陪审员能识别心理学领域研究中缺失的对照组、混淆因素和实验者偏差吗？
Can jurors recognize missing control groups, confounds, and experimenter bias in psychological science?
作者信息
McAuliff Bradley D, Kovera Margaret Bull, Nunez Gabriel
机构信息
Department of Psychology, California State University, Northridge, CA 91330-8255, USA.
出版信息
Law Hum Behav. 2009 Jun;33(3):247-57. doi: 10.1007/s10979-008-9133-0. Epub 2008 Jun 28.
Abstract
This study examined the ability of jury-eligible community members (N = 248) to detect internal validity threats in psychological science presented during a trial. Participants read a case summary in which an expert testified about a study that varied in internal validity (valid, missing control group, confound, and experimenter bias) and ecological validity (high, low). Ratings of expert evidence quality and expert credibility were higher for the valid versus missing control group versions only. Internal validity did not influence verdict or ratings of plaintiff credibility and no differences emerged as a function of ecological validity. Expert evidence quality, expert credibility, and plaintiff credibility were positively correlated with verdict. Implications for the scientific reasoning literature and for trials containing psychological science are discussed.
摘要
本研究考察了符合陪审员资格的社区成员（N = 248）在审判过程中识别心理学研究内部效度威胁的能力。参与者阅读了一份案例摘要，其中一位专家就一项内部效度（有效、缺失对照组、混淆因素和实验者偏差）和生态效度（高、低）不同的研究进行了作证。仅在有效版本与缺失对照组版本中，专家证据质量和专家可信度的评分更高。内部效度并未影响裁决或原告可信度的评分，并且未发现因生态效度而产生的差异。专家证据质量、专家可信度和原告可信度与裁决呈正相关。本文讨论了对科学推理文献以及包含心理学研究的审判的启示。
相似文献
1
Can jurors recognize missing control groups, confounds, and experimenter bias in psychological science?陪审员能识别心理学领域研究中缺失的对照组、混淆因素和实验者偏差吗？
Law Hum Behav. 2009 Jun;33(3):247-57. doi: 10.1007/s10979-008-9133-0. Epub 2008 Jun 28.
2
I spy with my little eye: jurors' detection of internal validity threats in expert evidence.我用我的小眼睛侦察：陪审员对专家证据中内部有效性威胁的察觉。
Law Hum Behav. 2010 Dec;34(6):489-500. doi: 10.1007/s10979-010-9219-3.
3
Perceptions of bias and credibility of male and female clinical psychologist and psychiatrist expert witnesses presenting clinical information in the courtroom.在法庭上呈现临床信息时，男性和女性临床心理学家和精神科医生专家证人的偏见和可信度认知。
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2024 Sep-Oct;96:102016. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2024.102016. Epub 2024 Aug 29.
4
The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: are judges effective gatekeepers?同行评审和证据质量对心理学科学评判评估的影响：评判者是有效的把关人吗？
J Appl Psychol. 2000 Aug;85(4):574-86. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.574.
5
Thin slice expert testimony and mock trial deliberations.薄片专家证词与模拟审判审议
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2015 Sep-Dec;42-43:67-74. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.08.009. Epub 2015 Sep 4.
6
Improving juror assessments of forensic testimony and its effects on decision-making and evidence evaluation.提高陪审员对法证证言的评估及其对决策和证据评估的影响。
Law Hum Behav. 2023 Oct;47(5):566-578. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000539. Epub 2023 Aug 21.
7
Secondary confessions: the influence (or lack thereof) of incentive size and scientific expert testimony on jurors' perceptions of informant testimony.次要供认：奖励规模和科学专家证词对陪审员对举报人证词看法的影响（或缺乏这种影响）。
Law Hum Behav. 2014 Dec;38(6):560-8. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000106. Epub 2014 Sep 1.
8
Jurors' perceptions of forensic science expert witnesses: Experience, qualifications, testimony style and credibility.陪审员对法庭科学专家证人的看法：经验、资质、证言风格和可信度。
Forensic Sci Int. 2018 Oct;291:100-108. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2018.07.030. Epub 2018 Aug 9.
