示范有助于对方专家证词使陪审员对科学证据的有效性更加敏感

Angela M. Jones, M. B. Kovera
{"title":"示范有助于对方专家证词使陪审员对科学证据的有效性更加敏感","authors":"Angela M. Jones, M. B. Kovera","doi":"10.1080/15228932.2015.1090225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study examined whether a demonstrative (visual aid) could increase the ability of opposing expert testimony to sensitize jurors to variations in the validity of scientific evidence. Undergraduates (N = 246) viewed a videotaped reenactment of an armed robbery trial with an eyewitness identification as the key evidence. Both the validity of the defense expert’s study on eyewitness identification and the type of opposing expert testimony varied. Although participants were sensitive to the scientific quality of the defense expert’s testimony when an opposing expert addressed the defense expert’s study, regardless of the presence of a demonstrative, jurors’ verdicts were sensitive only when the opposing expert used a demonstrative to communicate about validity issues. Thus, an opposing expert who addresses a defense expert’s study with or without a demonstrative may be sufficient to improve jurors’ understanding of scientific evidence, but the addition of a demonstrative is necessary to translate this knowledge into verdict decisions.","PeriodicalId":89973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic psychology practice","volume":"15 1","pages":"401 - 422"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15228932.2015.1090225","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Demonstrative Helps Opposing Expert Testimony Sensitize Jurors to the Validity of Scientific Evidence\",\"authors\":\"Angela M. Jones, M. B. Kovera\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15228932.2015.1090225\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study examined whether a demonstrative (visual aid) could increase the ability of opposing expert testimony to sensitize jurors to variations in the validity of scientific evidence. Undergraduates (N = 246) viewed a videotaped reenactment of an armed robbery trial with an eyewitness identification as the key evidence. Both the validity of the defense expert’s study on eyewitness identification and the type of opposing expert testimony varied. Although participants were sensitive to the scientific quality of the defense expert’s testimony when an opposing expert addressed the defense expert’s study, regardless of the presence of a demonstrative, jurors’ verdicts were sensitive only when the opposing expert used a demonstrative to communicate about validity issues. Thus, an opposing expert who addresses a defense expert’s study with or without a demonstrative may be sufficient to improve jurors’ understanding of scientific evidence, but the addition of a demonstrative is necessary to translate this knowledge into verdict decisions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":89973,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of forensic psychology practice\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"401 - 422\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-10-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/15228932.2015.1090225\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of forensic psychology practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2015.1090225\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensic psychology practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2015.1090225","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

本研究考察了示范(视觉辅助)是否可以提高对方专家证词的能力,使陪审员对科学证据有效性的变化敏感。大学生(N = 246)观看了一段录像,再现了一场持械抢劫的审判,并以目击者的指认作为关键证据。辩方专家研究目击证人鉴定的效度与对方专家证言的类型存在差异。尽管当对方专家陈述辩护专家的研究时,参与者对辩护专家证词的科学质量敏感,无论是否存在演示,陪审员的裁决只有在对方专家使用演示来沟通有效性问题时才敏感。因此,如果对方专家在辩方专家的研究中使用或不使用举证,可能足以提高陪审员对科学证据的理解,但要将这种知识转化为判决决定,举证的添加是必要的。
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
A Demonstrative Helps Opposing Expert Testimony Sensitize Jurors to the Validity of Scientific Evidence
This study examined whether a demonstrative (visual aid) could increase the ability of opposing expert testimony to sensitize jurors to variations in the validity of scientific evidence. Undergraduates (N = 246) viewed a videotaped reenactment of an armed robbery trial with an eyewitness identification as the key evidence. Both the validity of the defense expert’s study on eyewitness identification and the type of opposing expert testimony varied. Although participants were sensitive to the scientific quality of the defense expert’s testimony when an opposing expert addressed the defense expert’s study, regardless of the presence of a demonstrative, jurors’ verdicts were sensitive only when the opposing expert used a demonstrative to communicate about validity issues. Thus, an opposing expert who addresses a defense expert’s study with or without a demonstrative may be sufficient to improve jurors’ understanding of scientific evidence, but the addition of a demonstrative is necessary to translate this knowledge into verdict 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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Hindsight Bias in Forensic Mental Health Novices and Experts: An Exploratory Study Medical Knowledge-Related Suicide in Hemodialysis Therapy Among Older Adults with Severe Comorbidities - A Case Report The Role of Nurses in the Implementation of Positive Behavior Support in a Secure Forensic Setting ‘Honor’ and Its Upholders: Perpetrator Types in ‘Honor’-Based Abuse Exploring Extreme Violence: Forensic and Psychiatric Analysis of Overkill and Brutal Homicide Cases in Türkiye
×
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