Determining dangerousness in sexually violent predator evaluations: Cognitive-experiential self-theory and juror judgments of expert testimony

Behavioral Sciences and the Law

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 507-526

  Lieberman, Joel D ^a   Krauss, Daniel A ^a,b   Kyger, Mariel ^a,b   Lehoux, Maribeth ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

^b CLAREMONT MCKENNA COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; COURT; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT WITNESS; FEMALE; HAZARD; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGAL ASPECT; MALE; PUNISHMENT; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEX DIFFERENCE; SEXUAL CRIME; VIOLENCE;

DANGEROUS BEHAVIOR; EXPERT TESTIMONY; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; MODELS, THEORETICAL; NEVADA; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEX OFFENSES; VIOLENCE;

EID: 34548228935     PISSN: 07353936     EISSN: 10990798     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bsl.771     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Barefoot v. Estelle, No. 82-6080, 463 U.S. 880 (S.Ct. 1983).
2. Boer, D., Hart, S., Kropp, R., & Webster, C. (1997). Manual for the Sexual Violence Risk-20. The British Columbia Institute Against Family Violence, Simon Fraser University.
3. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91.
4. Bottoms, B. L., & Goodman, G. S. (1994). Perceptions of children's credibility in sexual assault cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 702-732.
5. Brekke, N., & Borgida, E. (1988). Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: A social-cognitive analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 372-386.
6. 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.
7. Cooper, J., Bennett, E., & Sukel, H. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior, 20, 379-395.
8. Cutler, B., Penrod, S., & Dexter, H. (1989). The eyewitness, the expert psychologist, and the jury. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 311-332.
9. Davey, M., & Goodnough, A. (2007). Doubts rise as states hold sex offenders after prison. New York Times, Retrieved March 4, 2007, from www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/us/04civil.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted= print
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Douglas, K., & Skeem, J. (2005). Violence risk assessment: Getting specific about being dynamic. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 347-383.
13. Epperson, D., Kaul, J., Huot, S., Goldman, R., & Alexander, W. (2003). Minnesota sex offender screening tool-revised (MnSORT-R). Development, validation, and recommended risk level cut scores. Retrieved June 9, 2006, from Iowa State University, Department of Psychology Website: http://www.psychology. iastate.edu/faculty/epperson/TechupdatePaper12-03.pdf
14. Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49, 709-724.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Grove, W., & Meehl, P. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical-statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 293-323.
19. 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 Sciences and the Law, 21, 215-237.
20. Guy, L., & Edens, J. (2006). Gender differences in attitudes towards psychopathic sexual offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23, 603-625.
21. Hanson, R. (1997). The development of a brief actuarial scale for sexual offense recidivism. Ottawa, Ontario: Department of Solicitor General.
22. 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.
23. Hart, S. (2003). Actuarial risk assessment: Commentary on Berlin et al. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 15, 383-388.
24. Hart, S. (1998). The role of psychopathy in assessing risk of violence: Conceptual and methodological Issues. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 2, 338-341.
25. Hart, S., Webster, C., & Menzies, R. (1993). A note on portraying the accuracy of violence predictions. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 695-700.
26. Kansas v. Crane 534 U.S. 407 (S.Ct. 2002).
27. Kovera, M., Gresham, A., Borgida, E., Gray, E., & Ragan, P. (1997) Does expert psychological testimony inform or influence juror decision making? A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 178-191.
28. Kovera, M., McAuliff, B., & Herbert, K. (1999). Reasoning about scientific evidence: Effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 362-375.
29. 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, 6, 731-750.
30. 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.
31. Krauss, D., Lieberman, J. D., & Olson, J. (2004). The effects of rational and experiential information processing of expert testimony in death penalty cases. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 6, 801-822.
32. 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.
33. LaFond, J. (2005). Preventing sexual violence: How society should cope with sex offenders. Washington, DC: APA.
34. 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.
35. Lieberman, J. D., & Arndt, J. (2004). The influence of rational and experiential processing on the "backfire effect" of inadmissible evidence. Presented at the 2003 Biennial Meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Scottsdale, AZ.
36. Litwack, T. (2001). Actuarial versus clinical assessments of dangerousness. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 7, 409-443.
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. Miller, H., Amenta, A., & Conroy, A. (2005). Sexually violent predator evaluations: Empirical evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 29-55.
40. Monahan, J. (1981). The clinical prediction of violent behavior. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
41. Monahan, J. (2003). Violence risk assessment. In I. B. Weiner, & A. Goldstein (Eds.), The handbook of psychology: Forensic psychology (Vol. 11 pp. 527-542). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
42. 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.
43. Mossman, D. (1994). Assessing predictions of violence: Being accurate about accuracy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 783-792.
44. National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse. (2007). Civil commitment of sexually violent predators. Retrieved March 23, 2007, from http://www.ndaaapri.org/apri/programs/ncpca/statutes.html.
45. 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.
46. Petty, R., & Caccioppo, J. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes in attitude change. New York: Springer.
47. Pezdek, K. (2007). Expert testimony on eyewitness identification and memory. In M. Costanzo, & D. Krauss, & K. Pezdek (Eds.), Expert psychological testimony for the courts (pp. 99-117). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
48. Quinsey, V., Harris, G., Rice, M., & Cormier, C. (1998). Violent offenders: Appraising and managing risk. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
49. Sachsenmaier, S., Peters, J. (2002). Sexual offender risk assessment methods and admissibility of as expert witness evidence. In J. M. Peters (Ed.), Assessment and management of sex offenders: What prosecutors need to know. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section. Retreived from http://home.earthlink.net/ ∼rkmck/vault/reprints/sachsenab.html
50. Scherr, A. (2003). Daubert and danger: The fit of expert predictions in civil commitments. Hastings Law Journal, 55, 1-80.
51. Schuller, R., & Vidmar, N. (1992). Battered wife syndrome evidence in the courtroom: A review of the literature. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 273-291.
52. Schutte, J., & Hosch, H. (1997). Gender differences in sexual assault verdicts: A meta-analysis. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 759-772.
53. Simon, L., Greenberg, J., Harmon-Jones, E., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T., Arndt, J., & Abend, T. (1997). 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.
54. 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.
55. United States v. Salerno. 481 U.S. 739 (1987).
56. United States v. Telfaire. 469 F.2d 552 (D.C. Cir. (1972).).
57. Webster, C., Douglas, K., Eaves, D., & Hart, S. (1997). HCR-20: Assessing risk of violence (Version 2). Vancouver: Simon Frasier University.