Does Ambivalent Sexism Influence Verdicts for Heterosexual and Homosexual Defendants in a Self-Defense Case?

The current research examined the role of defendant and participant sex, presence or absence of expert testimony of the “battered person syndrome”, and sexual orientation of the defendant on perceptions of guilt in a self-defense case. The role of sexism in judgments of culpability was also examined. A sample of 442 participants read a self-defense case scenario and responded to questions pertaining to verdict, defendant culpability, legal element ratings, and sexist attitudes. Results revealed a four-way interaction, showing female participants prescribed the lowest guilt ratings to heterosexual female and homosexual male defendants who received expert testimony of the battered person syndrome. When heterosexual male defendants received expert testimony, ratings of guilt significantly increased. A multiple regression was conducted to determine whether legal and extra-legal factors predicted defendant culpability. Sexist attitudes (benevolent sexism towards men and women) and certain legal elements were predictive of defendant culpability. Limitations and implications are discussed. Study findings were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society (APLS), Jacksonville, Florida (March, 2008).     

The Logic of Sexism Among Police

This research assumes an interpretive point of view to examine the underlying logic of sexist ideology among police. It is suggested that women police crystallize meanings of certain cultural oppositions in terms of gender categories. Female-male dichotomies become the basis for reading oppositions that are primarily organizational and these in turn are mediated by higher level meanings and unconscious fantasies about men and women. Men's sexist attitudes and behaviors towards policewomen are examined in terms of these historically specific and situationally derived cultural and unconscious meanings.     

Jurors'Evaluations of Expert Testimony: Judging the Messenger and the Message

Jurors are laypersons with no specific expert knowledge, yet they are routinely placed in situations in which they need to critically evaluate complex expert testimony. This paper examines jurors'reactions to experts who testify in civil trials and the factors jurors identify as important to expert credibility. Based on in-depth qualitative analyses of interviews with 55 jurors in 7 civil trials, we develop a comprehensive model of the key factors jurors incorporate into the process of evaluating expert witnesses and their testimony. Contrary to the frequent criticism that jurors primarily evaluate expert evidence in terms of its subjective characteristics, the results of our study indicate that jurors consider both the messenger and the message in the course of evaluating the expert's credibility.     

The impact of different types of expert scientific testimony on mock jurors’ liability verdicts

Participants in two experiments acted as jurors for a personal-injury case containing different types of expert testimony. In both experiments, the defendant was more likely to obtain a verdict in his favor when his expert presented anecdotal case histories than when the expert presented experimental data. Participants’ liability judgments were correlated with their perceptions of the experts’ credibility (experiments 1 and 2) and were moderated somewhat by their need for cognition and preference for numerical information (experiment 2). The results are discussed in terms of reasoning heuristics such as the base-rate fallacy.     

Ambivalent sexism,empathy and law enforcement attitudes towards partner violence against women among male police officers

Police attitudes towards partner violence against women (PVAW) can play an important role in their evaluation and responses to this type of violence. The present study aims to examine ambivalent sexism and empathy as determinants of male police officers' law enforcement attitudes towards PVAW. The study sample was composed by 404 male police officers. Results suggested that male police officers scoring low in benevolent sexism expressed a general preference for unconditional law enforcement (i.e. regardless of the victim's willingness to press charges against the offender), whereas those scoring high in benevolent sexism expressed a preference for conditional law enforcement (i.e. depending on the willingness of the victim to press charges against the offender). Results also showed that police officers scoring high in empathy and low in hostile sexism were those who expressed a general preference for unconditional law enforcement. The presence of sexist attitudes and low levels of empathy among some police officers, and their influence on law enforcement attitudes, highlights not only the importance of specific training, but also the need to pay attention to the selection process of police officers dealing with PVAW.     

Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases

We presented participants with syndromal, witness credibility, or anatomically detailed doll evidence to determine (a) whether these different types of expert evidence exert differential influence on participants' judgments and (b) whether the influence of this evidence could be better explained by the relative scientific status or the probabilistic qualities of the research presented. Additionally, we investigated whether a strong or weak cross-examination of the expert would be more successful in discrediting the information provided in the expert's testimony. Findings suggest that participants are less influenced by expert testimony based on probability data (i.e., syndromal evidence) than by expert testimony based on case history data (i.e., credibility of anatomically detailed doll evidence). Participant responses did not differ as a function of the strength of the cross-examination of the expert. As expected, women were more likely to respond in a pro-prosecution direction than were men. Implications for the use of expert evidence in child sexual abuse cases are discussed.     

