THE GATEKEEPER EFFECT: The Impact of Judges' Admissibility Decisions on the Persuasiveness of Expert Testimony

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 1-18

  Schweitzer, N J ^a   Saks, Michael J ^b  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

experts; judges; jury decision making; persuasion; scientific evidence

Indexed keywords

EID: 62249136285     PISSN: 10768971     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0015290     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Baron R.M., and Kenny D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (1986) 1173-1182
2. Brekke N., and Borgida E. Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: A social-cognitive analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55 (1998) 372-386
3. Cecil J., Hans V., and Wiggins E. Citizen comprehension of difficult issues: lessons from civil jury trials. American University Law Review 40 (1990) 727-774
4. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. (1988), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
5. Cooper J., Bennett E., and Sukel H. Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions?. Law and Human Behavior 20 (1996) 379-394
6. Cooper J., and Neuhaus I. 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 (2000) 149-172
7. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 587, 113, S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993).
8. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F. 3d 1311, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995).
9. Development in the law: Confronting the new challenges of scientific evidence. Harvard Law Review 108 (1995) 1481-1605
10. Diamond S., Casper J., Heiert C., and Marshall A. Juror reactions to attorneys at trial. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 87 (1996) 17-47
11. Dixon L., and Gill B. Changes in the standards for admitting expert evidence in federal civil cases since the Daubert decision. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law 8 (2002) 251-308
12. Ellsworth P. Are twelve heads better than one?. Law and Contemporary Problems 52 (1989) 205-224
13. Faigman D., Kaye D., Saks M., Sanders J., and Cheng E. Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony 1 (2008), West Group, St. Paul, MN
14. Foster K., and Huber P. Judging science: Scientific knowledge and the federal courts (1997), MIT Press, Cambridge
15. Fritz M.S., and MacKinnon D.P. Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science 18 (2007) 233-239
16. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D. C. Cir. 1923).
17. Gabora N., Spanos N., and Joab A. The effects of complainant age and expert psychological testimony in a simulated child sexual abuse trial. Law and Human Behavior 17 (1993) 103-119
18. Gallanis T.P. The rise of modern evidence law. Iowa Law Review 84 (1999) 499-560
19. Gatowski S.I., Dobbin S.A., Richardson J.T., Ginsburg G.P., Merlino M.L., and Dahir V. Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world. Law and Human Behavior 25 (2001) 433-458
20. General Electric v. Joiner 522 U.S. 136 (1997).
21. Greenberg J., and Wursten A. The psychologist and psychiatrist as expert witnesses: perceived credibility and influence. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 19 (1988) 373-378
22. Groscup, J. (2004, March 4-7). Legalized gambling, beekeeping or science? Judicial decision-making about scientific evidence in the aftermath of Daubert/Kumho. Poster presented at the American Psychology-Law Conference, Scottsdale, AZ.
23. Gross S. Expert evidence. Wisconsin Law Review 1991 (1991) 1113-1232
24. Guthrie C., Rachlinski J., and Wistrich A. Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Review 86 (2001) 777-830
25. Harkins S., and Petty R. Effects of source magnification of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information-processing view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 (1981) 401-413
26. Harkins S., and Petty R. The multiple source effect in persuasion: The effects of distraction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 7 (1981) 627-635
27. Harkins S., and Petty R. Information utility and the multiple source effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52 (1987) 260-268
28. Hastie R., Penrod S., and Pennington N. Inside the jury (1983), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
29. Horowitz I., Bordens K., Victor E., Bourgeois M., and Foster-Lee L. The effects of complexity on jurors' verdicts and construction of evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (2001) 641-652
30. Horowitz I., Foster-Lee L., and Brolly B. Effects of trial complexity on decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology 81 (1996) 757-768
31. Ivkovic S., and Hans V. Jurors' evaluations of expert testimony: Judging the messenger and the message. Law and Social Inquiry 28 (2003) 441-482
32. Koehler J. When are people persuaded by DNA match statistics?. Law and Human Behavior 25 (2001) 493-574
33. Kovera M., Gresham A., Borgida E., Gray E., and Regan P. Does expert psychological testimony inform or influence juror decision making? A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 82 (1997) 178-191
34. Kovera M., Levy R., Borgida E., and Penrod S. Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: Effects of expert evidence type and cross-examination. Law and Human Behavior 18 (1994) 653-674
35. Kovera M., and McAuliff B. The effects of peer review and evidence quality on evaluations of psychological science: Are judges effective gatekeepers?. Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (2000) 574-586
36. Kovera M., McAuliff B., and Hebert K. 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 (1999) 362-375
37. Krauss D.A., and Sales B.D. The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision making in capital sentencing. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law 7 (2001) 267-310
38. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
39. Landsman S. The adversary system: A description and defense (1984), American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, DC
40. MacKinnon D.P. Introduction to statistical mediation analysis (2008), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
41. McAuliff, B., Kovera, M., & Nunez, G. (in press). Can jurors recognize missing control groups, confounds, and experimenter bias in psychological science? Law and Human Behavior
42. Moriarty J.C., and Saks M.J. Forensic science: Grand goals, tragic flaws, and judicial gatekeeping. Judges Journal 44 (2005, Fall) 16-33
43. Nance D., and Morris S. Juror understanding of DNA evidence: An empirical assessment of presentation formats for trace evidence with a relatively small random-match probability. Journal of Legal Studies 34 (2005) 395-444
44. Petty R., and Cacioppo J. Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change (1986), Springer-Verlag, New York
45. Rachlinski J. Heuristics and biases in the courts: Ignorance or adaptation?. Oregon Law Review 79 (2000) 61-102
46. Risinger D.M. Navigating expert reliability: Are criminal standards of certainty being left on the dock?. Albany Law Review 64 (2000) 99-152
47. Rosenthal R. Effect sizes: Pearson's correlation, its display via the BESD, and alternative indices. American Psychologist 46 (1991) 1086-1087
48. Saks M.J., and Faigman D.L. Expert evidence after Daubert. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 1 (2005) 105-130
49. Saks M.J., and Kidd R.F. Human information processing and adjudication: Trial by heuristics. Law & Society Review 15 (1981) 124-160
50. Saks M.J., and Wissler R.L. Legal and psychological bases of expert testimony. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 2 (1984) 435-449
51. Sanders J., Saks M., and Schweitzer N. Trial factfinders and expert evidence. In: Faigman D., Kaye D., Saks M., Sanders J., and Cheng E. (Eds). Modern scientific evidence (2007-2008 ed.) (2008), Thompson/West, St. Paul, MN
52. Schklar J., and Diamond S.S. Juror reactions to DNA evidence: Errors and expectancies. Law and Human Behavior 23 (1999) 159-184
53. Thompson W., and Cole S. Psychological aspects of forensic identification evidence. In: Costanzo M., et al. (Ed). Expert Psychological Testimony for the Courts (2006), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
54. Vidmar N. The performance of the American civil jury: An empirical perspective. Arizona Law Review 40 (1998) 849-900
55. Weisgram v. Marley Co. 528 U.S. 440 (2000).
56. Wells G. Naked statistical evidence of liability: Is subjective probability enough?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62 (1992) 739-752
57. Ziegler R., Diehl M., and Ruther A. Multiple source characteristics and persuasion: Source inconsistency as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28 (2002) 496-508