In response to federal legislative reform aimed, in part, at reducing consumer bankruptcy filings, the authors conducted 2 experiments examining the role of affect in purchasing behavior. In Experiment 1, they examined consumer debtors, and in Experiment 2, they examined nondebtors. In both experiments, they investigated purchasing decisions made during a simulated online shopping trip, with some participants receiving standard disclosures of interest rates and money owed and with other participants receiving information under the new enhanced disclosure regulations. Results demonstrated support for the influence of anticipated affect in credit card use among both debtors and nondebtors and indicated that anticipated emotion may moderate the impact of the enhanced disclosure regulations.

Studies rarely address religious discrimination in the workplace, though claims have more than doubled in the last 20 years. The present studies investigated whether social psychology can help predict perceptions of hostile work environments (HWEs) faced by workers on the basis of their religion. That is, the present research examined whether and how self-referencing, similarity, and social identity affect how people perceive complainants and harassers in religious HWE cases and if those perceptions affect legal decisions such as whether discrimination occurred. In Study 1, evaluators read case summaries of Jewish or Muslim workers facing workplace religious discrimination. In Study 2, evaluators read case summaries focused on the alleged harasser, who was either Mormon or Evangelical Christian. The present studies found that self-referenced, subjective assessment as to whether religious discrimination occurred predicted objective legal judgments made after reading jury instructions. In addition, the subjective–objective legal judgment relationship was generally stronger when the evaluator and the complainant were perceived as more similar or shared an in-group status. Overall, these studies demonstrated that the experimental paradigm used to explain self-referencing and perceptions of sexual harassment can be applied to religious discrimination claims, and also expanded that paradigm by investigating the roles of perceived similarity and social identity. Each played an important role in the legal decision making process and Evangelical Christian evaluators were especially shown to protect an Evangelical Christian supervisor accused of harassing a secular employee. Implications for handling and reducing the number of religious discrimination incidents in the workplace are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

Daubert required judges to base their decisions about the admissibility of expert witness testimony in large part on the reliability and validity of empirical observations. Because judges have a wide array of duties and may not be equipped to understand the complexities of statistical analysis, some jurists have recommended that court‐appointed experts assist judges in their gatekeeping function. To assist such experts in scrutinizing empirical papers, we propose a Structured Statistical Judgement (SSJ) that takes advantage of advances in the various statistical methods – such as effect sizes that adjust for error – which have allowed researchers to report increasingly more reliable and valid observations. We also include supplementary materials that court‐appointed experts can use both as a codebook to operationalize the SSJ and as a quick reference that will aid consultation with judges. An initial application of the SSJ examined all 93 empirical articles published in Psychology, Public Policy, and Law and Law and Human Behavior in 2015 and resulted in excellent interrater reliability (π = 0.83; π = 0.95; π = 0.97), at the same time it indicated that a majority of the articles fail to include the comprehensive and transparent statistical analysis that would be most useful to courts.

In the past three decades, researchers have examined counterfactual thinking and causation in decision making. However, little work has applied these findings to trial settings. The present research examined two conflicting theories regarding counterfactual thinking and causation to elaborate on earlier work examining counterfactual thinking in negligence law cases. The research also expanded the earlier work by examining covariation theory, additional psychological measures, and the rank order and reaction time associated with counterfactuals. Participants read a summary of a negligence case that manipulated covariation information to suggest that the defendant or plaintiff caused an accident. Participants then completed counterfactual, preventability, or causal statements about the case before responding to legal and psychological measures. Overall, the research found support for norm theory and covariation, but mixed evidence regarding the role of counterfactual thinking and causation. Counterfactual thinking more strongly affected the duty and breach components of a negligence case, while causal thinking more strongly affected causation and legal decisions. Legal implications were discussed.

Despite recurring empirical interest in eyewitness research, legal scholars have conducted far less research exploring the significance and limitations of earwitness testimony. Nevertheless, earwitness expert testimony serves an important purpose, which dates back many centuries. This Article analyzes empirical studies regarding earwitness testimony and places them into a recognized legal framework regarding admission of expert testimony. The result of this analysis demonstrates that, if courts believe that eyewitness testimony meets the restrictions on "junk science" employed by both Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and the Federal Rules of Evidence, then the courts should also admit earwitness testimony under the same rationale. This Article, however, recognizes the many methodological issues in the study of earwitness testimony and addresses both the limitations in earwitness expert testimony and the hurdles it must face to meet the evidential standards of admissibility.

No abstract