Psychopathy,expert testimony,and indeterminate sentences: Exploring the relationship between Psychopathy Checklist‐Revised testimony and trial outcome in Canada

Purpose. Psychopathy, as measured by the Hare Psychopathy Checklist‐Revised (PCL‐R), has the potential to inform judges attempting to preventatively detain Canada's highest risk offenders. However, studies examining the stigma of the psychopathy label give reason to exercise caution when expert witnesses introduce PCL‐R scores into their testimony. Methods. Judges' written or oral judgments were gathered from a publically available database in Canada. Dangerous offender hearings (N = 136) were examined to determine how factors within expert witness testimony were related to sentences of indeterminate or determinate length. Results. Results show a trend for PCL‐R scores to be related to trial outcome. Specifically, psychopathy diagnoses were correlated to experts' ratings of treatment amenability which were in turn related to trial outcome. In addition, experts tended to show partisan allegiance in the way they scored offenders on the PCL‐R. Conclusion. Discussion advocates a measure of caution when using PCL‐R testimony in an adversarial court context. Further research clarifying the role psychopathy plays in court decisions is also encouraged.     

Impact of Defense-Only and Opposing Eyewitness Experts on Juror Judgments

Previous research shows that expert testimony on eyewitness memory influences mock-juror judgments. We examined the extent to which opposing expert testimony mitigates the impact of defense-only expert testimony. Participants (N = 497) viewed a video-taped trial involving an eyewitness identification and individually rendered verdicts and evaluated the evidence and the experts. We manipulated the Foils (unbiased vs. biased) and Instructions (unbiased vs. biased) of the lineup and Expert Testimony (no expert vs. defense-only expert vs. opposing experts). Expert testimony did not significantly influence juror judgments, but the opposing expert testimony diminished the credibility of the defense expert in the eyes of the jurors. Results point to the need for further research on conditions that qualify the impact of expert testimony.     

When Children are the Least Vulnerable to False Memories: A True Report or a Case of Autosuggestion?

In this case report, a legal case revolving around the reliability of statements given by a 6‐year‐old girl is described. She claimed to have witnessed her mother being murdered by her father. Two psychological experts provided diametrically opposed opinions about the reliability of her statements. One expert, a clinician, opined that the girl's statements were based on autosuggestion whereas the other expert, a memory researcher, stated that autosuggestion was unlikely to have played a role. This case and the analysis of the experts' opinions illustrate what may happen when experts in court are unaware of the recent literature on (false) memory. That is, recent studies show that autosuggestion is less likely to occur in young children than in older children and adults. The current case stresses the importance and implications of relying on memory experts in cases concerning the reliability of eyewitness statements.     

Investigating the demographic and attitudinal predictors of rape myth acceptance in U.K. Police officers: developing an evidence-base for training and professional development

Efforts to understand rape myth acceptance (RMA) as a cognitive framework in police, unifying key cognitive/attitudinal and demographic factors into one coherent model, are lacking. Using a cross-sectional survey design, predictors of RMA were assessed by linear hierarchical regression, including demographic (age, length of service, gender, experience of specialist rape investigation training) and attitudinal factors (hostility towards women, sexist attitudes, and explicit power/sex beliefs) among officers from a large U.K. police force (N = 912). The final model explained 44% of variance in RMA. Gender and previous specialist training significantly predicted RMA, but to a much lesser extent than attitudinal variables, which explain 42% of RMA variance. Only specialist rape investigation training remained significant when attitudinal variables were added. The greater contribution from attitudinal variables suggests that efforts to address RMA in officers must consider the broader attitudinal structures underpinning RMA. Findings highlight implications for evidence-based training for rape investigators.     

Is the Expert Admissibility Game Fixed?: Judicial Gatekeeping of Fire and Arson Evidence

Anecdotal evidence claims that in criminal cases, trial judges admit the prosecution's expert witnesses more readily than the defendants', and in civil cases the reverse is true; judges exclude plaintiffs' experts more often than civil defendants' experts. This occurs despite the fact that, with few exceptions, the same rules of admissibility apply to all parties and, in most jurisdictions, across criminal and civil cases. This article empirically tests this differential by reviewing judicial decisions to admit or exclude evidence holding the type of expert testimony constant, fire and arson evidence, across criminal and civil cases in the United States. The study examines the admissibility of fire and arson investigation experts in criminal and civil cases across all legal parties in fifty‐seven federal and state opinions in the United States. The findings offer empirical support of a bias in criminal cases and in civil cases which present expert witnesses at trial, and is less pronounced, but still evident, on appeal. Specifically, the role of the party that offers the evidence has a profound effect on whether arson evidence is admitted, even when factors around the judge's political affiliation, attorney experience, expert qualifications, and rules of evidence are taken into account.     

