Literature DB >> 20162342

I spy with my little eye: jurors' detection of internal validity threats in expert evidence.

Bradley D McAuliff1, Tejah D Duckworth.   

Abstract

This experiment examined whether jury-eligible community members (N = 223) were able to detect internally invalid psychological science presented at trial. Participants read a simulated child sexual abuse case in which the defense expert described a study he had conducted on witness memory and suggestibility. We varied the study's internal validity (valid, missing control group, confound, and experimenter bias) and publication status (published, unpublished). Expert evidence quality ratings were higher for the valid versus missing control group version only. Publication increased ratings of defendant guilt when the study was missing a control group. Variations in internal validity did not influence perceptions of child victim credibility or police interview quality. Participants' limited detection of internal validity threats underscores the need to examine the effectiveness of traditional legal safeguards against junk science in court and improve the scientific reasoning ability of lay people and legal professionals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20162342      PMCID: PMC2911507          DOI: 10.1007/s10979-010-9219-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Law Hum Behav        ISSN: 0147-7307


  11 in total

1.  The "hired gun" effect: assessing the effect of pay, frequency of testifying, and credentials on the perception of expert testimony.

Authors:  J Cooper; I M Neuhaus
Journal:  Law Hum Behav       Date:  2000-04

2.  The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: are judges effective gatekeepers?

Authors:  M B Kovera; B D McAuliff
Journal:  J Appl Psychol       Date:  2000-08

3.  Asking the gatekeepers: a national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world.

Authors:  S I Gatowski; S A Dobbin; J T Richardson; G P Ginsburg; M L Merlino; V Dahir
Journal:  Law Hum Behav       Date:  2001-10

4.  The effectiveness of opposing expert witnesses for educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence.

Authors:  Lora M Levett; Margaret Bull Kovera
Journal:  Law Hum Behav       Date:  2007-10-17

5.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.

Authors:  A Tversky; D Kahneman
Journal:  Science       Date:  1974-09-27       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment.

Authors:  D Maheswaran; S Chaiken
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1991-07

7.  Can jurors recognize missing control groups, confounds, and experimenter bias in psychological science?

Authors:  Bradley D McAuliff; Margaret Bull Kovera; Gabriel Nunez
Journal:  Law Hum Behav       Date:  2008-06-28

8.  Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion.

Authors:  D Axsom; S Yates; S Chaiken
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1987-07

9.  Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment.

Authors:  S Chaiken; D Maheswaran
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1994-03

10.  Reasoning about scientific evidence: effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case.

Authors:  M B Kovera; B D McAuliff; K S Hebert
Journal:  J Appl Psychol       Date:  1999-06
View more
  1 in total

1.  Limited not lazy: a quasi-experimental secondary analysis of evidence quality evaluations by those who hold implausible beliefs.

Authors:  Kristy A Martire; Bethany Growns; Agnes S Bali; Bronte Montgomery-Farrer; Stephanie Summersby; Mariam Younan
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2020-12-11
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.