Department of Psychology, California State University, Northridge, 18111 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, CA 91330-8255, USA.
Law Hum Behav. 2010 Dec;34(6):489-500. doi: 10.1007/s10979-010-9219-3.
This experiment examined whether jury-eligible community members (N = 223) were able to detect internally invalid psychological science presented at trial. Participants read a simulated child sexual abuse case in which the defense expert described a study he had conducted on witness memory and suggestibility. We varied the study's internal validity (valid, missing control group, confound, and experimenter bias) and publication status (published, unpublished). Expert evidence quality ratings were higher for the valid versus missing control group version only. Publication increased ratings of defendant guilt when the study was missing a control group. Variations in internal validity did not influence perceptions of child victim credibility or police interview quality. Participants' limited detection of internal validity threats underscores the need to examine the effectiveness of traditional legal safeguards against junk science in court and improve the scientific reasoning ability of lay people and legal professionals.
本实验考察了是否有陪审团资格的社区成员（N=223）能够发现法庭上呈现的内部无效的心理学科学。参与者阅读了一个模拟的儿童性虐待案件，其中辩方专家描述了他对证人记忆和易受暗示性的一项研究。我们改变了研究的内部有效性（有效、缺少对照组、混杂和实验者偏差）和发表状态（已发表、未发表）。只有在有效对照的版本中，专家证据质量评分才更高。当研究缺少对照组时，发表会增加对被告有罪的评价。内部有效性的变化并没有影响对儿童受害者可信度或警察访谈质量的看法。参与者对内部有效性威胁的有限检测突显了需要检查传统法律保障措施在法庭上防止伪科学的有效性，并提高非专业人士和法律专业人士的科学推理能力。
