scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Margaret Bull Kovera

Bio: Margaret Bull Kovera is an academic researcher from City University of New York. The author has contributed to research in topics: Eyewitness identification & Jury selection. The author has an hindex of 24, co-authored 76 publications receiving 1629 citations. Previous affiliations of Margaret Bull Kovera include Reed College & Florida International University.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors examined whether a photoarray administrator's knowledge of a suspect's identity increased false identification rates and found that when the observer was present, knowledge of the identity had a biasing effect in sequential photoarrays only.
Abstract: This experiment examined whether a photoarray administrator's knowledge of a suspect's identity increased false identification rates. Fifty participant-administrators (PAs) presented 50 participant-witnesses (PWs) two perpetrator-absent photoarrays following a live staged crime involving two perpetrators. For one photoarray per trial, the experimenter revealed the suspect's identity to the PA. Each PA presented the photoarrays sequentially or simultaneously in the presence or absence of an observer. When the observer was present, PA knowledge of the suspect's identity had a biasing effect in sequential photoarrays only. This pattern did not emerge when the observer was absent. The experimental manipulations did not affect PAs' and PWs' ratings of photoarray fairness or PWs' ratings of pressure to make an identification. These data suggest that only administrators who are blind to the suspect's identity should present sequential photoarrays.

120 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors examined whether expert testimony serves an educational or a persuasive function by watching a simulated sexual abuse trial in which the child witness had been prepared for her testimony or unprepared.
Abstract: The authors examined whether expert testimony serves an educational or a persuasive function. Participants watched a simulated sexual abuse trial in which the child witness had been prepared for her testimony (i.e., she was calm, composed, and confident) or unprepared (i.e., emotional, confused, and uncertain). The trial contained different levels of expert testimony: none, standard (i.e., a summary of the research), repetitive (i.e., standard testimony plus a 2nd summary of the research), or concrete (i.e., standard testimony plus a hypothetical scenario linking the research to the case facts) testimony. Repetitive testimony bolstered the child's testimony, whereas concrete and standard testimony did not. Concrete testimony sensitized jurors to behavioral correlates of sexual victimization; standard and repetitive testimony desensitized jurors to these correlates. Implications for the use of procedural innovations in sexual abuse trials are discussed.

110 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is suggested that when biasing factors are present to increase a witness’s propensity to guess, single-blind administrator behavior influences witnesses to identify the suspect.
Abstract: Pairs (N = 234) of witnesses and lineup administrators completed an identification task in which administrator knowledge, lineup presentation, instruction bias, and target presence were manipulated. Administrator knowledge had the greatest effect on identifications of the suspect for simultaneous photospreads paired with biased instructions, with single-blind administrations increasing identifications of the suspect. When biased instructions were given, single-blind administrations produced fewer foil identifications than double-blind administrations. Administrators exhibited a greater proportion of biasing behaviors during single-blind administrations than during double-blind administrations. The diagnosticity of identifications of the suspect in double-blind administrations was double their diagnosticity in single-blind administrations. These results suggest that when biasing factors are present to increase a witness’s propensity to guess, single-blind administrator behavior influences witnesses to identify the suspect.

102 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Examination of expert testimony in a hostile work environment case found men who heard expert testimony were more likely to find that the plaintiff's workplace was hostile than were men who did not hear the expert testimony; expert testimony did not influence women's liability judgments.
Abstract: This study examined whether participants were sensitive to variations in the quality of an experiment discussed by an expert witness and whether they used heuristic cues when evaluating the expert evidence. In the context of a hostile work environment case, different versions of the expert testimony varied the presence of heuristic cues (i.e., whether the expert's research was generally accepted or ecologically valid) and evidence quality (i.e., the construct validity of the expert's research). Men who heard expert testimony were more likely to find that the plaintiff's workplace was hostile than were men who did not hear the expert testimony; expert testimony did not influence women's liability judgments. Heuristic cues influenced participant evaluations of the expert testimony validity, but evidence quality did not. Cross-examination did not increase juror sensitivity to evidence quality. Implications for science in the legal system are discussed.

