Corrigendum to “Engaging the CSI effect: The influences of experience-taking, type of evidence, and viewing frequency on juror decision-making” [Journal of Criminal Justice 49(March/April 2017) 45–52] (S0047235217300016) (10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.02.003))

The authors regret the factor of Evidence Type was mistakenly treated as a continuous factor in the main analysis of the article. Correctly treating Evidence Type as a multicategorical variable changes the statistics associated with the Experience-taking X Evidence Type X Crime drama viewing three-way interaction to F(2,272) = 2.872, p = 0.06. The results of the simple slope follow-up analyses also changed, but did not alter the overall message of the findings. Among engaged participants who were presented with forensic only evidence, frequent viewers offered more confident not guilty judgments than infrequent viewers, b = 1.17, SE = 0.427, p = 0.007, 95% CI [0.329, 2.011]–mirroring the original findings. However, crime drama viewing frequency did not influence participants’ degree of verdict confidence when they were engaged and presented with eyewitness evidence, b = 0.319, SE = 0.542, p = 0.557, 95% CI [−0.748, 1.386], or when participants were engaged and presented with both forensic and eyewitness evidence, b = 0.371, SE = 0.453, p = 0.413, 95% CI [−0.52, 1.262]. Crime drama viewing frequency did not influence verdict confidence judgments among non-engaged participants who were presented with forensic evidence only, b = 0.254, SE = 0.491, p = 0.606, 95% CI [−0.712, 1.219], or among non-engaged participants who were presented with eyewitness evidence only, b = −0.117, SE = 0.503, p = 0.816, 95% CI [−1.108, 0.874]. Paralleling the original results, among non-engaged participants who were presented with both forensic and eyewitness evidence, frequent viewers offered more confident not guilty judgments than infrequent crime drama viewers, b = 1.524, SE = 0.442, p = 0.0006, 95% CI [0.655, 2.393]. The results of the simple slope analyses maintain the message of the article. Participants who engaged with the show and were presented with forensic only evidence rendered more confident, not guilty judgments as their frequency of crime drama viewing increased. Yet, no differences in verdict confidence judgments between frequent and infrequent engaged viewers was found when they were presented with only eyewitness evidence or both forensic and eyewitness evidence. However, only non-engaged, participants who were presented with both forensic and eyewitness evidence rendered more confident, not guilty judgments as their frequency of crime drama viewing increased. Hence, the observed effects suggest that frequent crime drama viewers’ may have an evidentiary threshold that changes depending on their degree of engagement with the crime drama. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.