Juror need for cognition and sensitivity to methodological flaws in expert evidence

Journal of Applied Social Psychology

Volumn 38, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 385-408

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

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 38349159280     PISSN: 00219029     EISSN: 15591816     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00310.x     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Axsom, D., Yates, S. Chaiken, S. (1987). Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 30 40.
2. Bar-Hillel, M. (1980). The base-rate fallacy in probability judgments. Acta Psychologica, 44, 211 233.
3. Bornstein, B. H. (2004). The impact of different types of expert scientific testimony on mock jurors' liability verdicts. Psychology, Crime, and Law, 10, 429 446.
4. Cacioppo, J. T. Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116 131.
5. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A. Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in the need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197 253.
6. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E. Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306 307.
7. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Kao, C. F. Rodriguez, R. (1986). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1032 1043.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. nd ed Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
12. Cooper, J., Bennett, E. A. Sukel, H. L. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior, 20, 379 394.
13. 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.
14. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
15. Faigman, D. L. Baglioni, A. J. (1988). Bayes' theorem in the trial process: Instructing jurors on the value of statistical evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 1 17.
16. 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.
17. Frye v. United States, 54 App. D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (1923).
18. Gatowski, S. I., Dobbin, S. A., Richardson, J. T., Ginsburg, G. P., Merlino, M. L. Dahir, V. (2001). Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 433 458.
19. General Electric Co. et al. v. Joiner et ux., 522 U.S. 136 (1997).
20. Gray, T. Mill, D. (1990). Critical abilities, graduate education (biology versus English), and belief in unsubstantiated phenomena. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 22, 162 172.
21. Groscup, J. L., Penrod, S. D., Studebaker, C. A., Huss, M. T. O'Neil, K. M. (2002). The effects of Daubert on the admissibility of expert testimony in state and federal criminal cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 339 372.
22. Hamill, R., Wilson, T. D. Nisbett, R. E. (1980). Insensitivity to sample bias: Generalizing from atypical cases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 578 589.
23. Hastie, R., Penrod, S. D. Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.
24. Jepson, C., Krantz, D. H. Nisbett, R. E. (1983). Inductive reasoning: Competence or skill? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6, 494 501.
25. Kahneman, D. Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430 454.
26. Kahneman, D. Tversky, A. (1973). On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237 251.
27. Kassin, S. M., Ellsworth, P. C. Smith, V. L. (1989). The "general acceptance" of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 44, 1089 1098.
28. Kaye, D. H. Koehler, J. J. (1991). Can jurors understand probabilistic evidence? Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 154 (Part 1 75 81.
29. Kovera, M. B., Gresham, A. W., Borgida, E., Gray, E. Regan, P. C. (1997). Does expert testimony inform or influence juror decision making? A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 178 191.
30. Kovera, M. B. McAuliff, B. D. (2000). The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: Are judges effective gatekeepers? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 574 586.
31. Kovera, M. B., McAuliff, B. D. Hebert, K. S. (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.
32. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd., et al. v. Carmichael et al., 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
33. Leippe, M. R., Eisenstadt, D., Rauch, S. M. Seib, H. M. (2004). Timing of eyewitness expert testimony, jurors' need for cognition, and case strength as determinants of trial verdicts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 524 541.
34. 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.
35. Mill, D., Gray, T. Mandel, D. R. (1994). Influence of research methods and statistics courses on everyday reasoning, critical abilities, and belief in unsubstantiated phenomena. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 26, 246 258.
36. Niedermeier, K. E., Kerr, N. L. Messé, L. A. (1999). Jurors' use of naked statistical evidence: Exploring bases and implications of the Wells effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 533 542.
37. Petty, R. E. Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69 81.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., 760 F.Supp. 1486 (M.D. Fla. 1991).
41. 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.
42. Schklar, J. Diamond, S. S. (1999). Juror reactions to DNA evidence: Errors and expectancies. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 159 184.
43. Shestowsky, D. Horowitz, L. H. (2004). How the Need for Cognition scale predicts behavior in mock jury deliberations. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 305 337.
44. 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, 34, 193 208.
45. Simonson, I. Nye, P. (1992). The effect of accountability on susceptibility to decision errors. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 416 446.
46. Stanovich, K. E. West, R. F. (1998). Who uses base rates and P(D/∼H)? An analysis of individual differences. Memory and Cognition, 26, 161 179.
47. Thompson, W. C. Schumann, E. L. (1987). Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: The prosecutor's fallacy and the defense attorney's fallacy. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 167 187.
48. Tversky, A. Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124 1131.
49. Wells, G. L. (1992). Naked statistical evidence of liability: Is subjective probability enough? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 739 752.