Examination of the impact of personality, social, and cognitive factors on the co-occurrence of health risk behaviors among multi-problem youth: The utility of an integrative framework

Research has identified a number of putative risk factors that places adolescents at incrementally higher risk for involvement in alcohol and other drug (AOD) use and sexual risk behaviors (SRBs). Such factors include personality characteristics such as sensation-seeking, cognitive factors such as positive expectancies and inhibition conflict as well as peer norm processes. The current study was guided by a conceptual perspective that support the notion that an integrative framework that includes multi-level factors has significant explanatory value for understanding processes associated with the co-occurrence of AOD use and sexual risk behavior outcomes. This study evaluated simultaneously the mediating role of AOD-sex related expectancies and inhibition conflict on antecedents of AOD use and SRBs including sexual sensation-seeking and peer norms for condom use.^ The sample was drawn from the Enhancing My Personal Options While Evaluating Risk (EMPOWER: Jonathan Tubman, PI), data set (N = 396; aged 12-18 years). Measures used in the study included Sexual Sensation-Seeking Scale, Inhibition Conflict for Condom Use, Risky Sex Scale. All relevant measures had well-documented psychometric properties. A global assessment of alcohol, drug use and sexual risk behaviors was used.^ Results demonstrated that AOD-sex related expectancies mediated the influence of sexual sensation-seeking on the co-occurrence of alcohol and other drug use and sexual risk behaviors. The evaluation of the integrative model also revealed that sexual sensation-seeking was positively associated with peer norms for condom use. Also, peer norms predicted inhibition conflict among this sample of multi-problem youth. ^ This dissertation research identified mechanisms of risk and protection associated with the co-occurrence of AOD use and SRBs among a multi-problem sample of adolescents receiving treatment for alcohol or drug use and related problems. This study is informative for adolescent-serving programs that address those individual and contextual characteristics that enhance treatment efficacy and effectiveness among adolescents receiving substance use and related problems services.^

Examination of Personality, Social and Cognitive Factors on the Co-Occurrence of Health Risk Behaviors among Multi-Problem Youth: The Utility of An Integrative Framework

Research has identified a number of putative risk factors that places adolescents at incrementally higher risk for involvement in alcohol and other drug (AOD) use and sexual risk behaviors (SRBs). Such factors include personality characteristics such as sensation-seeking, cognitive factors such as positive expectancies and inhibition conflict as well as peer norm processes. The current study was guided by a conceptual perspective that support the notion that an integrative framework that includes multi-level factors has significant explanatory value for understanding processes associated with the co-occurrence of AOD use and sexual risk behavior outcomes. This study evaluated simultaneously the mediating role of AOD-sex related expectancies and inhibition conflict on antecedents of AOD use and SRBs including sexual sensation-seeking and peer norms for condom use. The sample was drawn from the Enhancing My Personal Options While Evaluating Risk (EMPOWER: Jonathan Tubman, PI), data set (N = 396; aged 12-18 years). Measures used in the study included Sexual Sensation-Seeking Scale, Inhibition Conflict for Condom Use, Risky Sex Scale. All relevant measures had well-documented psychometric properties. A global assessment of alcohol, drug use and sexual risk behaviors was used. Results demonstrated that AOD-sex related expectancies mediated the influence of sexual sensation-seeking on the co-occurrence of alcohol and other drug use and sexual risk behaviors. The evaluation of the integrative model also revealed that sexual sensation-seeking was positively associated with peer norms for condom use. Also, peer norms predicted inhibition conflict among this sample of multi-problem youth. This dissertation research identified mechanisms of risk and protection associated with the co-occurrence of AOD use and SRBs among a multi-problem sample of adolescents receiving treatment for alcohol or drug use and related problems. This study is informative for adolescent-serving programs that address those individual and contextual characteristics that enhance treatment efficacy and effectiveness among adolescents receiving substance use and related problems services.

