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.^

Speaking with different voices: the problems with English law and psychiatric injury

Private law courts in the UK have maintained the de minimis threshold as a condition precedent for a successful claim for the infliction of mental harm. This de minimis threshold necessitates the presence of a ‘recognised psychiatric illness’ as opposed to ‘mere emotion’. This standard has also been adopted by the criminal law courts when reading the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 to include non-physical injury. In determining the cut-off point between psychiatric injury and mere emotion, the courts have adopted a generally passive acceptance of expert testimony and the guidelines used by mental health professionals to make diagnoses. Yet these guidelines were developed for use in a clinical setting, not a legal one. This article examines the difficulty inherent in utilising the ‘dimensional’ diagnostic criteria used by mental health professionals to answer ‘categorical’ legal questions. This is of particular concern following publication of the new diagnostic manual, DSM-V in 2013, which will further exacerbate concerns about compatibility. It is argued that a new set of diagnostic guidelines, tailored specifically for use in a legal context, is now a necessity.

How useful is expert opinion for predicting the distribution of a species within and beyond the region of expertise? A case study using brush-tailed rock-wallabiesPetrogale penicillata

1. Species' distribution modelling relies on adequate data sets to build reliable statistical models with high predictive ability. However, the money spent collecting empirical data might be better spent on management. A less expensive source of species' distribution information is expert opinion. This study evaluates expert knowledge and its source. In particular, we determine whether models built on expert knowledge apply over multiple regions or only within the region where the knowledge was derived. 2. The case study focuses on the distribution of the brush-tailed rock-wallaby Petrogale penicillata in eastern Australia. We brought together from two biogeographically different regions substantial and well-designed field data and knowledge from nine experts. We used a novel elicitation tool within a geographical information system to systematically collect expert opinions. The tool utilized an indirect approach to elicitation, asking experts simpler questions about observable rather than abstract quantities, with measures in place to identify uncertainty and offer feedback. Bayesian analysis was used to combine field data and expert knowledge in each region to determine: (i) how expert opinion affected models based on field data and (ii) how similar expert-informed models were within regions and across regions. 3. The elicitation tool effectively captured the experts' opinions and their uncertainties. Experts were comfortable with the map-based elicitation approach used, especially with graphical feedback. Experts tended to predict lower values of species occurrence compared with field data. 4. Across experts, consensus on effect sizes occurred for several habitat variables. Expert opinion generally influenced predictions from field data. However, south-east Queensland and north-east New South Wales experts had different opinions on the influence of elevation and geology, with these differences attributable to geological differences between these regions. 5. Synthesis and applications. When formulated as priors in Bayesian analysis, expert opinion is useful for modifying or strengthening patterns exhibited by empirical data sets that are limited in size or scope. Nevertheless, the ability of an expert to extrapolate beyond their region of knowledge may be poor. Hence there is significant merit in obtaining information from local experts when compiling species' distribution models across several regions.

Elicitator : an expert elicitation tool for regression in ecology

Expert elicitation is the process of retrieving and quantifying expert knowledge in a particular domain. Such information is of particular value when the empirical data is expensive, limited, or unreliable. This paper describes a new software tool, called Elicitator, which assists in quantifying expert knowledge in a form suitable for use as a prior model in Bayesian regression. Potential environmental domains for applying this elicitation tool include habitat modeling, assessing detectability or eradication, ecological condition assessments, risk analysis, and quantifying inputs to complex models of ecological processes. The tool has been developed to be user-friendly, extensible, and facilitate consistent and repeatable elicitation of expert knowledge across these various domains. We demonstrate its application to elicitation for logistic regression in a geographically based ecological context. The underlying statistical methodology is also novel, utilizing an indirect elicitation approach to target expert knowledge on a case-by-case basis. For several elicitation sites (or cases), experts are asked simply to quantify their estimated ecological response (e.g. probability of presence), and its range of plausible values, after inspecting (habitat) covariates via GIS.

