Methodological Considerations in Pretrial Publicity Research: Is the Medium the Message?

Two methodological issues within the pretrial publicity (PTP) literature were examined in the present experiment: the effect of emotional versus factual PTP and the effect of presenting PTP through different media. Emotional and factual PTP were constructed that differed in level of emotionality, but produced the same degree of bias. The PTP was presented in either a videotaped or written format. Although there was a significantly biasing effect of PTP overall compared to a control condition, no significant difference was found either between factual and emotional PTP or between video and written PTP.     

Juror Sensitivity to the Cross-Race Effect

Black and White mock jurors' sensitivity to the cross-race effect was investigated by varying the race of the eyewitness in a simulated murder trial of a Black defendant. Participants heard an audiotape of a trial after which they rendered a verdict and rated the credibility of the witnesses. White participants found the prosecution witnesses (including the eyewitness) more credible, and the defense witness less credible, than did Black participants; they were also more likely to find the defendant guilty. The Black eyewitness was perceived as more credible than was the White eyewitness, but eyewitness race had no effect on verdict. These results are consistent with the literature indicating that jurors of different races reach different verdicts, and also that jurors are relatively insensitive to factors that affect eyewitness testimony, such as the cross-race effect.     

Decision-Making About Volitional Impairment in Sexually Violent Predators

The Kansas v. Hendricks (1997) decision, in which the Supreme Court authorized post-sentence civil commitment for certain sex offenders, appeared to be constitutionally legitimized by limiting the class of offenders eligible for this special form of civil commitment to those who are "unable to control" their dangerousness. Nowhere in the available record, however, did the Court elucidate what they meant by this notion of volitional impairment. This study sought to examine factors that legal professionals (n=43), psychologists (n=40), and mock jurors (n=76) deem most relevant to a determination of sex offender volitional impairment. Participants, who were randomly assigned to a sexual predator commitment or an insanity hearing context, read a series of 16 vignettes that described a pedophilic offender and included combinations of variables hypothesized to be related to judgments of volitional impairment. Results suggested that participants, who as a group made remarkably high estimates of likelihood of future sexual violence, considered verbalization of control, history of sexual violence, and the context of the hearing as highly relevant to determinations of volitional impairment. Implications for policy and practice are explored.     

Analyzing the Use of Race and Ethnicity in Biomedical Research from a Local Community Perspective

Lost in the debate over the use of racial and ethnic categories in biomedical research is community-level analysis of how these categories function and influence health. Such analysis offers a powerful critique of national and transnational categories usually used in biomedical research such as "African-American" and "Native American." Ethnographic research on local African-American and Native American communities in Oklahoma shows the importance of community-level analysis. Local ("intra-community") health practices tend to be shared by members of an everyday interactional community without regard to racial or ethnic identity. Externally created ("extra-community") practices tend to be based on the existence of externally-imposed racial or ethnic identities, but African-American and Native American community members show similar patterns in their use of extra-community practices. Thus, membership in an interactional community seems more important than externally-imposed racial or ethnic identity in determining local health practices, while class may be as or more important in accounting for extra-community practices.     

The American Psychological Association's amicus curiae brief inPrice Waterhouse v. Hopkins

The use of amicus curiae briefs to inform the courts about the scientific literature requires merging scientific and legal perspectives. A brief submitted by the APA inPrice Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989) demonstrates how the values of the legal system can predominate over the values of science. The brief differed from a scientific review in three ways: (1) selective use of theories only when they supported the brief's position, (2) acceptance of Hopkins's contention concerning disputed facts, and (3) incomplete representation of the empirical literature. This article examines four of the main arguments in the brief. Half of the 33 studies cited in the brief for these arguments offered no support for the brief's position. In addition, the brief made no mention of a substantial body of research (78 studies) that directly contradicts these arguments.The authors would like to thank Ralph Alexander, Terri Baumgardner, Dennis Doverspike, Rick DeShon, Jan Dorsett, Lynn Kahney, Paul Levy, Robert Lord, Karen Maher, Marty Murphy, Jackie Szmania, and Linda Subich for their comments.