Kovera M B, McAuliff B D, Hebert K S
Department of Psychology, Florida International University, North Miami 33181, USA.
J Appl Psychol. 1999 Jun;84(3):362-75. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.362.
This study examined whether participants were sensitive to variations in the quality of an experiment discussed by an expert witness and whether they used heuristic cues when evaluating the expert evidence. In the context of a hostile work environment case, different versions of the expert testimony varied the presence of heuristic cues (i.e., whether the expert's research was generally accepted or ecologically valid) and evidence quality (i.e., the construct validity of the expert's research). Men who heard expert testimony were more likely to find that the plaintiff's workplace was hostile than were men who did not hear the expert testimony; expert testimony did not influence women's liability judgments. Heuristic cues influenced participant evaluations of the expert testimony validity, but evidence quality did not. Cross-examination did not increase juror sensitivity to evidence quality. Implications for science in the legal system are discussed.
本研究考察了参与者是否对专家证人所讨论实验的质量差异敏感，以及他们在评估专家证据时是否使用启发式线索。在一个敌意工作环境案件的背景下，不同版本的专家证词改变了启发式线索的呈现（即专家的研究是否被普遍接受或具有生态效度）以及证据质量（即专家研究的结构效度）。听到专家证词的男性比未听到专家证词的男性更有可能认为原告的工作场所存在敌意；专家证词并未影响女性的责任判断。启发式线索影响了参与者对专家证词有效性的评估，但证据质量并未产生影响。交叉询问并未提高陪审员对证据质量的敏感度。文中讨论了其对法律体系中科学的启示。