Gender-Based Differences

One of the most pressing concerns of women's rights groups is the reform of sexist attitudes and practices within the criminal justice system. One method of redressing the problem would be a major increase in the number of women in positions of power within the criminal justice system. This study casts doubt on the effectiveness of this strategy to meliorate the sexist attitudes and practices. Not only were the attitudes of female probation officers regarding sexual assault more benign than those of their male colleagues, but also sex offenders processed by female officers received significantly more lenient sentences.     

Sexual coercion among adolescents: victims and perpetrators

Adolescence is a transitional period when the pressure to engage in romantic and sexual relationships can leave teenagers feeling confused and at risk for sexual coercion. Our studies investigated characteristics of male and female perpetrators and victims of peer sexual coercion, focusing on self-esteem, sexist attitudes, and involvement in nonsexual deviant behaviors, such as drugs and alcohol. The participants, all of whom were in Grades 8 to 11, were from Quebec, Canada. They completed self-report measures. Female victims had lower self-esteem and more sexist attitudes than other female participants, whereas male perpetrators had more sexist attitudes than other male participants. Furthermore, all victims and perpetrators were more likely to be involved in other types of nonsexual deviance.     

Educator of the court: the role of the expert witness in cases involving autism spectrum disorder

The role of the expert witness in legal contexts is to educate fact finders of the court who may have no background in the expert’s area. This role can be especially difficult for those who assist in cases involving individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). As expert assistance on ASD is crucial to ensuring just outcomes for individuals diagnosed with ASD, knowledge on how expert witnesses perceive and approach their roles, and what factors may influence these perceptions, is essential. This qualitative research utilizes semi-structured interviews with a sample of expert witnesses in cases involving ASD, analyzed using a grounded-theory constant-comparative analytic approach. Data reveal that experts appear to view their roles in court as reconstructionists, educators, myth-dispellers, and most of all, communicators, actively using their testimony to fill these roles in cases. These results also allow for the development of a model that illustrates two areas that coalesce to affect how experts view their roles in court: (1) personal experiences of experts in cases in which they have been involved; and (2) influences outside experts’ personal experiences, such as their general opinions or observations regarding ASD and its relationship to the criminal justice system.     

Effects of prior knowledge and expert statement on belief in recovered memories: an international perspective

We tested the hypothesis that beliefs in the purported attributes of recovered memories of child sexual abuse (CSA) are associated with knowledge of the "recovered/false memory debate", and that such beliefs will be related to assessments of the credibility of statements made by participants in a vignette about CSA. Participants from five countries (the United States, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Israel) responded to a questionnaire regarding beliefs about recovered memory as well as self-reported exposure to and knowledge of the debate. In addition, they assessed the credibility of statements made by a daughter (reporting recovery of memories of sexual abuse by her father), her father (denying the allegation and accusing the daughter's therapist of implanting in her false "memories" of abuse), and two experts (each supporting one of the two protagonists). We found that prior knowledge of the debate across countries was linked to beliefs in specific attributes of recovered memories and to a subset of the credibility assessments of statements made by the protagonists and their experts. For individuals, however, credibility assessments were unrelated to knowledge of the debate, but they were related to beliefs about memory recovery. Finally, credibility of the protagonists' statements was differentially associated with those made by the daughter's and the father's experts. The results suggest that whereas familiarity with the debate does not affect the credibility of the statements made by the complainant and the accused, expert testimony does, as has been found in prior research. The psycholegal implications of this conclusion are discussed.     

Perceptions of Sexual Harassment: The Effects of Gender,Legal Standard,and Ambivalent Sexism

This research tests the possibility that the reasonable woman as compared to the reasonable person test of hostile work environment sexual harassment interacts with hostile and benevolent sexist beliefs and under some conditions triggers protectionist attitudes toward women who complain of sexual harassment, We administered to a sample of undergraduates the ambivalent sexism inventory along with the fact patterns in two harassment cases and asked them to make legally relevant decisions under either the reasonable woman or person standard. We found that those high in hostile sexism, and women, found more evidence of harassment. However, those high in benevolent sexism did not exhibit the hostile sexism effects. Although men were less sensitive to the reasonable woman standard than women, under some conditions the reasonable woman standard enabled both genders to find greater evidence of harassment. The results are discussed from the perspectives of law and psychology.     

