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. ^

Juror need for cognition and sensitivity to methodological flaws in expert evidence

Two studies investigated the influence of juror need for cognition on the systematic and heuristic processing of expert evidence. U.S. citizens reporting for jury duty in South Florida read a 15-page summary of a hostile work environment case containing expert testimony. The expert described a study she had conducted on the effects of viewing sexualized materials on men's behavior toward women. Certain methodological features of the expert's research varied across experimental conditions. In Study 1 (N = 252), the expert's study was valid, contained a confound, or included the potential for experimenter bias (internal validity) and relied on a small or large sample (sample size) of college undergraduates or trucking employees (ecological validity). When the expert's study included trucking employees, high need for cognition jurors in Study 1 rated the expert more credible and trustworthy than did low need for cognition jurors. Jurors were insensitive to variations in the study's internal validity or sample size. Juror ratings of plaintiff credibility, plaintiff trustworthiness, and study quality were positively correlated with verdict. In Study 2 (N = 162), the expert's published or unpublished study (general acceptance) was either valid or lacked an appropriate control group (internal validity) and included a sample of college undergraduates or trucking employees (ecological validity). High need for cognition jurors in Study 2 found the defendant liable more often and evaluated the expert evidence more favorably when the expert's study was internally valid than when an appropriate control group was missing. Low need for cognition jurors did not differentiate between the internally valid and invalid study. Variations in the study's general acceptance and ecological validity did not affect juror judgments. Juror ratings of expert and plaintiff credibility, plaintiff trustworthiness, and study quality were positively correlated with verdict. The present research demonstrated that the need for cognition moderates juror sensitivity to expert evidence quality and that certain message-related heuristics influence juror judgments when ability or motivation to process systematically is low. ^

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. ^

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. ^

Judging psychology experts: Can judges and attorneys distinguish between clinical and experimental psychologists?

A trial judge serves as gatekeeper in the courtroom to ensure that only reliable expert witness testimony is presented to the jury. Nevertheless, research shows that while judges take seriously their gatekeeper status, legal professionals in general are unable to identify well conducted research and are unable to define falsifiability, error rates, peer review status, and scientific validity (Gatkowski et al., 2001; Kovera & McAuliff, 2000). However, the abilities to identify quality scientific research and define scientific concepts are critical to preventing "junk" science from entering courtrooms. Research thus far has neglected to address that before selecting expert witnesses, judges and attorneys must first evaluate experts' CVs rather than their scientific testimony to determine whether legal standards of admissibility have been met. The quality of expert testimony, therefore, largely depends on the ability to evaluate properly experts' credentials. Theoretical models of decision making suggest that ability/knowledge and motivation are required to process information systematically. Legal professionals (judges and attorneys) were expected to process CVs heuristically when rendering expert witness decisions due to a lack of training in areas of psychology expertise.^ Legal professionals' (N = 150) and undergraduate students' (N = 468) expert witness decisions were examined and compared. Participants were presented with one of two versions of a criminal case calling for the testimony of either a clinical psychology expert or an experimental legal psychology expert. Participants then read one of eight curricula vitae that varied area of expertise (clinical vs. legal psychology), previous expert witness experience (previous experience vs. no previous experience), and scholarly publication record (30 publications vs. no publications) before deciding whether the expert was qualified to testify in the case. Follow-up measures assessed participants' decision making processes.^ Legal professionals were not better than college students at rendering quality psychology expert witness admissibility decisions yet they were significantly more confident in their decisions. Legal professionals rated themselves significantly higher than students in ability, knowledge, and motivation to choose an appropriate psychology expert although their expert witness decisions were equally inadequate. Findings suggest that participants relied on heuristics, such as previous expert witness experience, to render decisions.^

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. ^

Attributes of identity document credibility: A synthesis of expert knowledge

In broad terms — including a thief's use of existing credit card, bank, or other accounts — the number of identity fraud victims in the United States ranges 9-10 million per year, or roughly 4% of the US adult population. The average annual theft per stolen identity was estimated at $6,383 in 2006, up approximately 22% from $5,248 in 2003; an increase in estimated total theft from $53.2 billion in 2003 to $56.6 billion in 2006. About three million Americans each year fall victim to the worst kind of identity fraud: new account fraud. Names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and other data are acquired fraudulently from the issuing organization, or from the victim then these data are used to create fraudulent identity documents. In turn, these are presented to other organizations as evidence of identity, used to open new lines of credit, secure loans, “flip” property, or otherwise turn a profit in a victim's name. This is much more time consuming — and typically more costly — to repair than fraudulent use of existing accounts. ^ This research borrows from well-established theoretical backgrounds, in an effort to answer the question – what is it that makes identity documents credible? Most importantly, identification of the components of credibility draws upon personal construct psychology, the underpinning for the repertory grid technique, a form of structured interviewing that arrives at a description of the interviewee’s constructs on a given topic, such as credibility of identity documents. This represents substantial contribution to theory, being the first research to use the repertory grid technique to elicit from experts, their mental constructs used to evaluate credibility of different types of identity documents reviewed in the course of opening new accounts. The research identified twenty-one characteristics, different ones of which are present on different types of identity documents. Expert evaluations of these documents in different scenarios suggest that visual characteristics are most important for a physical document, while authenticated personal data are most important for a digital document. ^