The relationship of attitudes toward science, cognitive style, and self-concept to achievement in chemistry at the secondary school level

There is currently a crisis in science education in the United States. This statement is based on the National Science Foundation's report stating that the nation's students, on average, still rank near the bottom in science and math achievement internationally. ^ This crisis is the background of the problem for this study. This investigation studied learner variables that were thought to play a role in teaching chemistry at the secondary school level, and related them to achievement in the chemistry classroom. Among these, cognitive style (field dependence/independence), attitudes toward science, and self-concept had been given considerable attention by researchers in recent years. These variables were related to different competencies that could be used to measure the various types of achievement in the chemistry classroom at the secondary school level. These different competencies were called academic, laboratory, and problem solving achievement. Each of these chemistry achievement components may be related to a different set of learner variables, and the main purpose of this study was to investigate the nature of these relationships. ^ Three instruments to determine attitudes toward science, cognitive style, and self-concept were used for data collection. Teacher grades were used to determine chemistry achievement for each student. ^ Research questions were analyzed using Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients and t-tests. Results indicated that field independence was significantly correlated with problem solving, academic, and laboratory achievement. Educational researchers should therefore investigate how to teach students to be more field independent so they can achieve at higher levels in chemistry. ^ It was also true that better attitudes toward the social benefits and problems that accompany scientific progress were significantly correlated with higher achievement on all three academic measures in chemistry. This suggests that educational researchers should investigate how students might be guided to manifest more favorable attitudes toward science so they will achieve at higher levels in chemistry. ^ An overall theme that emerged from this study was that findings refuted the idea that female students believed that science was for males only and was an inappropriate and unfeminine activity. This was true because when the means of males and females were compared on the three measures of chemistry achievement, there was no statistically significant difference between them on problem solving or academic achievement. However, females were significantly better in laboratory achievement. ^

Jurors' use of social framework evidence

Monahan and Walker (1988) delineated three uses of social science evidence within the courts: social authority, social fact, and social framework. Social authority evidence is social science evidence used in making policy or law. Social fact evidence is social science evidence that describes research undertaken expressly for the case at hand. Social framework evidence involves providing conclusions from previously conducted social science research to assist jurors in evaluating the other evidence in the case. Although this type of evidence has traditionally been presented via expert testimony, Monahan and Walker (1988) have suggested that, because the social science research involved comes from the extant literature and is not the province of any particular expert, it would be more economical to have the judge present this information as part of the judicial instructions to the jury. This study tested the implicit assumption that the presentation of the social framework evidence by the judge will have the same impact on juror verdicts as presentation of this evidence by an expert. ^ Two hundred mock jurors watched a videotaped hostile work environment sexual harassment trial. The social framework evidence consisted of the discussion of factors that have been found to increase the likelihood of sex stereotyping of women by men. The trial included either no social framework evidence, social framework evidence presented by the expert, or social framework evidence presented in judicial instructions. ^ Results indicated that men who heard the social framework evidence from the judge were more likely to vote for the defendant than men who heard no social framework evidence. Men who heard the judicial instruction with the social framework evidence also rated the plaintiff as less credible than the other men and women in the study. Thus, it appears that, for men, social framework evidence presented by the judge harms the plaintiff's case by reducing ratings of her credibility, but the same evidence presented by an expert does not affect men's verdicts. For women, however, social framework evidence, irrespective of who presents it, enhances the plaintiff's case. ^

The National Institute of Justice guide for eyewitness identification evidence: Can it improve juror decision-making?

Mistaken eyewitness identifications of innocent lead to more false convictions in the United States than any other cause. In response to concerns about the reliability of eyewitness evidence, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in 1999 published a Guide for the gathering and preservation of eyewitness evidence by law enforcement personnel. Previous research has shown that eyewitness identifications are more accurate when obtained using procedures recommended in the NIJ Guide. This experiment assessed whether informing jurors about the Guide can improve their ability to discriminate between eyewitness identifications likely to be accurate and those likely to be inaccurate and, if so, how to most effectively provide jurors with such information. ^ Seven hundred sixteen U.S. citizens who reported for criminal jury duty participated. Half of the participant jurors read a summary of an armed robbery trial in which the police followed the NIJ Guide when obtaining an eyewitness identification of the defendant. The other half read about an identical case in which the police did not follow the Guide. Jurors received information about the Guide from a court-appointed expert witness, one of the attorneys in the case, the trial judge, the judge in combination with one of the attorneys, or from no one (in the control groups). Jurors then rendered a verdict in the case and answered questions about the evidence in the case. ^ When an expert witness or the judge (either alone or in combination with one of the attorneys) informed jurors about the Guide, the jurors voted to convict defendants likely to be guilty and to acquit defendants likely to be innocent more often than did uninformed jurors assigned to a control group. These data suggest that informing jurors about the NIJ Guide using expert testimony or instructions from a judge will improve the quality and accuracy of jurors' verdict decisions in cases involving eyewitness identification evidence. However, more research is needed to determine whether the judge will remain an effective source of information about the Guide in a longer, more detailed trial scenario and to learn more about the underlying psychological processes governing the effects observed in this experiment. ^

Predicting jurors' decisions: The effects of repeated expression and forewarning in civil voir dire

To help lawyers uncover jurors' attitudes and predict verdict, litigation experts recommend that attorneys encourage jurors to repeatedly express their attitudes during voir dire. While social cognitive literature has established that repeated expression of attitudes increases accessibility and behavior predictability, the persuasive twist on the method exercised in trials deserves empirical investigation. Only one study has examined the use of repeated expression within a legal context with the results finding that the tactic increased accessibility, but did not influence the attitude verdict relationship. This dissertation reexamines the ability of civil attitudes to predict verdict in a civil trial and investigates the use of repeated expression as a persuasive tactic utilized by both parties (Plaintiff and Defense) within a civil voir dire in an attempt to increase attitudinal strength, via accessibility, and change attitudes to better predict verdict. This project also explores potential moderators, repetition by the opposing party and the use of a forewarning, to determine their ability to counter the effects of repeated expression on attitudes and verdict.^ This dissertation project asked subjects to take on the role of jurors in a civil case. During the voir dire questioning session, the number of times the participants were solicited to express their attitudes towards litigation crisis by both parties was manipulated (one vs. five). Also manipulated was the inclusion of a forewarning statement from the plaintiff, within which mock jurors were cautioned about the repeated tactics that the defense may use to influence their attitudes. Subsequently, participants engaged in a response latency task which measured the accessibility of their attitudes towards various case-related issues. After reading a vignette of a fictitious personal injury case, participants rendered verdict decisions and responded to an attitude evaluation scale. Exploratory factor analyses, Probit regressions, and path analyses were used to analyze the data. Results indicated that the act of repeated expression influenced both the accessibility and value of litigation crisis attitudes thus increasing the attitude-verdict relationship, but only when only one party engaged in it. Furthermore, the forewarning manipulation did moderate the effect of repeated expression on attitude change and verdict, supporting our hypothesis.^

The effect of cognitive load on deception

The current study applied classic cognitive capacity models to examine the effect of cognitive load on deception. The study also examined whether the manipulation of cognitive load would result in the magnification of differences between liars and truth-tellers. In the first study, 87 participants engaged in videotaped interviews while being either deceptive or truthful about a target event. Some participants engaged in a concurrent secondary task while being interviewed. Performance on the secondary task was measured. As expected, truth tellers performed better on secondary task items than liars as evidenced by higher accuracy rates. These results confirm the long held assumption that being deceptive is more cognitively demanding than being truthful. In the second part of the study, the videotaped interviews of both liars and truth-tellers were shown to 69 observers. After watching the interviews, observers were asked to make a veracity judgment for each participant. Observers made more accurate veracity judgments when viewing participants who engaged in a concurrent secondary task than when viewing those who did not. Observers also indicated that participants who engaged in a concurrent secondary task appeared to think harder than participants who did not. This study provides evidence that engaging in deception is more cognitively demanding than telling the truth. As hypothesized, having participants engage in a concurrent secondary task led to the magnification of differences between liars and truth tellers. This magnification of differences led to more accurate veracity rates in a second group of observers. The implications for deception detection are discussed.

