Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Can jurors recognize missing control groups, confounds, and experimenter bias in psychological science?
Law Hum Behav. 2009 Jun; 33(3):247-57.LH

Abstract

This study examined the ability of jury-eligible community members (N = 248) to detect internal validity threats in psychological science presented during a trial. Participants read a case summary in which an expert testified about a study that varied in internal validity (valid, missing control group, confound, and experimenter bias) and ecological validity (high, low). Ratings of expert evidence quality and expert credibility were higher for the valid versus missing control group versions only. Internal validity did not influence verdict or ratings of plaintiff credibility and no differences emerged as a function of ecological validity. Expert evidence quality, expert credibility, and plaintiff credibility were positively correlated with verdict. Implications for the scientific reasoning literature and for trials containing psychological science are discussed.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Psychology, California State University, Northridge, CA 91330-8255, USA. bradley.mcauliff@csun.eduNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.

Language

eng

PubMed ID

18587635

Citation

McAuliff, Bradley D., et al. "Can Jurors Recognize Missing Control Groups, Confounds, and Experimenter Bias in Psychological Science?" Law and Human Behavior, vol. 33, no. 3, 2009, pp. 247-57.
McAuliff BD, Kovera MB, Nunez G. Can jurors recognize missing control groups, confounds, and experimenter bias in psychological science? Law Hum Behav. 2009;33(3):247-57.
McAuliff, B. D., Kovera, M. B., & Nunez, G. (2009). Can jurors recognize missing control groups, confounds, and experimenter bias in psychological science? Law and Human Behavior, 33(3), 247-57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9133-0
McAuliff BD, Kovera MB, Nunez G. Can Jurors Recognize Missing Control Groups, Confounds, and Experimenter Bias in Psychological Science. Law Hum Behav. 2009;33(3):247-57. PubMed PMID: 18587635.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Can jurors recognize missing control groups, confounds, and experimenter bias in psychological science? AU - McAuliff,Bradley D, AU - Kovera,Margaret Bull, AU - Nunez,Gabriel, Y1 - 2008/06/28/ PY - 2007/10/11/received PY - 2008/03/03/accepted PY - 2008/7/1/pubmed PY - 2009/8/26/medline PY - 2008/7/1/entrez SP - 247 EP - 57 JF - Law and human behavior JO - Law Hum Behav VL - 33 IS - 3 N2 - This study examined the ability of jury-eligible community members (N = 248) to detect internal validity threats in psychological science presented during a trial. Participants read a case summary in which an expert testified about a study that varied in internal validity (valid, missing control group, confound, and experimenter bias) and ecological validity (high, low). Ratings of expert evidence quality and expert credibility were higher for the valid versus missing control group versions only. Internal validity did not influence verdict or ratings of plaintiff credibility and no differences emerged as a function of ecological validity. Expert evidence quality, expert credibility, and plaintiff credibility were positively correlated with verdict. Implications for the scientific reasoning literature and for trials containing psychological science are discussed. SN - 1573-661X UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/18587635/Can_jurors_recognize_missing_control_groups_confounds_and_experimenter_bias_in_psychological_science L2 - http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10979-008-9133-0 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -