Expert Testimony, Law and Epistemic Authority

Ward, Tony

doi:10.1111/japp.12213

Cited by 22 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Researchers examining implausible beliefs and cognitive style have tended to advocate for interventions that will shift people towards a more deliberative, reflective analytical strategy, for example, by 'slowing down for a moment' (Ward andGarety 2017, see also Bronstein et al 2019; Greene and Murphy, this issue; Pennycook (2) Box-and-Whisker plots with median (middle bar), first and third quartiles (boxes either side of bar) and no further than 1.5 × the interquartile range (whiskers); (3) means (diamonds) and 95% confidence intervals (error bars);(4) distributions showing the frequency of scores Page 10 of 15 Martire et al Cogn. Research (2020) 5:65 and Rand 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Jurors are directed by the judge to evaluate the evidence and decide which claims are sufficiently credible for belief (e.g. Eleventh Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions, criminal 2020; Judicial Commission of New South Wales 2020; for discussions, see Brewer 1998;Edmond 2015;Ward 2017). Yet, as in other contexts, jurors sometimes make mistakes about information quality and veracity (McAuliff and Duckworth 2010;McAuliff et al 2009).…”

Section: Evidence Quality Evaluation In Forensic Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Limited not lazy: a quasi-experimental secondary analysis of evidence quality evaluations by those who hold implausible beliefs

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Past research suggests that an uncritical or ‘lazy’ style of evaluating evidence may play a role in the development and maintenance of implausible beliefs. We examine this possibility by using a quasi-experimental design to compare how low- and high-quality evidence is evaluated by those who do and do not endorse implausible claims. Seven studies conducted during 2019–2020 provided the data for this analysis (N = 746). Each of the seven primary studies presented participants with high- and/or low-quality evidence and measured implausible claim endorsement and evaluations of evidence persuasiveness (via credibility, value, and/or weight). A linear mixed-effect model was used to predict persuasiveness from the interaction between implausible claim endorsement and evidence quality. Our results showed that endorsers were significantly more persuaded by the evidence than non-endorsers, but both groups were significantly more persuaded by high-quality than low-quality evidence. The interaction between endorsement and evidence quality was not significant. These results suggest that the formation and maintenance of implausible beliefs by endorsers may result from less critical evidence evaluations rather than a failure to analyse. This is consistent with a limited rather than a lazy approach and suggests that interventions to develop analytical skill may be useful for minimising the effects of implausible claims.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Evidence Quality Evaluation In Forensic Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limited not lazy: a quasi-experimental secondary analysis of evidence quality evaluations by those who hold implausible beliefs

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Analyses of care orders cover topics such as parents' defensive strategies when appealing decisions (Juhasz, 2018) and judges' justifications for making, upholding, or changing decisions about adoptions in Norway (Helland, 2020). There are however few social scientific studies on justifications of care order cases focussing on decision-makers' practices of evaluating and using disciplinary evidence (Ward, 2012(Ward, , 2016.…”

Section: Related Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1. Conceptual and theoretical perspectives on disciplines, experts/ expertise, professions, and epistemic dependency and authority (Abbott, 1988;Hardwig, 1985;Littig, 2009;McAvoy, 2014;Moore, 2017;Turner, 2014;Ward, 2016).…”

Section: Codingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evidence in Norwegian child protection interventions – Analysing cases of familial violence

Løvlie

2022

Child & Family Social Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How is expert evidence used in care order proceedings when children are considered for foster care placement because of familial violence? What are important factors and how do the decision‐makers use and evaluate evidence from specialists and experts? In this in‐depth analysis of 104 published care order decisions from the Norwegian County Boards, I investigate how decision‐makers use and evaluate evidence from expert witnesses to determine whether a care order may be granted. The analysis shows that the evidence largely revolves around social functioning, care context and topics about how parents and children relate to each other. Led by the law, the decision‐makers use this evidence to determine whether the child's situation is harmful, whether support services are viable and whether a care order is in the child's best interests. I find that decision‐makers draw unevenly on evidence with regards to these legal requirements, and that the use predominantly defers to expert authority. However, there is also evidence of independent reasoning, where deferral to the epistemic authority of the experts is weakened. This is shown through evaluative and critical assessments and scrutiny of the disciplinary evidence.

show abstract

The myth of gender neutrality in family court: A clinician's perspective on determinations of “the best interest of the child”

Brandt

2023

Appl Psychoanal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Misogyny is a universal prejudice against women manifest in all areas of society. To interrogate the nature of this prejudice, the author uses the family court system as her focus. The myth of gender neutrality in family court is pervasive. Current laws are framed around the assumption that both parents are on a level playing field. The reality is that our legal system is biased against mothers. This often reveals itself in the way courts make determinations of “the best interests of the child”. Family court is a microcosm of societal attitudes about parents, especially mothers, and related beliefs about what protects children. A brief review of family law and the “best interest” standard follows as well as a review of what we know and do not know about what is protective for children. The author reviews the problems inherent in family law and mental health training and practice—forensic and clinical. Although mandated to protect children, family court decisions sometimes have the opposite impact, and at times, even endangering the most protective parent and the child. This occurs mainly by devaluing the caretaking role while requiring the more responsible parent to facilitate the other parent's relationship with the child—regardless of the impact on her and the child. There are many reasons for this, but the basic one is the misogyny built into this system. This essay describes how social science research, psychological theory, and developmental principles are misused by both the legal and mental health professions to that end.

show abstract

Expert Testimony, Law and Epistemic Authority

Cited by 22 publications

References 14 publications

Limited not lazy: a quasi-experimental secondary analysis of evidence quality evaluations by those who hold implausible beliefs

Limited not lazy: a quasi-experimental secondary analysis of evidence quality evaluations by those who hold implausible beliefs

Evidence in Norwegian child protection interventions – Analysing cases of familial violence

The myth of gender neutrality in family court: A clinician's perspective on determinations of “the best interest of the child”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About