Reasoning about scientific evidence: Effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case
成果类型：
Article; Proceedings Paper
署名作者：
Kovera, MB; McAuliff, BD; Hebert, KS
署名单位：
State University System of Florida; Florida International University
刊物名称：
JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY
ISSN/ISSBN：
0021-9010
DOI：
10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.362
发表日期：
1999
页码：
362-375
关键词：
摘要：
This study examined whether participants were sensitive to variations in the quality of an experiment discussed by an expert witness and whether they used heuristic cues when evaluating the expert evidence. In the context of a hostile work environment case, different versions of the expert testimony varied the presence of heuristic cues (i.e., whether the expert's research was generally accepted or ecologically valid) and evidence quality (i.e., the construct validity of the expert's research). Men who heard expert testimony were more likely to find that the plaintiffs workplace was hostile than were men who did not hear the expert testimony; expert testimony did not influence women's liability judgments. Heuristic cues influenced participant evaluations of the expert testimony validity, but evidence quality did not. Cross-examination did not increase juror sensitivity to evidence quality. Implications for science in the legal system are discussed.
来源URL：