Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
J. Cacioppo, R. Petty, Jeffrey Feinstein, W. Jarvis (1996)
DISPOSITIONAL DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE MOTIVATION : THE LIFE AND TIMES OF INDIVIDUALS VARYING IN NEED FOR COGNITIONPsychological Bulletin, 119
S. Chaiken, Durairaj Maheswaran (1994)
Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment.Journal of personality and social psychology, 66 3
W. Thompson, Edward Schumann (1987)
Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trialsLaw and Human Behavior, 11
Keith Niedermeier, N. Kerr, L. Messé (1999)
Jurors' use of naked statistical evidence: Exploring bases and implications of the Wells EffectJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76
R. Petty, J. Cacioppo (1986)
The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion
V. Hamilton, R. Hastie, Steven Penrod, N. Pennington (1985)
Inside the Jury.Contemporary Sociology, 14
D. Kaye, J. Koehler (1991)
Can Jurors Understand Probabilistic EvidenceJournal of The Royal Statistical Society Series A-statistics in Society, 154
S. Gatowski, S. Dobbin, J. Richardson, G. Ginsburg, Mara Merlino, Veronica Dahir (2001)
Asking the Gatekeepers: A National Survey of Judges on Judging Expert Evidence in a Post-Daubert WorldLaw and Human Behavior, 25
R. Petty, J. Cacioppo (1984)
The Effects of Involvement on Responses to Argument Quantity and Quality: Central and Peripheral Routes to PersuasionJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46
(1974)
Heuristics and Biases
D. L. Faigman, A. J. Baglioni (1988)
Bayes’ theorem in the trial process: Instructing jurors on the value of statistical evidenceLaw and Human Behavior, 12
R. E. Petty, J. T. Cacioppo (1986)
Advances in experimental social psychology
Lora Levett, M. Kovera (2008)
The Effectiveness of Opposing Expert Witnesses for Educating Jurors about Unreliable Expert EvidenceLaw and Human Behavior, 32
B. Smith, Steven Penrod, Amy Otto, R. Park (1996)
Jurors' use of probabilistic evidenceLaw and Human Behavior, 20
G. Fong, D. Krantz, R. Nisbett (1986)
The effects of statistical training on thinking about everyday problemsCognitive Psychology, 18
W. C. Thompson, E. L. Schumann (1987)
Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: The prosecutor’s fallacy and the defense attorney’s fallacyLaw and Human Behavior, 11
S. Chaiken, A. Liberman, A. Eagly (1989)
Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context.
J. Cacioppo, R. Petty (1982)
The need for cognition.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42
(1973)
On the psychology of prediction
David Faigman, A. Baglioni (1988)
Bayes' theorem in the trial processLaw and Human Behavior, 12
A. Tversky, D. Kahneman (1974)
Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biasesScience, 185
B. McAuliff, M. Kovera (2008)
Juror need for cognition and sensitivity to methodological flaws in expert evidenceJournal of Applied Social Psychology, 38
S. Ratneshwar, S. Chaiken, S. Swan, Tina Lowrey (1991)
Comprehension's Role in Persuasion: The Case of Its Moderating Effect on the Persuasive Impact of Source CuesJournal of Consumer Research, 18
S. Chaiken, A. Liberman, A. Eagly (1989)
Unintended thought
J. Goodman (1992)
Jurors’ comprehension and assessment of probabilistic evidenceAmerican Journal of Trial Advocacy, 16
Jennifer Groscup, Steven Penrod, C. Studebaker, M. Huss, Kevin O’Neil (2002)
THE EFFECTS OF DAUBERT ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY IN STATE AND FEDERAL CRIMINAL CASESPsychology, Public Policy and Law, 8
J. Schklar, S. Diamond (1999)
Juror Reactions to DNA Evidence: Errors and ExpectanciesLaw and Human Behavior, 23
G. Wells (1992)
Naked Statistical Evidence of Liability: Is Subjective Probability Enough?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62
M. B. Brewer (2000)
Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology
M. Kovera, B. McAuliff, K. Hebert (1999)
Reasoning about scientific evidence: effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case.The Journal of applied psychology, 84 3
M. Kovera, April Gresham, Eugene Borgida, Ellen Gray, Pamela Regan (1997)
Does expert psychological testimony inform or influence juror decision making? A social cognitive analysis.The Journal of applied psychology, 82 1
R. Petty, J. Cacioppo, R. Goldman (1981)
Personal involvement as a determinant of argument based persuasionJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41
R. Hamill, T. Wilson, R. Nisbett (1980)
Insensitivity to sample bias: Generalizing from atypical casesJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39
M. Kovera, Melissa Russano, B. McAuliff (2002)
Assessment of the commonsense psychology underlying Daubert: Legal decision makers' abilities to evaluate expert evidence in hostile work environment cases.Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 8
M. Kovera, B. McAuliff (2000)
The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: are judges effective gatekeepers?The Journal of applied psychology, 85 4
S. Chaiken (1980)
Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39
M. Brewer, W. Crano (2000)
Research Design and Issues of Validity
M. B. Kovera, A. W. Gresham, E. Borgida, E. Gray, P. C. Regan (1997)
Does expert testimony inform or influence juror decision-making? A social cognitive analysisJournal of Applied Psychology, 82
P. Lachenbruch (1989)
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.)Journal of the American Statistical Association, 84
D. Mill, Thomas Gray, D. Mandel (1994)
Influence of Research Methods and Statistics Courses on Everyday Reasoning, Critical Abilities, and Belief in Unsubstantiated PhenomenaCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 26
Laurie Rudman, E. Borgida (1995)
The afterglow of construct accessibility: The behavioral consequences of priming men to view women as sexual objectsJournal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31
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.
Law and Human Behavior – Springer Journals
Published: Jun 28, 2008
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.