Evaluation of contact and non-contact trapping efficiencies of human scent chemical profiles and their stabilities under different environmental conditions

Establishing an association between the scent a perpetrator left at a crime scene to the odor of the suspect of that crime is the basis for the use of human scent identification evidence in a court of law. Law enforcement agencies gather evidence through the collection of scent from the objects that a perpetrator may have handled during the execution of the criminal act. The collected scent evidence is consequently presented to the canines for identification line-up procedures with the apprehended suspects. Presently, canine scent identification is admitted as expert witness testimony, however, the accurate behavior of the dogs and the scent collection methods used are often challenged by the court system. The primary focus of this research project entailed an evaluation of contact and non-contact scent collection techniques with an emphasis on the optimization of collection materials of different fiber chemistries to evaluate the chemical odor profiles obtained using varying environment conditions to provide a better scientific understanding of human scent as a discriminative tool in the identification of suspects. The collection of hand odor from female and male subjects through both contact and non-contact sampling approaches yielded new insights into the types of VOCs collected when different materials are utilized, which had never been instrumentally performed. Furthermore, the collected scent mass was shown to be obtained in the highest amounts for both gender hand odor samples on cotton sorbent materials. Compared to non-contact sampling, the contact sampling methods yielded a higher number of volatiles, an enhancement of up to 3 times, as well as a higher scent mass than non-contact methods by more than an order of magnitude. The evaluation of the STU-100 as a non-contact methodology highlighted strong instrumental drawbacks that need to be targeted for enhanced scientific validation of current field practices. These results demonstrated that an individual's human scent components vary considerably depending on the method used to collect scent from the same body region. This study demonstrated the importance of collection medium selection as well as the collection method employed in providing a reproducible human scent sample that can be used to differentiate individuals.

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.^

The Process of Becoming a Physics Expert from the Perspective of University Physics Professors

Results from a qualitative interview study of three physics professors at a large public research university are presented. Faculty view building physics expertise as moving through stages, developing knowledge skills, and adopting the norms of the community, which is consistent with the legitimate peripheral participation model.

A Landmark Decision: The Stouffer Valley Forge Hotel

The information presented in this article is derived from the testimony and exhibits offered in connection with the trial of Auger, et a1 v. The Stouffer Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 93-2529, which took place in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The authors of this article served as expert consultants and expert witnesses to the plaintiff

An ethnographic study: Becoming a physics expert in a biophysics research group

Expertise in physics has been traditionally studied in cognitive science, where physics expertise is understood through the difference between novice and expert problem solving skills. The cognitive perspective of physics experts only create a partial model of physics expertise and does not take into account the development of physics experts in the natural context of research. This dissertation takes a social and cultural perspective of learning through apprenticeship to model the development of physics expertise of physics graduate students in a research group. I use a qualitative methodological approach of an ethnographic case study to observe and video record the common practices of graduate students in their biophysics weekly research group meetings. I recorded notes on observations and conduct interviews with all participants of the biophysics research group for a period of eight months. I apply the theoretical framework of Communities of Practice to distinguish the cultural norms of the group that cultivate physics expert practices. Results indicate that physics expertise is specific to a topic or subfield and it is established through effectively publishing research in the larger biophysics research community. The participant biophysics research group follows a learning trajectory for its students to contribute to research and learn to communicate their research in the larger biophysics community. In this learning trajectory students develop expert member competencies to learn to communicate their research and to learn the standards and trends of research in the larger research community. Findings from this dissertation expand the model of physics expertise beyond the cognitive realm and add the social and cultural nature of physics expertise development. This research also addresses ways to increase physics graduate student success towards their PhD. and decrease the 48% attrition rate of physics graduate students. Cultivating effective research experiences that give graduate students agency and autonomy beyond their research groups gives students the motivation to finish graduate school and establish their physics expertise.^

Attributes of Identity Document Credibility: A Synthesis of Expert Knowledge

In broad terms — including a thief's use of existing credit card, bank, or other accounts — the number of identity fraud victims in the United States ranges 9-10 million per year, or roughly 4% of the US adult population. The average annual theft per stolen identity was estimated at $6,383 in 2006, up approximately 22% from $5,248 in 2003; an increase in estimated total theft from $53.2 billion in 2003 to $56.6 billion in 2006. About three million Americans each year fall victim to the worst kind of identity fraud: new account fraud. Names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and other data are acquired fraudulently from the issuing organization, or from the victim then these data are used to create fraudulent identity documents. In turn, these are presented to other organizations as evidence of identity, used to open new lines of credit, secure loans, “flip” property, or otherwise turn a profit in a victim's name. This is much more time consuming — and typically more costly — to repair than fraudulent use of existing accounts. This research borrows from well-established theoretical backgrounds, in an effort to answer the question – what is it that makes identity documents credible? Most importantly, identification of the components of credibility draws upon personal construct psychology, the underpinning for the repertory grid technique, a form of structured interviewing that arrives at a description of the interviewee’s constructs on a given topic, such as credibility of identity documents. This represents substantial contribution to theory, being the first research to use the repertory grid technique to elicit from experts, their mental constructs used to evaluate credibility of different types of identity documents reviewed in the course of opening new accounts. The research identified twenty-one characteristics, different ones of which are present on different types of identity documents. Expert evaluations of these documents in different scenarios suggest that visual characteristics are most important for a physical document, while authenticated personal data are most important for a digital document.