Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: A social-cognitive analysis.

Brekke, Nancy; Borgida, Eugene

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.3.372

Cited by 164 publications

(165 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

153

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Rather, there was a clear trend for females to be very confident in their verdict that the respondent met the dangerousness standard, regardless of situational factors that were manipulated. The effects of gender are not surprising, given that research by Edens (2003, 2005) has shown gender to be relevant in SVP civil commitment decisions, and that other jury decision-making research has shown women to be more conviction prone than men in child sexual abuse cases (Bottoms & Goodman, 1994;Kovera et al, 1997) and in rape cases (Brekke & Borgida, 1988;Schutte & Hosch, 1997; see also Kovera et al, 1999). As a result, the findings have implications for voir dire decisions in these types of case.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…The responses of participants exposed to GPJ testimony tended to mirror those who heard clinical testimony. The difference between GPJ and clinical testimony participants was not significant in either the Gender was included as an independent variable because gender effects have been obtained in previous jury decision-making research studies related to sex offenses (Bottoms & Goodman, 1994;Brekke & Borgida, 1988;Guy & Edens, 2003Kovera, Gresham, Borgida, Gray, & Ragan, 1997;Kovera, McAuliff, & Hebert, 1999), and a meta-analysis has demonstrated that female jurors may be more conviction prone in cases involving sexual abuse (Schutte & Hosch, 1997). Edens (2003, 2006) also found gender differences in the impact of expert testimony that used the term ''psychopathy.''…”

Section: Dangerousness Ratingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Determining dangerousness in sexually violent predator evaluations: cognitive–experiential self‐theory and juror judgments of expert testimony

Lieberman

Krauss

Kyger

et al. 2007

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Past research examining the effects of expert testimony on the future dangerousness of a defendant in death penalty sentencing found that jurors are more influenced by less scientific clinical expert testimony and tend to devalue scientific actuarial testimony. This study was designed to determine whether these findings extend to civil commitment trials for sexual offenders and to test a theoretical rationale for this effect. In addition, we investigated the influence of a recently developed innovation in risk assessment procedures, Guided Professional Judgment (GPJ) instruments. Consistent with a cognitive-experiential self-theory based explanation, mock jurors motivated to process information in an experiential condition were more influenced by clinical testimony, while mock jurors in a rational mode were more influenced by actuarial testimony. Participants responded to clinical and GPJ testimony in a similar manner. However, participants' gender exerted important interactive effects on dangerousness decisions, with male jurors showing the predicted effect while females did not. The policy implications of these findings are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Dangerousness Ratingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Determining dangerousness in sexually violent predator evaluations: cognitive–experiential self‐theory and juror judgments of expert testimony

Lieberman

Krauss

Kyger

et al. 2007

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies conducted in Western countries indicate that the gender differences on victim blame attribution show mixed results. Some studies show that males tend to blame rape victims more than females (Brekke & Borgida, 1988;Kleinke & Meyer, 1990), while others have found no gender difference (Krahe, 1988;Yarmey, 1985). The majority of these studies have examined the impact of gender on victim blame without taking into account the observers' cognitive characteristics (e.g., belief in rape myth).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Rape Myth Acceptance and Belief in a Just World on Victim Blame Attribution: A Study in Japan

Yamawaki

2009

An International Journal of Psychological Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the moderating role of rape myth acceptance (RMA) and belief in a just world (BJW) on victim blame attribution in either an alleged stranger or date rape case. As hypothesized, RMA and BJW were both significant predictors of victim blame behavior for the Japanese college students who participated in the study. Further, Japanese participants blamed the victim of date rape more than the victim of the stranger rape. The similarities and differences between findings from this study and those from Western countries are discussed.

show abstract

“…Sundby, 1997;Shuman, Whitaker, & Champagne, 1994) and laboratory-based designs (e.g. Brekke & Borgida, 1988). Although jury decisions are clearly affected by such testimony, the manner in which expert testimony influences jury decisions has received far less attention.…”

Section: Expert Testimony and Juror Decision-makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of rational and experiential information processing of expert testimony in death penalty cases

Krauss

Lieberman

Olson

2004

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Past research examining the effects of actuarial and clinical expert testimony on defendants' dangerousness in Texas death penalty sentencing has found that jurors are more influenced by less scientific pure clinical expert testimony and less influenced by more scientific actuarial expert testimony (Krauss & Lee, 2003; Krauss & Sales, 2001). By applying cognitive–experiential self‐theory (CEST) to juror decision‐making, the present study was undertaken in an attempt to offer a theoretical rationale for these findings. Based on past CEST research, 163 mock jurors were either directed into a rational mode or experiential mode of processing. Consistent with CEST and inconsistent with previous research using the same stimulus materials, results demonstrate that jurors in a rational mode of processing more heavily weighted actuarial expert testimony in their dangerousness assessments, while those jurors in the experiential condition were more influenced by clinical expert testimony. The policy implications of these findings are discussed. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: A social-cognitive analysis.

Cited by 164 publications

References 45 publications

Determining dangerousness in sexually violent predator evaluations: cognitive–experiential self‐theory and juror judgments of expert testimony

Determining dangerousness in sexually violent predator evaluations: cognitive–experiential self‐theory and juror judgments of expert testimony

The Role of Rape Myth Acceptance and Belief in a Just World on Victim Blame Attribution: A Study in Japan

The effects of rational and experiential information processing of expert testimony in death penalty cases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About