An Introduction to Psychology for Attorneys

O’Donohue, William; Beitz, Kendra; Levensky, Eric R.

doi:10.1016/b978-012524196-0/50003-6

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fourth, psychiatrists have greater experience of the courtroom than psychologists, and this may have an impact on their confidence in giving evidence. Fifth, there is great diversity and complexity concerning psychological evidence (O'Donohue, Beitz, & Levensky, 2004). Sixth, lawyers often have little understanding of psychometric tests and this can result in test findings being ridiculed (Tunstall, Gudjonsson, Eysenck, & Haward, 1982).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Criminal barristers' opinions and perceptions of mental health expert witnesses

Leslie

Young

Valentine

et al. 2007

Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate criminal barristers' opinions and perceptions of clinical psychologists and psychiatrists as expert witnesses. A questionnaire was developed and posted to 148 criminal barristers; 62 (42%) were returned. As predicted, the respondents reported significantly more contact with psychiatrists than clinical psychologists, and had more faith in the expert evidence of the former. However, content analysis revealed they were sometimes unaware of when dual mental health expertise was beneficial in court. Most respondents were in favour of accredited training for expert witnesses. Clarity of language, firm conclusions, impartiality, and consistency were considered important factors for good practice. The findings emphasise the importance of accredited (quality assured) training for expert witnesses as well as training and/or guidelines for legal professionals regarding the instruction of expert witnesses. There is also a need for those in the psychological community to market their skills and expertise more effectively.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Criminal barristers' opinions and perceptions of mental health expert witnesses

Leslie

Young

Valentine

et al. 2007

Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is because research groups are formed on the basis of a limited number of similarities among their members (e.g., "Hispanics"). Overemphasizing group membership risks stereotyping people because similarities among them do not reveal different causes of the similarities (e.g., some Hispanic students who leave college early might be poorly prepared academically while others might suffer from cultural stresses; Cervone et al 2007;O'Donohue et al 2004;Young 2007a). Individual differences contribute to the variability in research results found in all studies of groups (Krauss and Sales 2003).…”

Section: What Kind Of Knowledge Does Clinical Thinking Produce?mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The accusations against it echo the same accusations of subjectivity. Many experts portray clinical opinions as "art," based on no more than intuition (Gould and Martindale 2007;Krauss and Sales 2003;O'Donohue et al 2004;Poole and Lamb 1998). Intuition is "the act of knowing without the use of rational processes" (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1970).…”

Section: What Kind Of Knowledge Does Clinical Thinking Produce?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Roles of Scientific and Clinical Epistemologies in Forensic Mental Health Assessments

Milchman

2011

Psychol. Inj. and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article discusses the respective contributions of scientific and clinical epistemologies to formulating expert opinions in personal injury and other forensic cases involving psychological testimony. It argues that each epistemology provides specific truth criteria that, though different, are both objective. It analyzes the reasons that some experts malign clinical judgments; compares each epistemology's approach to truth; and identifies their respective roles in forensic assessments. It expands the scientific meanings of internal and external validity so that they apply to clinical evidence and then uses them to propose a schema for supporting or falsifying expert opinions as a whole. It concludes by discussing risks created by preferring one epistemology to the other, rather than appreciating their complementary roles.

show abstract

“…The importance of conducting eyewitness research stems from the recognition that eyewitness reports may be vulnerable to inaccuracies, despite their considerable influence in criminal justice proceedings [ 2 – 4 ]. Consequently, it is crucial to comprehend the precision of eyewitness reports and facilitate their interpretation to guarantee equitable verdicts.…”

Section: Potential Use Of the Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eyewitness identifications of suspected criminals are often crucial evidence in criminal proceedings. However, it is frequently observed that eyewitnesses exhibit suboptimal accuracy in identification tasks [1][2][3][4][5], and misidentifications of eyewitnesses represent a major factor contributing to wrongful convictions [6]. Since the 1970s, international experimental psychology research has been dedicated to investigating factors that impact person identification, with the aim of mitigating the occurrence of erroneous identifications [2][3][4]7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Jena Eyewitness Research Stimuli (JERS): A database of mock theft videos involving two perpetrators, presented in 2D and VR formats with corresponding 2D and 3D lineup images

Kruse,

Schweinberger

2023

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Empirical investigations into eyewitness identification accuracy typically necessitate the creation of novel stimulus materials, which can be a challenging and time-consuming task. To facilitate this process and promote further research in this domain, we introduce the new Jena Eyewitness Research Stimuli (JERS). They comprise six video sequences depicting a mock theft committed by two different perpetrators, available in both two-dimensional (2D) and 360° format, combined with the corresponding lineup images presented in 2D or three-dimensional (3D) format. Images of one suspect and eight fillers are available for each lineup. We evaluated lineup fairness by using mock eyewitness paradigm and noted a Tredoux’s E of 4.687 for Perpetrator 1 and 5.406 for Perpetrator 2. Moreover, no bias towards the perpetrators was observed in the lineups. We incorporated 360° videos and 3D lineup images to encourage the adoption of innovative data formats in experimental investigations of eyewitness accuracy. In particular, compatibility with Virtual Reality (VR) makes JERS a promising tool for advancing eyewitness research by enabling researchers to construct controlled environments that offer observers an immersive experience. JERS is freely accessible for the use of academic purposes via the Open Science Framework (OSF).

show abstract

An Introduction to Psychology for Attorneys

Cited by 3 publications

References 10 publications

Criminal barristers' opinions and perceptions of mental health expert witnesses

Criminal barristers' opinions and perceptions of mental health expert witnesses

The Roles of Scientific and Clinical Epistemologies in Forensic Mental Health Assessments

The Jena Eyewitness Research Stimuli (JERS): A database of mock theft videos involving two perpetrators, presented in 2D and VR formats with corresponding 2D and 3D lineup images

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About