When do we Believe Experts? The Power of the Unorthodox View

Behavioral Sciences and the Law

Volumn 30, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 729-748

  Alison, Laurence ^a   Almond, Louise ^a   Christiansen, Paul ^a   Waring, Sara ^a   Power, Nicola ^a   Villejoubert, Gaëlle ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^b KINGSTON UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT WITNESS; GUILT; HUMAN; LAW ENFORCEMENT; OFFENDER; POLICE; PRESCHOOL CHILD; QUESTIONNAIRE;

CHILD ABUSE, SEXUAL; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; CRIMINALS; EXPERT TESTIMONY; GUILT; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; LAW ENFORCEMENT; POLICE; POWER (PSYCHOLOGY); QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84870716119     PISSN: 07353936     EISSN: 10990798     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bsl.2030     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Alison, L. (2005). The forensic psychologist's casebook: Psychological profiling and criminal investigation. Devon: Willan.
2. Alison, L. J., Barrett, E., & Crego, J. (2007). In R. R. Hoffman (Ed.), Criminal investigative decision making: Context and Process. Expertise out of context: Proceedings of the sixth international conference on naturalistic decision making (pp. 79-95). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Alison, L., Bennell, C., Mokros, A., & Ormerod, D. (2002). The personality paradox in offender profiling: A theoretical review of the processes involved in deriving background characteristics from crime scene actions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 115-135.
4. Alison, L., & Crego, J. (2008). Policing critical incidents: Leadership and critical incident management. Devon: Willan.
5. Alison, L., McLean, C., & Almond, L. (2007). Profiling suspects. In T. Newburn, T. Williamson, & A. Wright (Eds.), Handbook of criminal investigation (pp. 493-516). Cullompton, UK: Willan.
6. Alison, L., & Ogan, J. (2006). Offender profiling. In R. D. McAnulty & M. M. Burnette (Eds.), Sexual deviation and sexual offenses. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
7. Alison, L., & Rainbow, L. (2011). Professionalizing offender profiling: Forensic and investigative psychology in practice. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis.
8. Alison, L., Smith, M., Eastman, O., & Rainbow, L. (2003). Toulmin's philosophy of argument and its relevance to offender profiling. Psychology, Crime and Law, 9, 173-183.
9. Alison, L. J., Smith, M. D., & Morgan, K. (2003). Interpreting the accuracy of offender profiles. Psychology, Crime and Law, 9, 185-195.
10. Alison, L., West, A., & Goodwill, A. (2004). The academic and the practitioner: Pragmatists' views of offender profiling. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 71-101.
11. Almond, L., Alison, L., & Porter, L. (2007). An evaluation and comparison of claims made in Behavioural Investigative Advice reports compiled by the National Policing Improvements Agency in the United Kingdom. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 4, 71-83.
12. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
13. Birnbaum, M. H. (1999). How to show that 9>221: Collect judgments in a between-subjects design. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 243-249.
14. Blau, T. H. (1994). Psychological services for law enforcement. Chichester: Wiley.
15. Bless, H., Schwarz, N., Bodenhausen, G. V., & Thiel, L. (2001). Personalized versus generalized benefits of stereotype disconfirmation: Trade-offs in the evaluation of atypical exemplars and their social groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(5), 386-397.
16. Bochner, S., & Insko, C. A. (1966). Communicator discrepancy, source credibility, and opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(6), 614-621.
17. Bohner G., Ruder, M., & Erb, H. P. (2002). When expertise backfires: Contrast and assimilation effects in persuasion. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(4), 495-519.
18. Canter, D., & Alison, L. (1999). Profiling in policy and practice. Dartmouth: Ashgate.
19. Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3-39). Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. 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(3), 460-473.
21. Cooper, J., & Fazio, R. H. (1984). A new look at Dissonance Theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 229-266.
22. Copson, G. (1995). Coals to Newcastle? Part 1: A study of offender profiling (Special Interest Series). London: Home Office Police Research Group.
23. Davison, W. P. (1983). The third person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 1-15.
24. Diethelm, P., & McKee, M. (2009). Denialism: What is it and how should scientists respond? European Journal of Public Health, 19(1), 2-4.
25. Diethem, P., Rielle, J., & McKee, M. (2005). The whole truth and nothing but the truth? The research that Phillip Morris did not want you to see. The Lancet, 366, 86-92.
26. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1984). Cognitive theories of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 267-359.
27. Forer, B. R. (1949). The fallacy of personal validation: A classroom demonstration of gullibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 44, 118-123.
28. Grieve, J., Crego, J., & Griffiths, B. (2007). Critical Incidents: Investigation, management and training. In T. Newburn, T. Williamson, & A. Wright (Eds.), Handbook of criminal investigations (pp. 572-585). Cullompton, UK: Willan.
29. Groth, A. N., Hobson, W. F., & Gary, T. S. (1982). The child molester: Clinical observations. In J. Conte & D. A. Shore (Eds.), Social work and child sexual abuse (pp. 129-144). New York: Haworth.
30. Gunther, A. C., Bolt, D., Borzekowski, D. L. B., Liebhart, J. L., & Dillard, J. P. (2006). Presumed influence on peer norms: How mass media indirectly affect adolescent smoking. Journal of Communication, 56, 52-68.
31. Harvey, N., & Fischer, I. (1997). Taking advice: Accepting help, improving judgment, and sharing responsibility. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(2), 117-133.
32. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49-81). New York: Cambridge University Press.
33. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. Kassin, S. (2005). On the psychology of confessions: Does innocence put innocents at risk? American Psychologist, 60, 215-228.
35. Kirby, S. (1993). The child molester: Separating myth from reality. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Surrey.