迈向“过程导向信任”的刑事死因鉴定争议解决机制

中国当今刑事鉴定争议频发。其中当事人与办案机关鉴定冲突最剧烈、不满手段最多样,且其社会影响最大者,目前主要聚集在部分死因鉴定领域。该类鉴定争议既滋生过度重复鉴定,更促使部分当事人上访、闹事,一度还以此衍生出暴力性群体事件。死因鉴定争议的发生,主要源于影响鉴定意见可信性的一系列因素,而非仅因为、甚或主要基于鉴定意见的客观可靠性。因此,为重塑中国刑事死因鉴定的公信力,必须走向从实践出发的法律研究与制度建构立场,以回应办案部门创建、并亟须理论提炼与立法改良的“过程导向信任”的鉴定争议解决机制。其关键措施,是通过死因鉴定程序的开放性与当事人双方（包括其聘请的法医专家）的充分参与性,从而实现鉴定意见的可信性或当事人可接受性;并以此领域的鉴定争议解决为突破口,进行鉴定制度改革,以提升中国整个刑事司法鉴定的公信力与可信性。     

Victim age,attractiveness and,abuse history as factors in the perception of a hypothetical child sexual abuse case

Abstract

This study examines the effect of victim age, victim attractiveness, the victim's abuse history and respondent gender have on attributions of blame and credibility towards a female victim in a hypothetical child sexual abuse case. A total of 397 respondents from a community sample read a hypothetical child sexual abuse (CSA) scenario in which victim age, victim attractiveness and the victim's abuse history were manipulated. Respondents then completed a 16-item blame attribution questionnaire. Several predictions were made. First, a 10-year-old victim would be deemed less blameworthy and more credible than a 15-year-old victim. Secondly, an attractive victim would be viewed more positively, and attributed less blame, than an unattractive victim. Thirdly, a victim with previous history of being sexual abused—either by the same or different perpetrators—would be deemed more culpable for their own CSA than a first time victims. Finally, female respondents were expected to take a more pro-victim and anti-perpetrator stance than males. Whilst comparatively few differences were found across victim attractiveness and abuse history. Overall findings were broadly in line with predictions. It was concluded that victim age and respondent gender play particularly important roles in the attribution of blame towards victims and perpetrators of child sexual abuse.     

The impact of judges' perceptions of credibility in fibromyalgia claims

Fibromyalgia (FM) is a confusing and controversial diagnosis, characterized by widespread pain and tenderness at specific anatomical sites. The cause of this syndrome is unknown, and the course of the condition is difficult to predict. Without a known cause, predictable course, or effective treatment, it is not surprising that FM is a contentious diagnosis from a medical perspective, as well as a civil litigation and disability insurance industry perspective. The purpose of this study was to investigate judges' perceptions of credibility in litigated cases involving FM claims in the Canadian courts, and the relation between perceived credibility and awards granted. A systematic review was conducted of every trial-by-judge litigated FM claim in Canada (N=194 cases) up to 2003. The cases were examined in relation to credibility factors. The role and responsibility of the plaintiff was central in claims involving issues of misrepresentation, fraud, non-disclosure, failure to mitigate, and contributory negligence. The presence of these issues suggested a possible decrease or loss in the claim as a result of the plaintiff's conduct. In regards to the actions of defendants, the presence of investigative and surveillance information alone did not affect the awards granted. However, the credibility of that information had a large effect on the amount of award granted. Plaintiff credibility played a similar role, indicating that plaintiffs perceived as more credible were typically granted greater awards. An examination of medical expert credibility revealed that judges appear to perceive experts as more credible overall than plaintiffs, regardless of the expert's role in the case.     

In Pursuit of an Expert Identity: A Case Study of Experts in the Historical Courtroom

There are certain areas of study where present-day semiotics of law can learn from history. This study examines the discursive history and historical courtroom discourse of expert witnesses in eighteenth-century American court. The aim of the study is to explore the use of linguistic strategies and resources in constructing an expert identity in relation to the factors which influence those choices. Instead of taking expertise as being lodged in the pre-given label, such as a doctor, this article argues that such an identity has to be constructed and negotiated, and reveals how such an identity is constructed and negotiated through trial talk during a hostile discursive environment. The historical courtroom is an interesting site in this regard, as it was the period when expert witnesses did not enjoy the same social status as their present-day peers, which came with the absence of discursive privileges as well. It is found that experts mainly relied on expansions of response as the resources to counterbalance skeptical attitudes and hostile attempts aimed to undermine their testimony that accompanied their vulnerable status and image and to gain discursive control during the interaction.