A 2 X2 X 4 X 2 completely randomized between-subject factorial design was employed in a simulated child-custody hearing to evaluate the effects of the sex of the subject, sex of the witness, experience level of the witness, and witness status (psychiatrist, clinical psychologist, social worker, neighbor) on perceived expertness. Three hundred and eightyfour undergraduate students listened to an audiotape of simulated testimony in a childcustody case and subsequently completed a semantic-differential questionnaire embedded with items to evaluate perceived expertise of a source. Results indicate that the experience level and witness status significantly influenced raters' evaluations of witness expertise. Female subjects rated all witnesses higher in expertness and there was a trend in the data that suggested female witnesses may be judged as more expert. The results are discussed in reference to implicit notions people may have of mental health professionals involved in court proceedings and the possible ramifications of the involvement of such professionals in legal matters.Recently, the role of the mental health professional as an expert witness in legal proceedings has come under increased scrutiny in both the mass media and the scientific community. Central to this recent concern seems to be the following question: What influence or effect does testimony given by a mental health expert have in the context of a legal discussion-making process? Most writers who have addressed this question typically seem to neglect empirical approaches (Kittrie, 1971;Szasz, 1963Szasz, , 1977, whereas others seem to either use empirical methods mainly for the study of the accuracy of eyewitness testimony (Goldstein, 1977;Saks & Hastie, 1978) or to present "how to" accounts for both attorneys and potential witness (Poythress, 1980). Rather surprisingly, few have used empirical analyses to produce data that have implications for the effects of mental health expert testimony (Dowdle, Gillen, & Miller, 1975;Klein, 1968;Ludwig & Fontaine, 1978).One possibility that has been given little theoretical or empirical attention is the notion that the perceived expertness of a mental health professional may be a function of his or her social role or stereotype.Poythress (1983), surveying judges in Michigan, suggested that individuals who are involved in making legal decisions perceive mental health professionals differently in terms of how "socially desirable" they are to testify as expert witnesses. He suggested that judges consider numerous factors when deciding admissibility of expert testimony by mental health professionals, including titles, social status, experience, and clinical knowledge.Ludwig and Fontaine (1978) reiterated this point by noting that although testimony provides most of the information about a crime, little research has been done on the effects of testifying. Thus although the literature generally shows that mental health experts all influence judges' and jurors' decisions, almost no studies have attempted to measure...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.