Can jurors recognize missing control groups, confounds, and experimenter bias in psychological science?
Can jurors recognize missing control groups, confounds, and experimenter bias in psychological science?
复制标题
陪审员能否识别心理科学中缺失的对照组、混淆和实验者偏见？
DOI：
10.1007/s10979-008-9133-0
复制
发表时间：
2009
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
Nunez,Gabriel
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
McAuliff,BradleyD;Kovera,MargaretBull;Nunez,Gabriel
This study examined the ability of jury-eligible community members (N= 248) to detect internal validity threats in psychological science presented during a trial. Participants read a case summary in which an expert testified about a study that varied in internal validity (valid, missing control group, confound, and experimenter bias) and ecological validity (high, low). Ratings of expert evidence quality and expert credibility were higher for the valid versus missing control group versions only. Internal validity did not influence verdict or ratings of plaintiff credibility and no differences emerged as a function of ecological validity. Expert evidence quality, expert credibility, and plaintiff credibility were positively correlated with verdict. Implications for the scientific reasoning literature and for trials containing psychological science are discussed.