Effects of inconsistencies in eyewitness testimony on mock-juror decision-making

In attempting to impeach eyewitnesses, attorneys often highlight inconsistencies in the eyewitness's recall. This study examined the differential impact of types of inconsistent testimony on mock-juror decisions. Each of 100 community members and 200 undergraduates viewed one of four versions of a videotaped trial in which the primary evidence against the defendant was the testimony of the eyewitness. I manipulated the types of inconsistent statements given by the eyewitness in the four versions: (1) consistent testimony, (2) information given on-the-stand but not given during the pre-trial investigation, (3) contradictions between on-the-stand and pre-trial statements, and (4) contradictions made on the witness stand. Subjects exposed to any form of inconsistent testimony were less likely to convict and found the defendant less culpable and the eyewitness less effective. These effects were larger for contradictions than for information given on the stand but not during pre-trial investigations. ^

The role of individualism and collectivism as predictors of attributions for unethical work behavior: An empirical examination across two culturally diverse groups

This dissertation addresses how the cultural dimensions of individualism and collectivism affect the attributions people make for unethical behavior at work. The moderating effect of ethnicity is also examined by considering two culturally diverse groups: Hispanics and Anglos. The sample for this study is a group of business graduate students from two universities in the Southeast. A 20-minute survey was distributed to master's degree students at their classroom and later on returned to the researcher. Individualism and collectivism were operationalized as by a set of attitude items, while unethical work behavior was introduced in the form of hypothetical descriptions or scenarios. Data analysis employed multiple group confirmatory factor analysis for both independent and dependent variables, and subsequently multiple group LISREL models, in order to test predictions. Results confirmed the expected link between cultural variables and attribution responses, although the role of independent variables shifted, due to the moderating effect of ethnicity, and to the nuances of each particular situation. ^

The role of death qualification in venirepersons' evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials

Death qualification is a part of voir dire that is unique to capital trials. Unlike all other litigation, capital jurors must affirm their willingness to impose both legal standards (either life in prison or the death penalty). Jurors who assert they are able to do so are deemed “death-qualified” and are eligible for capital jury service: jurors who assert that they are unable to do so are deemed “excludable” or “scrupled” and are barred from hearing a death penalty case. During the penalty phase in capital trials, death-qualified jurors weigh the aggravators (i.e., arguments for death) against the mitigators (i.e., arguments for life) in order to determine the sentence. If the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances, then the jury is to recommend death; if the mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating circumstances, then the jury is to recommend life. The jury is free to weigh each aggravating and mitigating circumstance in any matter they see fit. Previous research has found that death qualification impacts jurors' receptiveness to aggravating and mitigating circumstances (e.g., Luginbuhl & Middendorf, 1988). However, these studies utilized the now-defunct Witherspoon rule and did not include a case scenario for participants to reference. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether death qualification affects jurors' endorsements of aggravating and mitigating circumstances when Witt, rather than Witherspoon, is the legal standard for death qualification. Four hundred and fifty venirepersons from the 11 th Judicial Circuit in Miami, Florida completed a booklet of stimulus materials that contained the following: two death qualification questions; a case scenario that included a summary of the guilt and penalty phases of a capital case; a 26-item measure that required participants to endorse aggravators, nonstatutory mitigators, and statutory mitigators on a 6-point Likert scale; and standard demographic questions. Results indicated that death-qualified venirepersons, when compared to excludables, were more likely to endorse aggravating circumstances. Excludable participants, when compared to death-qualified venirepersons, were more likely to endorse nonstatutory mitigators. There was no significant difference between death-qualified and excludable venirepersons with respect to their endorsement of 6 out of 7 statutory mitigators. It would appear that the Furman v. Georgia (1972) decision to declare the death penalty unconstitutional is frustrated by the Lockhart v. McCree (1986) affirmation of death qualification. ^

