Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: The effects of evidence, coherence and credentials on juror decision making

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 481-494

  Klettke, Bianca ^a   Graesser, Arthur C ^b   Powell, Martine B ^a  

^a DEAKIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CHILD HEALTH; CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE; EXPERT WITNESS; FEMALE; GUILT; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOLOGIC ASSESSMENT; PSYCHOLOGICAL RATING SCALE; VICTIM;

EID: 79251491618     PISSN: 08884080     EISSN: 10990720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acp.1565     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Bottoms, B. L., Golding, J. M., Stevenson, M. C.,Wiley, T. R. A., & Yozwiak, J. A. (2007). A review of factors affecting jurors' decisions in child sexual abuse cases. In M. P. Toglia, J. D. Read, D. F. Ross, & R. C. L. Lindsay (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology (pp. 509-543). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91.
3. Brekke, N., & Borgida, E. (1988). Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: A social-cognitive analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 372-386.
4. Brekke, N., Enko, P., Clavet, G., & Seelau, E. (1991). Of juries and court-appointed experts: The impact of nonadversarial versus adversarial expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 451-475.
5. Ceci, S., & Bruck, M. (1995). Jeopardy in the courtroom. Washington: American Psychological Association.
6. Ceci, S., & Hembrooke, H. (1998). Expert witnesses in child sexual abuse cases. Washington: American Psychological Association Press.
7. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 1-49.
8. Connolly, D. A., Price, H. L., & Read, J. D. (2006). Predicting expert social science testimony in criminal prosecutions of historic child sexual abuse. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 55-74.
9. Cooper, J., Bennett, E. A., & Sukel, H. L. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior, 20, 379-394.
10. Crowley,M. J., O'Callaghen, M. G., & Ball, P. J. (1994). The juridical impact of psychological expert testimony in a simulated child sexual abuse trial. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 89-105.
11. Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Expert testimony and jury decision making: An empirical analysis. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7, 215-225.
12. Fox, S. G., & Walters, H. A. (1986). The impact of general versus specific expert testimony and eyewitness confidence upon mock juror judgment. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 215-228.
13. Gabora, N. J., Spanos, N. P., & Jaob, A. (1993). The effects of complainant age and expert psychological testimony in a simulated child sexual abuse trial. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 103-119.
14. Graesser, A. C., Jeon, M., Yang, Y.,&Cai, Z. (2007). Discourse cohesion in text and tutorial dialogue. Information Design Journal, 15, 199-213.
15. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., Louwerse, M. M., & Cai, Z. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 193-202.
16. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371-395.
17. Horowitz, I. A., Bordens, K. S., Victor, E., Bourgeois, M. J., & ForsterLee, L. (2001). The effects of complexity on jurors' verdicts and construction of evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 641-652.
18. Hosch, H. (1980). A comparison of three studies of the influence of expert testimony on jurors. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 297-302.
19. Hurwitz, S. D., Miron, M. S., & Johnson, B. T. (1992). Source credibility and the language of expert testimony. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1909-1939.
20. Kovera, M. B., & Borgida, E. (1996). Children on the witness stand-The use of expert testimony and other procedural innovations in U.S. child sexual abuse trials. In B. L. Bottoms, & G. S. Goodman (Eds.), International perspectives on child abuse and children's testimony-Psychological research and law (pp. 201-220). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
21. Kovera, M. B., Gresham, A. W., Borgida, E., Gray, E., & Regan, P. C. (1997). Does expert psychological testimony inform or influence juror decision making? A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 178-191.
22. Kovera, M. B., Levy, R. J., Borgida, E., & Penrod, S. D. (1994). Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 653-674.
23. Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 1 19 S. Ct. 1167 (23 March 1999).
24. Levett, L. M., & Kovera, M. B. (2008). The effectiveness of opposing expert witnesses for educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 363-374.
25. Loftus, E. (1980). Impact of expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 9-15.
26. Maass, A., Brigham, J. C., &West, S. G. (1985). Testifying on eyewitness reliability: Expert advice is not always persuasive. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 207-229.
27. Mason, M. A. (1991). A judicial dilemma: Expert witness testimony in child sex abuse cases. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 19, 185-219.
28. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247-288.
29. Morrison, S., & Greene, E. (1992). Juror and expert knowledge of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 16, 595-613.
30. Nietzel, M. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Kern, M. J. (1999). Juries: The current state of the empirical literature. In R. Roesch, S. D. Hart, & J. R. P. Ogloff (Eds.), Psychology and the law: The state of the discipline (pp. 23-52). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.
31. Otero, J., & Kintsch, W. (1992). Failures to detect contradictions in a text: What readers believe versus what they read. Psychological Science, 3, 229-235.
32. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1986). Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 242-258.
33. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1988). Explanation-based decision making: Effects of memory structure and on judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 521-533.
34. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1990). Practical implications of psychological research on juror and jury decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 90-105.
35. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993a). The story model for juror decision making. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making (pp. 192-221). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993b). Reasoning in explanation-based decision making. Cognition, 9, 123-163.
37. Raitz, A., Greene, E., Goodman, J., & Loftus, E. (1990). Determining damages: The influence of expert testimony on jurors' decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 385-395.
38. Read, S. J., & Marcus-Newhall, A. (1993). Explanatory coherence in social explanations: A parallel distributed processing account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 429-447.
39. Rotzien, A. L. (2002). Factors influencing juror verdict in a case involving repressed memories of abuse. Current Psychology, 21, 220-239.
40. Sagatun, I. J. (1991). Expert witnesses in child sexual abuse cases. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 9, 201-215.
41. Sales, B. D., Shuman, D. W., & O'Connor, M. (1994). In a dim light: Admissibility of child sexual abuse memories. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 399-406.
42. Saunders, J. W. S. (2001). Experts in court: A view from the bench. Canadian Psychology, 42, 109-118.
43. Simon, D., & Holyoak, K. J. (2002). Structural dynamics of cognition: From consistency theories to constraint satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 283-294.
44. Skolnick, P., & Shaw, J. I. (2001). A comparison of eyewitness and physical evidence on mock-juror decision making. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 614-630.
45. Spanos, N. P., Dubreuil, S. C., & Gwynn, M. I. (1991-1992). The effects of expert testimony concerning rape on the verdicts and beliefs of mock jurors. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 11, 37-51.
46. van den Broek, P., Lorch, R. F., Jr., Linderholm, T., & Gustafson, M. (2001). The effects of readers' goals on inference generation and memory for texts. Memory & Cognition, 29, 1081-1087.
47. Visher, C. A. (1987). Juror decision making: The importance of evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 1-17.
48. Voss, J. F., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2001). Narrative structure, information certainty, emotional content, and gender as factors in a pseudo jury decision-making task. Discourse Processes, 32, 215-243.
49. Voss, J. F.,Wiley, J., & Sandak, R. (1999). On the use of narrative as an argument. In S. Goldman, A. Graesser, & P. van den Broek (Eds.), Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence: Essays in honor of Tom Trabasso (pp. 235-252). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.