9
The role of death qualification and need for cognition in venirepersons' evaluations of expert scientific testimony in capital trials.死亡资格的作用以及陪审员在死刑审判中对专家科学证词评估时的认知需求。
Behav Sci Law. 2007;25(4):561-71. doi: 10.1002/bsl.758.
10
Does engaging in reason elaboration mitigate bias in mock jurors' evaluations of confession evidence?进行理性阐述是否能减轻模拟陪审员对供述证据评估时的偏见？
Law Hum Behav. 2024 Oct-Dec;48(5-6):456-473. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000595.
引用本文的文献
1
Likeability and Expert Persuasion: Dislikeability Reduces the Perceived Persuasiveness of Expert Evidence.亲和力与专家说服力：缺乏亲和力会降低专家证据的说服力。
Front Psychol. 2021 Dec 23;12:785677. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.785677. eCollection 2021.
2
Evaluating witness testimony: Juror knowledge, false memory, and the utility of evidence-based directions.评估证人证言：陪审员的知识、错误记忆以及循证指导的效用。
Int J Evid Proof. 2021 Oct;25(4):264-285. doi: 10.1177/13657127211031018. Epub 2021 Sep 16.
3
The effects of evidence-based expert testimony on perceptions of child sexual abuse involving recantation.基于证据的专家证言对涉及翻供的儿童性虐待认知的影响。
PLoS One. 2021 Aug 5;16(8):e0254961. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254961. eCollection 2021.
4
Limited not lazy: a quasi-experimental secondary analysis of evidence quality evaluations by those who hold implausible beliefs.有限而非懒惰：对持有不可信信念者的证据质量评估的准实验二次分析。
Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2020 Dec 11;5(1):65. doi: 10.1186/s41235-020-00264-z.
5
Applications of neuroscience in criminal law: legal and methodological issues.神经科学在刑法中的应用：法律与方法问题
Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep. 2015;15(2):513. doi: 10.1007/s11910-014-0513-1.
6
Best Practices: How to Evaluate Psychological Science for Use by Organizations.最佳实践：如何评估供组织使用的心理科学。
Res Organ Behav. 2011;31:253-275. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.003.
7
I spy with my little eye: jurors' detection of internal validity threats in expert evidence.我用我的小眼睛侦察：陪审员对专家证据中内部有效性威胁的察觉。
Law Hum Behav. 2010 Dec;34(6):489-500. doi: 10.1007/s10979-010-9219-3.
本文引用的文献
1
The effectiveness of opposing expert witnesses for educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence.对立专家证人在向陪审员传授不可靠专家证据方面的有效性。
Law Hum Behav. 2008 Aug;32(4):363-74. doi: 10.1007/s10979-007-9113-9. Epub 2007 Oct 17.
2
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.《不确定性下的判断：启发式与偏差》
Science. 1974 Sep 27;185(4157):1124-31. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124.
3
Asking the gatekeepers: a national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world.向把关者提问：关于后达伯特时代法官对专家证据评判的全国性调查。
Law Hum Behav. 2001 Oct;25(5):433-58. doi: 10.1023/a:1012899030937.
4
The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: are judges effective gatekeepers?同行评审和证据质量对心理学科学评判评估的影响：评判者是有效的把关人吗？
J Appl Psychol. 2000 Aug;85(4):574-86. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.574.
5
Reasoning about scientific evidence: effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case.关于科学证据的推理：陪审员性别和证据质量对职场敌对环境案件中陪审员裁决的影响。
J Appl Psychol. 1999 Jun;84(3):362-75. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.362.
6
Does expert psychological testimony inform or influence juror decision making? A social cognitive analysis.
J Appl Psychol. 1997 Feb;82(1):178-91. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.178.
7
Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment.启发式加工会使系统加工产生偏差：信息源可信度、论点模糊性和任务重要性对态度判断的影响。
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994 Mar;66(3):460-73. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.66.3.460.
8
Individual differences in relative hemispheric alpha abundance and cognitive responses to persuasive communications.相对半球阿尔法丰度的个体差异以及对有说服力的沟通的认知反应。
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1982 Sep;43(3):623-36. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.43.3.623.
Zotero 插件