The effects of defendant account on damage award decisions

The purpose of this study was to examine whether the manner in which civil defendants account for their behavior influences compensatory and punitive damage awards. Jurors read three civil trial summaries, in which I manipulated injury severity (high vs. low), defendant reprehensibility (high vs. low), defendant status (individual vs. corporate), and account (concession, excuse, justification or refusal) in a factorial design. I also included four control groups in which the defendant stipulated liability. In all other conditions, participants read that a jury had found the defendant negligent. Only defendant reprehensibility influenced punitive awards. Both plaintiff injury and defendant reprehensibility influenced compensatory awards. When individuals offered justifications and when corporations offered excuses, jurors awarded lower compensatory awards against low reprehensibility defendants than against high reprehensibility defendants. Negligence stipulations led to lower damage awards for individuals than for corporations. Additionally, concessions tended to produce lower awards when combined with a stipulation of negligence as opposed to a jury decision. These findings support the hypothesis that in cases in which the defendant is clearly negligent, circumstances exist in which stipulating negligence and offering an apologetic account will lead to reduced damage awards decisions. Results indicate that individual and corporate defendants offering justifications and refusals should first consider the reprehensibility of their actions. In a broader realm, findings demonstrate that the manner in which a jury perceives the explanation given by the defendant is dependent upon defendant characteristics and case-specific factors. ^

Evaluating and improving the opposing expert safeguard against junk science

In Daubert, the Supreme Court opined that opposing expert testimony is an effective safeguard against junk science in the courtroom. Although jurors maybe unable to identify flaws in scientific research without some assistance, social psychological research suggests that people can be trained to make more sophisticated judgments about scientific quality. Further, previous research demonstrated that an opposing expert who addresses the methodology of proffered expert testimony may not enable jurors to evaluate scientific validity. In three studies, I tested why this safeguard was ineffective using a variety of stimulus materials. In the first study, I examined the mediating effect of attitudes on juror decisions within the context of a sexual harassment trial. In the second study, I examined the moderating effect of the presentation of expert credentials on participant decisions regarding child suggestibility literature. In the third study, I tested several improvements to the safeguard using improvements designed to correct for the effects of attitudes and credential presentation on juror decisions within the context of a first-degree murder trial. I found that while opposing expert testimony may have potential as a safeguard, in its current form it is ineffective. That is, a traditional opposing expert caused jurors to be skeptical of all expert testimony rather than sensitizing them to the validity of the research presented at trial. Further, while the improvements tested in this study may have potential to assist jurors in making scientifically sound decisions, more research is needed to further test and refine these improvements. ^

Improving civil jury decision-making: Evidentiary and procedural issues

The civil jury has been under attack in recent years for being unreliable and incompetent. Considering the myriad causes for poor civil juror decision-making, the current investigation explores both procedural and evidentiary issues that impact juror's decisions. Specifically, the first phase of this dissertation examines how jurors (mis)use evidence pertaining to the litigants when determining liability and awarding damages. After investigating how jurors utilize evidence, the focus shifts to exploring the utility of procedural reforms designed to improve decision-making (specifically revising the instructions on the laws in the case and bifurcating the damage phases of the trial). Using the results from the first two phases of the research, the final study involves manipulating pieces of evidence related to the litigants while exploring the effects that revising the judicial instructions have on the utilization of evidence in particular and on decision-making in general. ^ This dissertation was run on-line, allowing participants to access the study materials at their convenience. After giving consent, participants read the scenario of a fictitious product liability case with the litigant manipulations incorporated into the summary. Participants answered several attitudinal, case-specific, and comprehension questions, and were instructed to find in favor of one side and award any damages they felt warranted. Exploratory factor analyses, Probit and linear regressions, and path analyses were used to analyze the data (M-plus and SPSS were the software packages used to conduct the analyses). Results indicated that misuse of evidence was fairly frequent, though the mock jurors also utilized evidence appropriately. Although the results did not support bifurcation as a viable procedural reform, revising the judicial instructions did significantly increase comprehension rates. Trends in the data suggested that better decision-making occurred when the revised instructions were used, thus providing empirical support for this procedural reform as a means of improving civil jury decision-making. Implications for actual trials and attorneys are discussed. ^

