Does expert psychological testimony improve juror sensitivity to lineup suggestiveness?

Previous research has examined the validity of behavioral assumptions underlying the presumed effectiveness of safeguards against erroneous conviction resulting from mistaken eyewitness identification. In keeping with this agenda, this study examined juror sensitivity to lineup suggestiveness in the form of foil, instruction, and presentation biases and whether expert psychological testimony further sensitizes jurors to the factors that influence the likelihood of false identifications. One hundred and sixty jury eligible citizens watched versions of a videotaped trial that included information about the identification of the defendant by an eyewitness and that varied the suggestiveness of the eyewitness identification procedure. In addition, half of the mock-jurors heard the testimony of an expert psychologist regarding the factors that influence lineup suggestiveness. Mock-jurors rendered individual verdicts, rated the defendant's culpability and the suggestiveness and fairness of the identification procedure. Results indicated that jurors are somewhat sensitive to foil bias but are insensitive to instruction and presentation biases. No evidence was found to suggest that expert testimony leads to juror skepticism or juror sensitization. These results question the effectiveness of cross-examination and expert testimony as safeguards against erroneous convictions resulting from mistaken identification. ^

Navigating health sources on the Internet: A mixed-methods examination of online consumer reviews and expert text on psychotropic drugs

Purpose. The Internet has provided an unprecedented opportunity for psychotropic medication consumers, a traditionally silenced group in clinical trial research, to have voice by contributing to the construction of drug knowledge in an immediate, direct manner. Currently, there are no systematic appraisals of the potential of online consumer drug reviews to contribute to drug knowledge. The purpose of this research was to explore the content of drug information on various websites representing themselves as consumer- and expert-constructed, and as a practical consideration, to examine how each source may help and hinder treatment decision-making.^ Methodology. A mixed-methods research strategy utilizing a grounded theory approach was used to analyze drug information on 5 exemplar websites (3 consumer- and 2 expertconstructed) for 2 popularly prescribed psychotropic drugs (escitalopram and quetiapine). A stratified simple random sample was used to select 1,080 consumer reviews from the websites (N=7,114) through February 2009. Text was coded using QDA Miner 3.2 software by Provalis Research. A combination of frequency tables, descriptive excerpts from text, and chi-square tests for association were used throughout analyses.^ Findings. The most frequently mentioned effects by consumers taking either drug were related to psychological/behavioral symptoms and sleep. Consumers reported many of the same effects as found on expert health sites, but provided more descriptive language and situational examples. Expert labels of less serious on certain effects were not congruent with the sometimes tremendous burden described by consumers. Consumers mentioned more than double the themes mentioned in expert text, and demonstrated a diversity and range of discourses around those themes.^ Conclusions. Drug effects from each source were complete relative to the information provided in the other, but each also offered distinct advantages. Expert health sites provided concise summaries of medications’ effects, while consumer reviews had the added advantage of concrete descriptions and greater context. In short, consumer reviews better prepared potential consumers for what it’s like to take psychotropic drugs. Both sources of information benefit clinicians and consumers in making informed treatment-related decisions. Social work practitioners are encouraged to thoughtfully utilize online consumer drug reviews as a legitimate additional source for assisting clients in learning about treatment options.^