PSYCHOLOGICAL MEDIATORS OF THE EFFECTS OF OPPOSING EXPERT TESTIMONY ON JUROR DECISIONS

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 124-148

  Levett, Lora M ^a   Kovera, Margaret Bull ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

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

Author keywords

expert testimony; juries; scientific evidence; sexual harassment

Indexed keywords

EID: 67549132109     PISSN: 10768971     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0016309     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Barrett G.V., and Morris S.B. The American Psychological Association's amicus curiae brief in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins: The values of science versus the values of the law. Law and Human Behavior 17 (1993) 201-215
2. Chaiken S., Liberman A., and Eagly A. Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In: Uleman J.S., and Bargh J.A. (Eds). Unintended thought (1989), Guilford Press, New York 212-251
3. Cooper J., and Neuhaus I. The hired gun effect: The use of pay, credentials and frequency of testifying as peripheral decision cues. Law and Human Behavior 24 (2000) 149-171
4. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).
5. Devenport J.L., and Cutler B.L. Impact of defense-only and opposing eyewitness experts on juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior 28 (2004) 569-576
6. Diamond S.S., Casper J.D., Heiert A.M., and Marshall A.M. Juror reactions to attorneys at trial. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 87 (1996) 17-47
7. Fazio R.H. A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. In: Hendrick C., and Clark M.S. (Eds). Review of personality and social psychology: Vol. 11. Research methods in social psychology (1990), Sage, Newbury Park, CA 74-94
8. Fazio R.H., Powell M.C., and Herr P.M. Toward a process model of the attitude-behavior relation: Accessing one's attitude upon mere observation of the attitude object. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44 (1983) 723-735
9. 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
10. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).
11. Greene E., Downey C., and Goodman-Delahunty J. Juror decisions about damages in employment discrimination cases. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 17 (1999) 107-121
12. Groscup, J., & Penrod, S. D. (2002). Jury instructions effects on juror assessments of scientific reliability. In J. Groscup (Chair), Paper session conducted at the biennial meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, San Antonio, TX.
13. Hastie R. Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making (1995), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA
14. Kovera M.B., and McAuliff B.D. The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: Are judges effective gatekeepers?. Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (2000) 574-586
15. Kovera M.B., McAuliff B.D., and Hebert K.S. 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
16. Kovera M.B., Russano M.B., and McAuliff B.D. Assessment of the commonsense psychology underlying Daubert: Legal decision makers' abilities to evaluate expert evidence in hostile work environment cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 8 (2002) 180-200
17. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
18. Levett L.M., and Kovera M.B. The effectiveness of educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence using an opposing witness. Law and Human Behavior 32 (2008) 363-374
19. McAuliff B.D., and Kovera M.B. Juror need for cognition and sensitivity to methodological flaws in expert evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 38 (2008) 385-408
20. McAuliff B.D., Kovera M.B., and Nunez G. Can jurors recognize missing control groups, confounds, and experimenter bias in psychological science?. Law and Human Behavior 33 (2009) 247-257
21. Muthün L.K., and Muthün B.O. Mplus: The comprehensive modeling program for applied researchers: User's guide. 3rd ed. (2004), Authors, Los Angeles
22. Petty R.E., and Cacioppo J.T. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In: Berkowitz L. (Ed). Advances in experimental social psychology 19 (1986), Academic Press, New York 123-203
23. Petty R.E., and Wegener D.T. Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In: Gilbert D.T., Fiske S.T., and Lindzey G. (Eds). The handbook of social psychology (1998), McGraw-Hill, Boston 323-390
24. Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., 760 F. Supp. 1486. (M. D. Fla. 1991).
25. Rudman L.A., and Borgida E. The afterglow of construct accessibility: The behavioral consequences of priming men to view women as sexual objects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 31 (1995) 493-517
26. Russano, M. B., & Kovera, M. B. (2001, August). Psychologists' evaluations of valid and flawed science. Paper presented at the 109th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.