McAuliff Bradley D, Kovera Margaret Bull, Nunez Gabriel
Department of Psychology, California State University, Northridge, CA 91330-8255, USA.
Law Hum Behav. 2009 Jun;33(3):247-57. doi: 10.1007/s10979-008-9133-0. Epub 2008 Jun 28.
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.
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。