Comparison of three expert elicitation methods for logistic regression on predicting the presence of the threatened brush-tailed rock-wallaby petrogale penicillata

Numerous expert elicitation methods have been suggested for generalised linear models (GLMs). This paper compares three relatively new approaches to eliciting expert knowledge in a form suitable for Bayesian logistic regression. These methods were trialled on two experts in order to model the habitat suitability of the threatened Australian brush-tailed rock-wallaby (Petrogale penicillata). The first elicitation approach is a geographically assisted indirect predictive method with a geographic information system (GIS) interface. The second approach is a predictive indirect method which uses an interactive graphical tool. The third method uses a questionnaire to elicit expert knowledge directly about the impact of a habitat variable on the response. Two variables (slope and aspect) are used to examine prior and posterior distributions of the three methods. The results indicate that there are some similarities and dissimilarities between the expert informed priors of the two experts formulated from the different approaches. The choice of elicitation method depends on the statistical knowledge of the expert, their mapping skills, time constraints, accessibility to experts and funding available. This trial reveals that expert knowledge can be important when modelling rare event data, such as threatened species, because experts can provide additional information that may not be represented in the dataset. However care must be taken with the way in which this information is elicited and formulated.

Expert performance in sport and the dynamics of talent development

Research on expertise, talent identification and development has tended to be mono-disciplinary, typically adopting adopting neurogenetic deterministic or environmentalist positions, with an over-riding focus on operational issues. In this paper the validity of dualist positions on sport expertise is evaluated. It is argued that, to advance understanding of expertise and talent development, a shift towards a multi-disciplinary and integrative science focus is necessary, along with the development of a comprehensive multi-disciplinary theoretical rationale. Here we elucidate dynamical systems theory as a multi-disciplinary theoretical rationale for capturing how multiple interacting constraints can shape the development of expert performers. This approach suggests that talent development programmes should eschew the notion of common optimal performance models, emphasise the individual nature of pathways to expertise, and identify the range of interacting constraints that impinge on performance potential of individual athletes, rather than evaluating current performance on physical tests referenced to group norms.

The impact of distributional preferences on (experimental) markets for expert services

Theory predicts that efficiency prevails on credence goods markets if customers are able to verify which quality they receive from an expert seller. In a series of experiments with endogenous prices we observe that verifiability fails to result in efficient provision behaviour and leads to very similar results as a setting without verifiability. Some sellers always provide appropriate treatment even if own money maximization calls for over- or undertreatment. Overall our endogenous-price-results suggests that both inequality aversion and a taste for efficiency play an important role for experts’ provision behaviour. We contrast the implications of those two motivations theoretically and discriminate between them empirically using a fixed-price design. We then classify experimental experts according to their provision behaviour.

Developing a hybrid expert system program to aid in the design of plastic injection molding process

Experts in injection molding often refer to previous solutions to find a mold design similar to the current mold and use previous successful molding process parameters with intuitive adjustment and modification as a start for the new molding application. This approach saves a substantial amount of time and cost in experimental based corrective actions which are required in order to reach optimum molding conditions. A Case-Based Reasoning (CBR) System can perform the same task by retrieving a similar case which is applied to the new case from the case library and uses the modification rules to adapt a solution to the new case. Therefore, a CBR System can simulate human e~pertise in injection molding process design. This research is aimed at developing an interactive Hybrid Expert System to reduce expert dependency needed on the production floor. The Hybrid Expert System (HES) is comprised of CBR, flow analysis, post-processor and trouble shooting systems. The HES can provide the first set of operating parameters in order to achieve moldability condition and producing moldings free of stress cracks and warpage. In this work C++ programming language is used to implement the expert system. The Case-Based Reasoning sub-system is constructed to derive the optimum magnitude of process parameters in the cavity. Toward this end the Flow Analysis sub-system is employed to calculate the pressure drop and temperature difference in the feed system to determine the required magnitude of parameters at the nozzle. The Post-Processor is implemented to convert the molding parameters to machine setting parameters. The parameters designed by HES are implemented using the injection molding machine. In the presence of any molding defect, a trouble shooting subsystem can determine which combination of process parameters must be changed iii during the process to deal with possible variations. Constraints in relation to the application of this HES are as follows. - flow length (L) constraint: 40 mm < L < I 00 mm, - flow thickness (Th) constraint: -flow type: - material types: I mm < Th < 4 mm, unidirectional flow, High Impact Polystyrene (HIPS) and Acrylic. In order to test the HES, experiments were conducted and satisfactory results were obtained.