Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: Effects of expert evidence type and cross-examination.

Abstract

We presented participants with syndromal, witness credibility, or anatomically detailed doll evidence to determine (a) whether these different types of expert evidence exert differential influence on participants' judgments and (b) whether the influence of this evidence could be better explained by the relative scientific status or the probabilistic qualities of the research presented. Additionally, we investigated whether a strong or weak cross-examination of the expert would be more successful in discrediting the information provided in the expert's testimony. Findings suggest that participants are less influenced by expert testimony based on probability data (i.e., syndromal evidence) than by expert testimony based on case history data (i.e., credibility or anatomically detailed doll evidence). Participant responses did not differ as a function of the strength of the cross-examination of the expert. As expected, women were more likely to respond in a pro-prosecution direction than were men. Implications for the use of expert evidence in child sexual abuse cases are discussed. * Portions of the research reported here were presented at the 1992 Biennial Meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, San Diego, CA. This research was supported by a Grant-in-Aid of Research from the Graduate School at the University of Minnesota to Robert J. Levy. The preparation of this manuscript was facilitated by a University of Minnesota Graduate School Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship awarded to Margaret Bull Kovera. The authors would like to thank Daniel Linz for providing the videotaped trial used in this research and Marti Hope Gonzales, David C. Raskin, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. The authors also extend their thanks to Tracy Cox, Lisa Seales and Don Townsend for their assistance in conducting this research.

Explaining Gender Differences in Jurors' Reactions to Child Sexual Assault Cases

“…In child sexual abuse cases, strong evidence such as DNA and medical evidence (Bradshaw & Marks, 1990;Golding et al, 2000), defendant criminal history (Bottoms & Goodman, 1994), and credible expert evaluations (Kovera, Levy, Borgida, & Penrod, 1994) increase, and weak (Castelli, Goodman, & Ghetti, 2005), decreases convictions. We designed our cases to be weak, neutral, or strong in terms of case evidence, pretested to ensure this would be reflected in verdicts, and predicted that evidence strength would moderate the effects of other variables in line with Kalven and Zeisel's, (1966) "liberation hypothesis," which suggests that jurors' biases influence verdicts most when the evidence is ambiguous, because ambiguous evidence liberates jurors' from evidentiary constraints (Devine et al, 2001;Kassin & Wrightsman, 1988; but see Leippe & Romanczyk, 1987).…”

“…A robust finding in the literature on jurors' decisions in child sexual abuse trials is that women assign more blame and are generally more prosecution-oriented than men (e.g., Bottoms & Goodman, 1994;Kovera, Levy, Borgida, & Penrod, 1994;McCauley & Parker, 2001;Quas, Bottoms, Haegerich, & Nysse-Carris, 2002;Redlich, Myers, Goodman, & Qin, 2002; for a comprehensive review, see Bottoms et al, 2007). In three experiments, we investigated factors explaining those gender differences across four types of cases (incest, day-care, stranger abduction, and teacher-perpetrated sexual abuse).…”

Laboratory Experiments: A Meaningful Contribution to Restorative Justice Research?

“…Forensic psychologists have sought to enhance external and ecological validity in studies by designing experiments which are as realistic and analogous to the real world as possible. The findings of creatively designed laboratory studies (e.g., Kassin and Kiechel 1996;Kovera et al 1994;Lindsay and Wells 1985;Talwar 2008) have been replicated in realworld contexts in psychology and law, and have helped to demonstrate the effects of particular variables on the behaviour of various actors in the legal system (offenders, victims, witnesses, jurors, judges, etc. ), leading to research and policy designed to remedy undesirable effects and enhance desirable ones.…”

Diagnosis of psychological impairment in employment discrimination claims

“…Finally, several studies (e.g., Crowley, O'Callaghan, & Ball, 1994; Gabora, Spanos, & Joab, 1993; Kovera, Levy, Borgida, & Penrod, 1994) have assessed the impact on mock jurors of expert psychological testimony about child sexual abuse. Experts in these cases typically tesnfy for the purpose of rehabilitating a child's credibility and cite research findings to the effect that delays, recantations, and certain other behaviors are common in sexually abused children.…”