36. Klucharev, V., Smidts, A., & Fernández, G. (2008). Brain mechanisms of persuasion: How "expert power" modulates memory and attitudes. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3(4), 353-366.
37. Kocsis, R. N. (2004). Psychological profiling of serial arson offenses: An assessment of skills and accuracy. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 241-361.
38. Kocsis, R. N., & Heller, G. Z. (2004). Believing is seeing II: beliefs and perceptions of criminal psychological profiles. International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology, 48, 313-329.
39. Kocsis, R. N., & Middledorp, J. (2004). Believing is seeing III: Perceptions of content in criminal psychological profiles. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 48, 477-494.
40. Kruglanski, A. W., & Thompson, E. P. (1999). Persuasion by a single route: A view from the unimodel. Psychological Inquiry, 10(2), 83-109.
41. Jackson, J. L., Van Koppen, P. J., & Herbrink, J. C. M. (1993). Does the service meet the needs? An evaluation of consumer satisfaction with specific profile analysis and investigative advice as offered by the Scientific Research Advisory Unit of the National Criminal Intelligence Division (CRI), The Netherlands. Leiden: NSCR.
42. Landy, D. (1972). The effects of an overheard audience's reaction and attractiveness on opinion change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8(3), 276-288.
43. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098-2109.
44. Mandel, D. R. (2005). Are risk assessments of a terrorist attack coherent? Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 11, 277-288.
45. Marshall, B., & Alison, L (2007). Stereotyping, congruence and presentation order: Interpretative biases in utilising offender profiles. Psychology, Crime and Law, 13, 285-303.
46. McKimmie, B. M., Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., Manstead, A. S. R., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2003). I'm a hypocrite, but so is everyone else: Group support and the reduction of cognitive dissonance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 7(3), 214-224.
47. Meissner, C., & Kassin, S. (2002). He's guilty!: Investigator bias in judgments of truth and deception. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 469-480.
48. Mugny, G., Tafani, E., Falomir, P., et al. (2000). Source credibility, social comparison, and social influence. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 13, 151-175.
49. Murch, S. H., Anthony, A., Casson, D. H., Malik, M., Berelowitz, M., Dhillon, A. P., ... Walker-Smith, J. A. (2004). Retraction of an interpretation. The Lancet, 363, 750.
50. Payne, J. W. (1976). Heuristic search processes in decision making. Advances in Communication Research, 3, 321-327.
51. Phillips, K. W., Mannix, E. A., Neale, M. A., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2004). Diverse groups and information sharing: The effects of congruent ties. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 497-510.
52. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, 36(4), 717-731.
53. Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Source attributions and persuasion: Perceived honesty as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personal and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(6), 637-652.
54. Rassin, E., Eerland, A., & Kuijpers, I. (2010). Let's find the evidence: An analogue study of confirmation bias in criminal investigations. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 7, 231-246.
55. Reimer, T., Mata, R., & Stoecklin, M. (2004). The use of heuristics in persuasion: Deriving cues on source expertise from argument quality. Current Research in Social Psychology, 10(6), 69-84.
56. Ross, L., & Anderson, C. (1982). Shortcomings in the attribution process: On the origins and maintenance of erroneous social assessments. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgments under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press, 129-152.
57. Saviers, K. (2002). Ethics in forensic science: a review of the literature on expert testimony. Journal of Forensic Identification, 52(4), 449-462.
58. Simonsohn, U. (2011). Spurious? Name similarity effects (implicit egotism) in marriage, job, and moving decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 1-24.
59. Sniezek, J. A., & Buckley, T. (1995). Cueing and cognitive conflict in judge-advisor decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62(2), 159-174.
60. Sparks, J. R., & Rapp, D. N. (2011). Readers' reliance on source credibility in the service of comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(1), 230-247.
61. Spellman, B. A., & Tenney, E. R. (2010). Emerging trends in psychology and law research: Credible testimony in and out of court. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 17(2), 168-173.
62. Steginga, S. K., Pinnock, C., Gardner, M., & Dunn, J. (2002). Peer support groups for prostate cancer: A snapshot in 2002. Cancer Forum, 26(3), 169-172.
63. Sun, Y., Pan Z., & Shen, L. (2008). Understanding the third person perception: Evidence from a meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 280-300.
64. Tewksbury, D., Moy, P., & Weis, D. (2004). Preparations for Y2K: Revisiting the behavioral component of the third-person effect. Journal of Communication, 54, 138-155.
65. Tormala, Z. L., Brinol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2007). Multiple roles for source credibility under high elaboration: It's all in the timing. Social Cognition, 25(4), 536-552.
66. Van Swol, L. M., & Sniezek, J. A. (2005). Factors affecting the acceptance of expert advice. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(3), 443-461.
67. Wakefield, A., Murch, S., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D., Malik, M., Berelowitz, M., Dhillon, A., Thomson, M., Harvey, P., Valentine, A., Davies, S. & Walker-Smith, J. (1998). Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet, 351, 637-641.
68. Williams, B., & Stahl, M. (2008). An analysis of police traffic stops and searches in Kentucky: A mixed methods approach offering heuristic and practical implications. Policy Sciences, 41(3), 221-243.
69. Xu, J., & Gonzenbach, W. J. (2008). Does a perceptual discrepancy lead to action? A meta-analysis of the behavioral component of the third-person effect. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(3), 375-385.
70. Yaniv, I. (2004). The benefit of additional options. Current Decisions in Psychological Science, 13, 75-78.
71. Yaniv, I., & Kleinberger, E. (2000). Advice taking in decision making: Egocentric discounting and reputation formation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83(2), 260-281.