Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

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

Can Jurors Recognize Missing Control Groups, Confounds, and Experimenter Bias in Psychological... 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. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Law and Human Behavior Springer Journals

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

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/can-jurors-recognize-missing-control-groups-confounds-and-experimenter-X2P0poL5mR

References (41)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 by American Psychology-Law Society/Division 41 of the American Psychological Association
Subject
Psychology; Community and Environmental Psychology; Personality and Social Psychology; Criminology & Criminal Justice; Law and Psychology
ISSN
0147-7307
eISSN
1573-661X
DOI
10.1007/s10979-008-9133-0
pmid
18587635
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

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.

Journal

Law and Human BehaviorSpringer Journals

Published: Jun 28, 2008

There are no references for this article.