对在法庭上提供临床信息的男性和女性临床心理学家和精神病学家专家证人的偏见和可信度的看法

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q1 LAW International Journal of Law and Psychiatry Pub Date : 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ijlp.2024.102016
{"title":"对在法庭上提供临床信息的男性和女性临床心理学家和精神病学家专家证人的偏见和可信度的看法","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.ijlp.2024.102016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Expert witness credentials and gender have independently been shown to influence jurors' perceptions of expert witness credibility and legal decision-making. This study examined how manipulations of expert witness gender (Male/Female) and profession (Consultant Clinical Psychologist/Consultant Psychiatrist) together affected mock jurors' perceptions of expert witness credibility, judgements, and decision-making. Mock jurors (<em>N</em> = 182; 80.9 % were White) were recruited from England and Wales and were randomly assigned to watch a video-recorded mock expert witness testimony. Participants rated the expert witness using the Witness Credibility Scale and reported the likelihood of assigning the defendant to a guilty verdict. Results showed significant interaction effects of expert witness gender and profession on jurors' perceptions of their likeability, trustworthiness, knowledge, and total credibility. Male psychiatrists, followed by female clinical psychologists, received the highest scores in most credibility variables. Varied main effects of expert witness gender and profession on credibility were also found. Overall, jurors' ratings of expert witness credibility, when controlled by the expert's gender and profession, predicted jurors' determination of guilt. This study provides evidence of a potential interaction effect between profession and gender in expert witness credibility and supports existing research linking credibility with ultimate decision-making. More research is needed to understand jurors' unconscious biases and cognitive processes in making legal decisions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47930,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Law and Psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252724000657/pdfft?md5=d513bed6054e8c1ec0330e144eab9f7b&pid=1-s2.0-S0160252724000657-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perceptions of bias and credibility of male and female clinical psychologist and psychiatrist expert witnesses presenting clinical information in the courtroom\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijlp.2024.102016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Expert witness credentials and gender have independently been shown to influence jurors' perceptions of expert witness credibility and legal decision-making. This study examined how manipulations of expert witness gender (Male/Female) and profession (Consultant Clinical Psychologist/Consultant Psychiatrist) together affected mock jurors' perceptions of expert witness credibility, judgements, and decision-making. Mock jurors (<em>N</em> = 182; 80.9 % were White) were recruited from England and Wales and were randomly assigned to watch a video-recorded mock expert witness testimony. Participants rated the expert witness using the Witness Credibility Scale and reported the likelihood of assigning the defendant to a guilty verdict. Results showed significant interaction effects of expert witness gender and profession on jurors' perceptions of their likeability, trustworthiness, knowledge, and total credibility. Male psychiatrists, followed by female clinical psychologists, received the highest scores in most credibility variables. Varied main effects of expert witness gender and profession on credibility were also found. Overall, jurors' ratings of expert witness credibility, when controlled by the expert's gender and profession, predicted jurors' determination of guilt. This study provides evidence of a potential interaction effect between profession and gender in expert witness credibility and supports existing research linking credibility with ultimate decision-making. More research is needed to understand jurors' unconscious biases and cognitive processes in making legal decisions.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47930,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Law and Psychiatry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252724000657/pdfft?md5=d513bed6054e8c1ec0330e144eab9f7b&pid=1-s2.0-S0160252724000657-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Law and Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252724000657\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Law and Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252724000657","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

专家证人的资历和性别已分别被证明会影响陪审员对专家证人可信度和法律决策的看法。本研究考察了专家证人的性别(男性/女性)和职业(临床心理咨询师/精神科咨询师)如何共同影响模拟陪审员对专家证人可信度、判断和决策的看法。模拟陪审员(N = 182;80.9% 为白人)来自英格兰和威尔士,他们被随机分配观看录制的模拟专家证人证词视频。参与者使用证人可信度量表对专家证人进行评分,并报告作出被告有罪判决的可能性。结果显示,专家证人的性别和职业对陪审员对其亲和力、可信度、知识和总体可信度的看法有明显的交互影响。在大多数可信度变量中,男性精神病学家得分最高,其次是女性临床心理学家。专家证人的性别和职业对可信度的主效应也各不相同。总体而言,当专家证人的性别和职业受到控制时,陪审员对专家证人可信度的评分可预测陪审员是否有罪。本研究提供了专家证人可信度中职业和性别之间潜在互动效应的证据,并支持将可信度与最终决策联系起来的现有研究。要了解陪审员在做出法律决定时的无意识偏见和认知过程,还需要更多的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Perceptions of bias and credibility of male and female clinical psychologist and psychiatrist expert witnesses presenting clinical information in the courtroom

Expert witness credentials and gender have independently been shown to influence jurors' perceptions of expert witness credibility and legal decision-making. This study examined how manipulations of expert witness gender (Male/Female) and profession (Consultant Clinical Psychologist/Consultant Psychiatrist) together affected mock jurors' perceptions of expert witness credibility, judgements, and decision-making. Mock jurors (N = 182; 80.9 % were White) were recruited from England and Wales and were randomly assigned to watch a video-recorded mock expert witness testimony. Participants rated the expert witness using the Witness Credibility Scale and reported the likelihood of assigning the defendant to a guilty verdict. Results showed significant interaction effects of expert witness gender and profession on jurors' perceptions of their likeability, trustworthiness, knowledge, and total credibility. Male psychiatrists, followed by female clinical psychologists, received the highest scores in most credibility variables. Varied main effects of expert witness gender and profession on credibility were also found. Overall, jurors' ratings of expert witness credibility, when controlled by the expert's gender and profession, predicted jurors' determination of guilt. This study provides evidence of a potential interaction effect between profession and gender in expert witness credibility and supports existing research linking credibility with ultimate decision-making. More research is needed to understand jurors' unconscious biases and cognitive processes in making legal decisions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.70%
发文量
54
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Law and Psychiatry is intended to provide a multi-disciplinary forum for the exchange of ideas and information among professionals concerned with the interface of law and psychiatry. There is a growing awareness of the need for exploring the fundamental goals of both the legal and psychiatric systems and the social implications of their interaction. The journal seeks to enhance understanding and cooperation in the field through the varied approaches represented, not only by law and psychiatry, but also by the social sciences and related disciplines.
期刊最新文献
Recent research involving consent, alcohol intoxication, and memory: Implications for expert testimony in sexual assault cases Comparison of sociodemographic, clinical, and alexithymia characteristics of schizophrenia patients with and without criminal records Assessing mental capacity in the context of abuse and neglect: A relational lens Mediating the court procedural justice–delinquency relationship with certainty perceptions and legitimacy beliefs RECAPACITA project: Comparing neuropsychological profiles in people with severe mental disorders, with and without capacity modification
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1