The boundaries of acceptance: Do expectations for the complainant's psychological injury affect legal decisions in a sexual harassment case

Research indicates that people engaged in legal decision-making use a host of biases and preconceptions to guide their decisions about whether the evidence presented to them is reasonable. However, few theories address how such expectations affect legal decision-makers. The present study attempted to determine if social judgment theory (SJT) can explain how and when legal decision-makers rely on expectations for the complainant's psychological injury in a hostile environment sexual harassment case. Two experiments provided undergraduate participants with a written summary of a hostile work environment allegation that first manipulated participants' expectations about reasonable psychological injuries (mild v. severe), and then presented them with actual severity levels of psychological injury (ranging from minimal to extreme). Experiment 1 (N = 295) hypothesized and found that participants who expected severe injuries perceived a greater range of psychological injuries to be reasonable than participants expecting mild injury. Experiment 2 ( N = 202) used similar methodology and investigated whether perceived reasonableness for the injury allegations affected legal decisions. Experiment 2 hypothesized that participants expecting severe psychological injury should render more pro-complainant decisions than participants expecting mild psychological injury. This result should be most pronounced when participants receive a moderate injury allegation, since this allegation was perceived as reasonable by participants expecting severe injury, but unreasonable by participants expecting mild injury. Consistent with SJT, participants who received a moderate injury but expected a severe injury found more liability than participants who received a moderate injury but expected a mild injury. Inconsistent with SJT, participants' expectations did not affect their compensatory damage decisions. In fact, more severe injury allegations increased damage awards regardless of participants' expectations. Although the results provide mixed support for applying SJT to legal decisions in sexual harassment cases, they emphasize the continuing role of oft-unstudied extra-legal factors (juror's expectations and psychological injury severity) on legal decisions.

Memory conformity: Actors and bystanders

This dissertation explored memory conformity effects on people who interacted with a confederate and of bystanders to that interaction. Two studies were carried out. Study 1 was conducted in the field. A male confederate approached a group of people at the beach and had a brief interaction. About a minute later a research assistant approached the group and administered a target-absent lineup to each person in the group. Analyses revealed that memory conformity occurred during the lineup task. Bystanders were twice as likely to conform as those who interacted with the confederate. Study 2 was carried out in a laboratory under controlled conditions. Participants were exposed to two events during their time in the laboratory. In one event, participants were shown a brief video with no determinate roles assigned. In the other event participants were randomly assigned to interact with a confederate (actor condition) or to witness that interaction (bystander condition). Participants were given memory tests on both events to understand the effects of participant role (actor vs. bystander) on memory conformity. Participants answered second to all questions, following a confederate acting as a participant, who disseminated misinformation on critical questions. Analyses revealed no significant differences in memory conformity between actors and bystanders during the movie memory task. However, differences were found for the interaction memory task such that bystanders conformed more than actors on two of four critical questions. Bystanders also conformed more than actors during a lineup identification task. The results of these studies suggest that the role a person plays in an interaction affects how susceptible they are to information from a co-witness. Theoretical and applied implications are discussed. First, the results are explained through the use of two models of memory. Second, recommendations are made for forensic investigators.