I spy with my little eye: Jurors' detection of internal validity threats in expert evidence

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 34, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 489-500

  McAuliff, Bradley D ^a   Duckworth, Tejah D ^a  

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Expert testimony; Internal validity; Juror decision making; Scientific reasoning

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; DRUG INDUSTRY; EXPERT WITNESS; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; MALE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SCIENCE; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; CALIFORNIA; CRIMINAL LAW; DRUG INDUSTRY; EXPERT TESTIMONY; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; SCIENCE;

EID: 78651290391     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10979-010-9219-3     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. D Axsom S Yates S Chaiken 1987 Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53 30 40 10.1037/0022-3514.53.1.30 3612491
2. JT Cacioppo RE Petty 1982 The need for cognition Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42 116 131 10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116
3. JT Cacioppo RE Petty JA Feinstein WBG Jarvis 1996 Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in the need for cognition Psychological Bulletin 119 197 253 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197
4. California Code of Civil Procedure, §203. Retrieved from www.leginfo.ca.gov on June 9, 2009.
5. S Chaiken 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 10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
6. 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 Press.
7. S Chaiken D Maheswaran 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 10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.460 8169760
8. J Cooper EA Bennett HL Sukel 1996 Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior 20 379 394 10.1007/BF01498976
9. J Cooper IM Neuhaus 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 10.1023/A:1005476618435 10810836 (Pubitemid 30238676)
10. BL Cutler SD Penrod HR Dexter 1989 The eyewitness, the expert psychologist, and the jury Law and Human Behavior 13 311 332 10.1007/BF01067032
11. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).
12. GT Fong DH Krantz RE Nisbett 1986 The effects of statistical training on thinking about everyday problems Cognitive Psychology 18 253 292 10.1016/0010-0285(86)90001-0
13. SI Gatowski SA Dobbin JT Richardson GP Ginsburg ML Merlino V Dahir 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 10.1023/A: 1012899030937 11688367
14. R Hamill TD Wilson RE Nisbett 1980 Insensitivity to sample bias: Generalizing from atypical cases Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39 578 589 10.1037/0022-3514.39.4.578
15. Hastie, R., Penrod, S. D., & Pennington, N. (1983). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16. D Kahneman A Tversky 1973 On the psychology of prediction Psychological Review 80 237 251 10.1037/h0034747
17. SM Kassin PC Ellsworth VL Smith 1989 The "general acceptance" of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A survey of the experts American Psychologist 44 1089 1098 10.1037/0003-066X.44.8.1089
18. MB Kovera AW Gresham E Borgida E Gray PC Regan 1997 Does expert testimony inform or influence juror decision-making? A social cognitive analysis Journal of Applied Psychology 82 178 191 10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.178 9119796
19. MB Kovera BD McAuliff 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 10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.574 10948802
20. Kovera, M. B., & McAuliff, B. D. (2009). Attorneys' evaluations of psychological science: Does evidence quality matter? (manuscript under review).
21. MB Kovera BD McAuliff KS Hebert 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 10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.362 10380417
22. MB Kovera MB Russano BD McAuliff 2002 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 8 180 200 10.1037/1076-8971.8.2.180 (Pubitemid 44757807)
23. DR Lehman RO Lempert RE Nisbett 1988 The effects of graduate training on reasoning: Formal discipline and thinking about everyday-life events American Psychologist 43 431 442 10.1037/0003-066X.43.6.431
24. LM Levett MB Kovera 2008 The effectiveness of opposing expert witnesses for educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence Law and Human Behavior 32 363 374 10.1007/s10979-007-9113-9 17940854 (Pubitemid 351977647)
25. D Maheswaran S Chaiken 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 10.1037/0022-3514.61.1.13 1890583
26. D Maheswaran DM Mackie S Chaiken 1992 Brand name as a heuristic cue: The effects of task importance and expectancy confirmation on consumer judgments Journal of Consumer Psychology 1 317 336 10.1016/S1057-7408(08)80058-7
27. BD McAuliff MB Kovera 2008 Juror need for cognition and sensitivity to methodological flaws in expert evidence Journal of Applied Social Psychology 38 385 408 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00310.x
28. BD McAuliff MB Kovera G Nunez 2009 Can jurors recognize missing control groups, confounds, and experimenter bias in psychological science? Law and Human Behavior 33 247 257 10.1007/s10979-008-9133-0 18587635
29. ML Merlino RC Dillehay V Dahir D Maxwell 2003 Science education for judges: What, where, and by whom? Judicature 86 210 213
30. RE Petty JT Cacioppo 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 10.1037/0022-3514.46.1.69
31. 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.
32. RE Petty JT Cacioppo R Goldman 1981 Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41 847 855 10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.847
33. RE Petty JA Kasmer CP Haugtvedt JT Cacioppo 1987 Source and message factors in persuasion: A reply to Stiff's critique of the elaboration likelihood model Communication Monographs 54 233 249 10.1080/03637758709390229
34. Pezdek, K., Avila-Mora, E., & Sperry, K. (2009). Does trial presentation medium matter in jury simulation research? Evaluating the effectiveness of eyewitness expert testimony. Applied Cognitive Psychology. www.interscience.wiley.com. Accessed 11 June 2009. doi: 10.1002/acp.1578.
35. S Ratneshwar S Chaiken 1991 Comprehension's role in persuasion: The case of its moderating effect on the persuasive impact of source cues Journal of Consumer Research 18 52 62 10.1086/209240
36. DW Shuman E Whitaker A Champagne 1994 An empirical examination of the use of expert witnesses in the courts-Part two: A three city study Jurimetrics 34 193 208
37. A Tversky D Kahneman 1974 Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases Science 185 1124 1131 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 17835457
38. United States of America v. Daniel George LeBlanc, 45 Fed. Appx. 393 (2002).