Dangerously misunderstood: Representative jurors' reactions to expert testimony on future dangerousness in a sexually violent predator trial.

Abstract

Past research examining the effects of psychological expert testimony concerning future dangerousness in sexual violent predator commitment trials has produced equivocal results on whether mock jurors are more influenced by intuitive clinical expert testimony than empirically based actuarial testimony. This study advances this line of research by examining these effects using a more ecologically valid sample of 156 venire jurors who watched a simulated, videotaped SVP trial based on a case transcript. As predicted, jurors were more influenced by the less scientific, clinical expert testimony. The data provided only limited support for a theoretical explanation based on Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory (CEST). The policy implications of these results are discussed.

Relationships Between Support for the Death Penalty and Cognitive Processing

“…Such studies suggest that community samples are not affected by their processing traits as much as college students. A comparison between the McCabe et al (2010) study and a similar study using a more ecologically valid sample of people called for jury duty (Krauss, McCabe, & Lieberman, 2012) further supports the notion that sample does matter and thus should be studied further; the current study aims to do this.…”

Explaining Gender Differences in Jurors' Reactions to Child Sexual Assault Cases

“…The combination of these ratings resulted in a six-point "degree of guilt" scale ranging from 1 (not guilty/very confident) to 6 (guilty/very confident) (M =4.01, SD =1.67). The degree-of-guilt scale is a commonly used supplemental measure of jurors' verdict tendencies (e.g., Kassin, Rigby, & Castillo, 1991;Krauss, McCabe, & Lieberman, 2012) that is more sensitive than a dichotomous verdict.…”

Advances in Psychology and Law

“…There were no differences between the experimental groups on ratings of credibility or level of science. Krauss, McCabe, and Lieberman (2012) replicated these findings in the context of a sex offender commitment proceeding, using venire jurors who watched videotaped expert testimony on risk. In this study, not only were participants in the clinical prediction condition more likely to reach an affirmative verdict, but they were also more confident in the clinical prediction than in the structured risk assessment condition (see also Krauss & Lee, 2003).…”