships to each other. Although materials are presented relating to crime and the individual elements of the criminal justice system, the emphasis of the Journal is to tie together the functioning of these elements and to illustrate the effects of their interactions. Articles that reflect the application of new disciplines or analytical methodologies to the problems of criminal justice are of special interest.
Since the purpose of the Journal is to provide a forum for the dissemination of new ideas, new information, and the application of new methods to the problems and functions of the criminal justice system, the Journal emphasizes innovation and creative thought of the highest quality.