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 In Study 2 (N = 162), the expert's published or unpublished study (general acceptance) was either valid or lacked an appropriate control group (internal validity) and included a sample of college undergraduates or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. ^

Determinants of local government pension funding: Empirical evidence from Florida

The financial community is well aware that continued underfunding of state and local government pension plans poses many public policy and fiduciary management concerns. However, a well-defined theoretical rationale has not been developed to explain why and how public sector pension plans underfund. This study uses three methods: a survey of national pension experts, an incomplete covariance panel method, and field interviews.^ A survey of national public sector pension experts was conducted to provide a conceptual framework by which underfunding could be evaluated. Experts suggest that plan design, fiscal stress, and political culture factors impact underfunding. However, experts do not agree with previous research findings that unions actively pursue underfunding to secure current wage increases.^ Within the conceptual framework and determinants identified by experts, several empirical regularities are documented for the first time. Analysis of 173 local government pension plans, observed from 1987 to 1992, was conducted. Findings indicate that underfunding occurs in plans that have lower retirement ages, increased costs due to benefit enhancements, when the sponsor faces current year operating deficits, or when a local government relies heavily on inelastic revenue sources. Results also suggest that elected officials artificially inflate interest rate assumptions to reduce current pension costs, consequently shifting these costs to future generations. In concurrence with some experts there is no data to support the assumption that highly unionized employees secure more funding than less unionized employees.^ Empirical results provide satisfactory but not overwhelming statistical power, and only minor predictive capacity. To further explore why underfunding occurs, field interviews were carried out with 62 local government officials. Practitioners indicated that perceived fiscal stress, the willingness of policymakers to advance funding, bargaining strategies used by union officials, apathy by employees and retirees, pension board composition, and the level of influence by internal pension experts has an impact on funding outcomes.^ A pension funding process model was posited by triangulating the expert survey, empirical findings, and field survey results. The funding process model should help shape and refine our theoretical knowledge of state and local government pension underfunding in the future. ^

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. ^

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. ^

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. ^

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.