The University of Chicago study is interesting and covers nuances not really dealt with in the article (naturally): http://www.pnas.org/content/113/33/9250.full

The University of Chicago study is interesting and covers nuances not really dealt with in the article (naturally): http://www.pnas.org/content/113/33/9250.full http://www.pnas.org/content/113/33/9250.full with a summary here: https://newschicagobooth.uchicago.edu/newsroom/problem-slow-motion https://newschicagobooth.uchicago.edu/newsroom/problem-slow-... The key point neglected in the original article is that the jurors were being asked about intent and premeditation in the slow-mo study. My knee-jerk reaction when first reading this article was to assume that the jurors might have just been able to conquer reasonable doubt more with slo-mo, but the questions seemed well designed to isolate the fact that slo-mo is creating a false narrative (even when the viewers can see the real-time clock clicking over at a very slow rate). It would be interesting to see whether viewers who got to see both clips would still have the same perception, and whether ordering matters.