NCJ Number
153191
Journal
Law and Human Behavior Volume: 18 Issue: 6 Dated: (December 1994) Pages: 653-674
Date Published
1994
Length
22 pages
Annotation
This research presented participants with syndromal, witness credibility, or anatomically detailed doll evidence to determine whether different types of expert evidence exerted differential influence on participant judgments and whether the influence of this evidence could be better explained by the relative scientific status or probabilistic qualities of the reseach.
Abstract
Additionally, the research investigated whether a strong or a weak cross-examination of the expert would be more successful in discrediting information providing in the expert's testimony. The research sample included 161 undergraduates (101 women and 60 men) at the University of Minnesota. Participants watched a videotaped trial that consisted primarily of edited footage from an actual criminal trial in which the defendant had been accused of unlawful oral copulation and committing a lewd act with a child. The type of expert testimony delivered in the trial was manipulated by creating transcripts that varied the content of expert testimony. Participants watched the videotaped trial after completing a questionnaire describing their past involvement in judicial proceedings and their beliefs about children as witnesses and child sexual abuse. Participants were less influenced by expert testimony based on probability data (syndromal evidence) than by expert testimony based on case history data (credibility or anatomically detailed doll evidence). Participant responses did not differ as a function of the strength of expert cross-examination. As expected, women were more likely than men to respond in a pro-prosecution direction. Implications of the results for the use of expert evidence in child sexual abuse cases are discussed. An appendix contains additional information on expert evidence type and cross- examination manipulations. 71 references, 4 footnotes, and 2 figures