The effects of rational and experiential information processing of expert testimony in death penalty cases

Behavioral Sciences and the Law

Volumn 22, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 801-822

  Krauss, Daniel A ^a   Lieberman, Joel D ^b   Olson, Jodi ^b  

^a CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT WITNESS; FEMALE; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; JURISPRUDENCE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; POLICY; PUNISHMENT; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AFFECT; ATTENTION; CAPITAL PUNISHMENT; CRIMINAL LAW; DANGEROUS BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT TESTIMONY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MENTAL PROCESSES; RATIONALIZATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SET (PSYCHOLOGY); STUDENTS;

EID: 11144227751     PISSN: 07353936     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bsl.621     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Anderson, C. A., Lepper, M. R., & Ross, L. (1980). Perseverance of social theories: The role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1037-1049.
2. Barefoot v. Estelle, No. 82-6080, 463 U.S.880 (S.Ct. 1983).
3. Belli, M. (1982). Modern trials. St. Paul, MN: West.
4. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91.
5. Borum, R. (1996). Improving the clinical practice of violence risk assessment. American Psychologist, 51, 945-956.
6. Brekke, N., & Borgida, E. (1988). Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: A social-cognitive analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 372-386.
7. Brief for the American Psychiatric Association as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner, in Barefoot v. Estelle, No. 82-6080, 463 U.S. 880 (1983).
8. Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3-39). Hilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Cooper, J., Bennett, E., & Sukel, H. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior, 20, 379-395.
10. Cooper, J., & Neuhaus, I. M. (2000). The "hired gun" effect: Assessing the effect of pay, frequency of testifying, and credentials on the perception of expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 149-171.
11. Cunningham, M., & Reidy, T. (1998). Integrating base rate data in violence risk assessment at capital sentencing. Behavioral Science and the Law, 16, 71-83. (citing S. B. McPherson, Psychological aspects of mitigation in capital cases (1996) (unpublished manuscript)).
12. Cunningham, M., & Reidy, T. (1998). Integrating base rate data in violence risk assessment at capital sentencing. Behavioral Science and the Law, 16, 71-83. (citing S. B. McPherson, Psychological aspects of mitigation in capital cases (1996) (unpublished manuscript)).
13. Cunningham, M., & Reidy, T. (1999). Don't confuse me with facts: Common errors in violence risk assessment at capital sentencing. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 20-43.
14. Cunningham, M., & Reidy, T. (2002). Violence risk assessment at federal capital sentencing: Individualization, generalization, relevance, and scientific standards. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 512-537.
15. Cutler, B., Penrod, S., & Dexter, H. (1989). The eyewitness, the expert psychologist, and the jury. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 311-332.
16. Denes-Raj, V., & Epstein, S. (1994). Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: When people behave against their better judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 819-829.
17. Donovan, S., & Epstein, S. (1997). The difficulty of the Linda conjunction problem can be attributed to its simultaneous concrete and unnatural representation, and not to conversational implicature. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 1-20.
18. Douglas, K., Ogloff, J., Nicholls, T., & Grant, I. (1999). Assessing risk for violence among psychiatric patients: The HCR-20 violence risk assessment scheme and the psychopathic checklist: Screening version. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 917-930.
19. Douglas, K., & Webster, C. (1999). The HCR-20 violence risk assessment scheme: Concurrent validity in a sample of incarcerated offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 3-19.
20. Edens, J., Petrila, J., & Buffington-Vollum, J. (2001). Psychopathy and the death penalty: Can the psychopathic checklist - revised identify offenders who represent "a continuing danger to society"? Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 29, 433-482.
21. Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709-724.
22. Epstein, S., & Pacini, R. (1999). Some basic issues regarding dual-process theories from the perspective of cognitive-experiential self-theory. In S. Chaiken, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 462-483). New York: Guilford.
23. Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heier, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive relative to analytical processing of information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 390-405.
24. Faust, D., & Ziskin, J. (1988). The expert witness in psychology and psychiatry. Science, 241, 31-35.
25. Gardner, W., Lidz, C., Mulvey, E., & Shaw, E. (1996). Clinical versus actuarial predictions of violence in patients with mental illness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 602-609.
26. Goldberg, L. (1968). Simple models or simple process? Some research on clinical judgement. American Psychologist, 23, 483-496.
27. Grisso, T., & Appelbaum, P. (1992). Structuring the debate about ethical predictions of future violence. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 482-485.
28. Grove, W., & Meehl, P. (1996). Comparative efficiency if informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 293-323.
29. Guy, L., & Edens, J. (2003). Juror decision-making in a mock sexually violent predator trial: Gender differences in the impact of divergent types of expert testimony. Behavioral Science and the Law, 21, 215-237.
30. Harris, G., Rice, M., & Cormier, C. (2002). Prospective replication of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide in predicting violent recidivism among forensic patients. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 377-394.
31. Hart, S. (1998). The role of psychopathy in assessing risk of violence: Conceptual and methodological issues. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 2, 338-341.
32. Hart, S., Webster, C., & Menzies, R. (1993). A note on portraying the accuracy of violence predictions. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 695-700.
33. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The simulation heuristic. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 201-208). New York: Cambridge University Press.
34. Kansas v. Crane, 534 U.S. 407 (S.Ct. 2002).
35. Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 S.Ct. 2072 (1997).
36. Krauss, D. (2004). Adjusting risk of recidivism: Do judicial departures worsen or improve recidivism prediction under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines? Behavioral Science and the Law, in press.
37. Krauss, D., & Lee, D. (2003). Deliberating on dangerousness and death: Jurors' ability to differentiate between expert actuarial and clinical predictions of dangerousness. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 26, 113-137.
38. Krauss, D., & O'Connor, M. (2002). Legal update: Update on sexual predators laws. American Psychology-Law Society, Division 41. American Psychological Association Newsletter, 22, 1-3.
39. Krauss, D., & Sales, B. (2001). The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision-making in capital sentencing. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 267-310.
40. Lavin, M., & Sales, B. (1998). Moral justifications on the limits of expert testimony. In S. Ceci, & H. Hembrook (Eds.), Expert witnesses in child abuse cases (pp. 59-81). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
41. Litwack, T. (2001). Actuarial versus clinical assessments of dangerousness. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 409-443.
42. Lieberman, J. D. (2002). Head over the heart or heart over the head? Cognitive-experiential self-theory and extra-legal heuristics in juror decision-making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2526-2553.
43. Loftus, E. (1986). Ten years in the life of an expert witness. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 241-263.
44. Mauet, T. (1992). Fundamentals of trial techniques. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
45. McNeil, D., Sanders, D., & Binder, R. (1998). The relationship between confidence and accuracy in clinical predictions of psychiatric patients' potential for violence. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 655-671.
46. Melton, G., Petrila, J., Poythress, N., & Slobogin, C. (1997). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers. New York: Guildford.
47. Monahan, J. (1981). The clinical prediction of violent behavior. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
48. Monahan, J. (2003). Violence risk assessment. In I. B. Weiner (Series Ed.), & A. Goldstein (Vol. Ed.), The handbook of psychology: Forensic psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 527-542). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
49. Monahan, J., & Steadman, H. (1994). Violence and mental disorder: Developments in risk assessment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
50. Monahan, J., Steadman, H., Silver, E., Appelbaum, P., Robbins, P., Mulvey, E., Roth, L., Grisso, T., & Banks, S. (2001). Rethinking risk assessment: The MacArthur study of mental disorders and violence. New York: Oxford University Press.
51. Morling, B., & Epstein, S. M. (1997). Compromises produced by the dialectic between self-verification and self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1268-1283.
52. Mossman, D. (1994). Assessing predictions of violence: Being accurate about accuracy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical, 62, 783-792.
53. O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (S.Ct. 1975).
54. Otto, R. (1992). Predictions of dangerous behavior: A review and analysis of the second generation research. Forensic Reports, 5, 103-133.
55. Pacini, R., Muir, F., & Epstein, S. (1998). Depressive realism from the perspective of cognitive-experiential self-theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1056-1088.
56. Petty, R., & Caccioppo, J. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes in attitude change. New York: Springer.
57. Quinsey, V., Harris, G., Rice, M., & Cormier, C. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. American Psychological Association: Washington, DC.
58. Rice, M., & Harris, G. (1995). Violent recidivism: Assessing predictive validity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63, 737-748.
59. Rogers, R., Bagby, R., & Chow, M. (1992). Psychiatrists and the parameter of expert testimony. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 15, 387-396.
60. Rogers, R., Bagby, R., Crouch, M., & Cutler, B. (1990). Effects of ultimate opinions on juror perceptions of insanity. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 13, 225-232.
61. Sannito, T., & McGovern, P. J. (1993). Courtroom psychology for trial lawyers. 1993 cumulative supplement. New York: Wiley.
62. Schuller, R., & Vidmar, N. (1992). Battered wife syndrome evidence in the courtroom: A review of the literature. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 273-291.
63. Showalter, C. (1990). Psychiatric participation in capital sentencing procedures: Ethical considerations. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 13, 261-280.
64. Shuman, D., Whitaker, E., & Champagne, A. (1994). An empirical examination of the use of expert witnesses in the courts - part II: A three part study. Jurimetrics, 34, 193-208.
65. Simon, L., Greenberg, J., Harmon-Jones, E., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., Arndt, J., & Abend, T. (1996). Terror management and cognitive experiential self theory: Evidence that terror management occurs in the experiential system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1132-1146.
66. Smith v. State, 898 S.W.2d 838 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).
67. Sundby, S. (1997). The jury as critic: An empirical look at how capital juries perceive expert and law testimony. Virginia Law Review, 83, 1109-1188.
68. Texas Defender Service. (2004). Deadly Speculation: Misleading Texas capital juries with false predictions of future dangerousness. http://www.texasdefender.org/DEADLYSP.PDF.
69. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
70. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). Judgments of and by representativeness. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 84-100). New York: Cambridge University Press.
71. Wainwright v. Win, 469 U.S. 419 (S.Ct. 1985).
72. Webster, C., Douglas, K., Eaves, D., & Hart, S. (1997). HCR-20: Assessing risk for violence. Burnaby, British Columbia: Simon Fraser University, Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute.