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

Journal of Applied Psychology

Volumn 85, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 574-586

  Kovera, Margaret Bull ^a   McAuliff, Bradley D ^b  

^a FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT WITNESS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PEER REVIEW; PSYCHOLOGY;

ADULT; AGED; COGNITION; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT TESTIMONY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PEER REVIEW; PSYCHOLOGY;

EID: 0034237987     PISSN: 00219010     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.574     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. American Psychological Association. (1991). In the Supreme Court of the United States, Price Waterhouse v. Ann B. Hopkins, Amicus curiae brief for the American Psychological Association. American Psychologist, 46, 1061-1070.
2. Axsom, D., Yates, S., & Chaiken, S. (1987). Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 30-40.
3. Berger, M. A. (1994). Procedural paradigms for applying the Daubert test. Minnesota Law Review, 78, 1345-1386.
4. Black, B., Ayala, F. J., & Saffran-Brinks, C. (1994). Science and the law in the wake of Daubert: A new search for scientific knowledge. Texas Law Review, 72, 715-802.
5. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752-766.
6. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-251). New York: Guilford Press.
7. Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.
8. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
9. Cooper, J., Bennett, E. A., & Sukel, H. L. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior, 20, 379-394.
10. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eye-witness, psychology, and the law. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).
12. Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley.
13. Faigman, D. L. (1995). The evidentiary status of social science under Daubert: Is it "scientific," "technical," or "other" knowledge? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 960-979.
14. Federal Judicial Center. (1995). Reference manual on scientific evidence. New York: Thomson Legal Publishing.
15. Federal rules of evidence, 28 U.S.C. (West 1975).
16. Fisher, D. E. (1994). Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals: The Supreme Court gives federal judges the keys to the gate of admissibility of expert scientific testimony. South Dakota Law Review, 39, 141-158.
17. Fong, G. T., Krantz, D. H., & Nisbett, R. E. (1986). The effects of statistical training on thinking about everyday problems. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 253-292.
18. Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (1923).
19. Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chaiker, S. (1997). Selective use of heuristic and systematic processing under defense motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 84-97.
20. Hagen, M. A. (1997). Whores of the court: The fraud of psychiatric testimony and the rape of American justice. New York: Harper Collins.
21. Huffman v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Minneapolis-St. Paul, et al., Hennepin County Trial Court, File No. MC 92-10995, Decided June 20, 1994.
22. Jepson, C., Krantz, D. H., & Nisbett, R. E. (1983). Inductive reasoning: Competence or skill? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6, 494-501.
23. Jordan v. State, 694 So. 2d 708; 1997 Fla. LEXIS 554.
24. Kovera, M. B., Levy, R. J., Eorgida, E., & Penrod, S. D. (1994). Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: Effects of expert evidence type and cross-examination. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 653-674.
25. Kovera, M. B., McAuliff, B. D., & Hebert, K. S. (1999). Reasoning about scientific evidence: The effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 362-375.
26. Lehman, D. R., Lempert, R. O., & Nisbett, R. E. (1988). The effects of graduate training on reasoning: Formal discipline and thinking about everyday life events. American Psychologist, 43, 431-443.
27. Lehman, D. R., & Nisbett, R. E. (1990). A longitudinal study of the effects of undergraduate training on reasoning. Developmental Psychology, 26, 952-960.
28. Leippe, M. R., & Elkin, R. A. (1987). When motives clash: Issue involvement and response involverient as determinants of persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 269-278.
29. Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 13-25.
30. McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B. (1999a). [Juror evaluations of flawed expert evidence.] Unpublished raw data.
31. McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B. (1999b, July). Juror sensitivity to methodological flaws in expert evidence. In S. D. Penrod (Chair), The use of scientific evidence: Empirical, legal, and comparative perspectives. Symposium conductec at the meeting of the European Association for Psychology and Law, Dublin, Ireland.
32. Nisbett, R. E. (1993). Rules for reasoning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
33. Nisbett, R. E., Fong, G. T., Lehman, D. R., & Cheng, P. W. (1987). Teaching reasoning. Science, 238, 625-631.
34. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-203). New York: Academic Press.
35. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847-855.
36. Ratneshwar, S., & Chaiken, S., (1991). Comprehension's role in persuasion: The case of its moderating effects on the persuasive impact of source cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 52-62.
37. Redding, R. E., & Reppucci, N. D. (1999). Effects of lawyers' sociopolitical attitudes on their judgments of social science in legal decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 31-54.
38. Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., 760 F.Supp. 1486 (M.D.Fla. 1991).
39. Rudman, L. A., & Borgida, E (1995). The afterglow of construct accessibility: The behavioral consequences of priming men to view women as sexual objects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 493-517.
40. Sallant, P., & Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. New York: Wiley.
41. Shuman, D. W., Whitaker, E., & Champagne, A. (1994). An empirical examination of the use of expert witnesses in the courts - Part II: A three city study. Jurimetrics: Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 34, 193-208.
42. Simard, L. S., & Young, W. G. (1994). Daubert's gatekeeper: The role of the district judge in admitting expert testimony. Tulane Law Review, 68, 1457-1475.
43. Walker, L., & Monahan, J. (1996). Daubert and the Reference Manual: an essay on the future of science in law. Virginia Law Review, 82, 837-857.