I Spy with My Little Eye: Jurors’ Detection of Internal Validity Threats in Expert Evidence

This experiment examined whether jury-eligible community members (N = 223) were able to detect internally invalid psychological science presented at trial. Participants read a simulated child sexual abuse case in which the defense expert described a study he had conducted on witness memory and suggestibility. We varied the study’s internal validity (valid, missing control group, confound, and experimenter bias) and publication status (published, unpublished). Expert evidence quality ratings were higher for the valid versus missing control group version only. Publication increased ratings of defendant guilt when the study was missing a control group. Variations in internal validity did not influence perceptions of child victim credibility or police interview quality. Participants’ limited detection of internal validity threats underscores the need to examine the effectiveness of traditional legal safeguards against junk science in court and improve the scientific reasoning ability of lay people and legal professionals.     

Global and Urban Engagement to Promote Social Justice: Reflections of One’s Faith Tradition

The current study compared perceptions on self-report measures of university mission identity and social justice attitudes between general university students (151 women, 63 men; M age = 19.72, SD = 1.91) and campus ministry students (64 women, 24 men; M age = 19.85, SD = 1.71). Results demonstrated that campus ministry students scored significantly higher on each of four social justice and global/urban engagement subscales. Implications suggest that perceptions of university mission-identity are linked to social justice attitudes, yet campus ministry students compared to regular student samples may be linked to a stronger emphasis on social justice through campus activity.     

All Anchors Are Not Created Equal: The Effects of Per Diem versus Lump Sum Requests on Pain and Suffering Awards

This experiment examined whether different quantifications of the same damage award request (175,000 lump sum,175,000 lump sum, 10/hour, 240/day,240/day, 7300/month for 2 years) influenced pain and suffering awards compared to no damage award request. Jury-eligible community members (N = 180) read a simulated personal injury case in which defendant liability already had been determined. Awards were: (1) larger for the 10/hour and10/hour and 175,000 conditions than the 7300/month and control conditions and (2) more variable for the7300/month and control conditions and (2) more variable for the 10/hour condition than the $7300/month and control conditions. No differences emerged on ratings of the parties, their attorneys, or the difficulty of picking a compensation figure. We discuss the theoretical implications of our data for the anchoring and adjustment literature and the practical implications for legal professionals.     

Social Justice and the University Community: Does Campus Involvement Make a Difference?

We examined perceptions on school sense of community and social justice attitudes among undergraduates (N = 427; 308 women, 115 men; M age = 19.72, SD = 1.91), and how year in school and club membership affected these constructs. Results demonstrated that involvement with a greater number of clubs was associated with having a stronger school sense of community and more positive social justice attitudes. Multiple regression analyses demonstrated that year in school did not significantly predict social justice attitudes. Results suggested that greater involvement and sense of school belonging might be linked to social justice attitudes.     

Can Jurors Recognize Missing Control Groups,Confounds, and Experimenter Bias in Psychological Science?

This study examined the ability of jury-eligible community members (N = 248) to detect internal validity threats in psychological science presented during a trial. Participants read a case summary in which an expert testified about a study that varied in internal validity (valid, missing control group, confound, and experimenter bias) and ecological validity (high, low). Ratings of expert evidence quality and expert credibility were higher for the valid versus missing control group versions only. Internal validity did not influence verdict or ratings of plaintiff credibility and no differences emerged as a function of ecological validity. Expert evidence quality, expert credibility, and plaintiff credibility were positively correlated with verdict. Implications for the scientific reasoning literature and for trials containing psychological science are discussed.     

When lawyers question children

This study assessed the impact of some complex question forms frequently used by attorneys who examine and cross-examine witnesses in the courtroom. Fifteen males and 15 females from each of four student populations (kindergarten, fourth grade, ninth grade, and college) viewed a videotaped incident and then responded to questions about the incident. Half the questions were asked in “law-yerese” (i.e., using complex question forms); the remaining half asked for the same information using simply phrased question forms of the same length. Lawyerese confused children, adolescents, and young adults alike. Questions that included multiple parts with mutually exclusive responses were the most difficult to answer; those that included negatives, double negatives or difficult vocabulary also posed significant problems. Results suggest that complex question forms impede truth-seeking and should be prohibited in court.