97 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In another study, this article found that 17 percent of the judges said they would admit the expert evidence, irrespective of its internal validity, regardless of its peer review status and internal validity.
Abstract: Scientifically trained and untrained judges read descriptions of an expert's research in which the peer review status and internal validity were manipulated. Seventeen percent of the judges said they would admit the expert evidence, irrespective of its internal validity. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal also had no effect on judges' decisions. Training interacted with the internal validity manipulation. Scientifically trained judges rated valid evidence more positively than did untrained judges. Untrained judges rated a study with a confound more positively than did trained judges. Training did not affect judge evaluations of studies with a missing control group or potential experimenter bias. Admissibility decisions were correlated with judges' perceptions of the study's validity, jurors' ability to evaluate scientific evidence, and the effectiveness of cross-examination and opposing experts to highlight flaws in scientific methodology.

95 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion by John Zaller (1992) as discussed by the authors is a model of mass opinion formation that offers readers an introduction to the prevailing theory of opinion formation.
Abstract: Originally published in Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books, 1994, Vol 39(2), 225. Reviews the book, The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion by John Zaller (1992). The author's commendable effort to specify a model of mass opinion formation offers readers an introduction to the prevailing vi

3,150 citations

Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 2001
TL;DR: A wide variety of media can be used in learning, including distance learning, such as print, lectures, conference sections, tutors, pictures, video, sound, and computers.
Abstract: A wide variety of media can be used in learning, including distance learning, such as print, lectures, conference sections, tutors, pictures, video, sound, and computers. Any one instance of distance learning will make choices among these media, perhaps using several.

2,940 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The empirical basis for the child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS), a theoretical model that posits that sexually abused children frequently display secrecy, tentative disclosures, and retractions of abuse statements was reviewed in this article.
Abstract: The empirical basis for the child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS), a theoretical model that posits that sexually abused children frequently display secrecy, tentative disclosures, and retractions of abuse statements was reviewed. Two data sources were evaluated: retrospective studies of adults’ reports of having been abused as children and concurrent or chart-review studies of children undergoing evaluation or treatment for sexual abuse. The evidence indicates that the majority of abused children do not reveal abuse during childhood. However, the evidence fails to support the notion that denials, tentative disclosures, and recantations characterize the disclosure patterns of children with validated histories of sexual abuse. These results are discussed in terms of their implications governing the admissibility of expert testimony on CSAAS. Although it is widely acknowledged that the sexual assault of children is a major societal concern, it is not known how many children are victims of sexual abuse in the United States (Ceci & Friedman, 2000). There are two major reasons for this lack of data. First, present estimates of the incidence of child sexual abuse (CSA) are primarily based on reports received and validated by child protection agencies. These figures, however, do not reflect the number of unreported cases or the number of cases reported to other types of agencies (e.g., sheriff’s offices) and professionals (e.g., mental health diversion programs). Second, the accuracy of diagnosis of CSA is often difficult because definitive medical or physical evidence is lacking or inconclusive in the vast majority of cases (Bays & Chadwick, 1993; Berenson, Heger, & Andrews, 1991), and because there are no gold standard psychological symptoms specific to sexual abuse (Kendall-Tacket, Williams, & Finkelhor, 1993; Poole & Lindsay, 1998; J. M. Wood & Wright, 1995). Given these limitations of medical and psychological evidence, children’s statements typically represent the central evidence for judging the occurrence of

566 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A comprehensive review of the empirical research on jury decision making published between 1955 and 1999 can be found in this article, where several factors have been found to have consistent effects on jury decisions: definitions of key legal terms, verdict/sentence options, trial structure, jury personality composition related to authoritarianism/dogmatism, jury attitude composition, defendant criminal history, evidence strength, pretrial publicity, inadmissible evidence, case type, and the initial distribution of juror verdict preferences during deliberation.
Abstract: This article provides a comprehensive review of the empirical research on jury decision making published between 1955 and 1999. In total, 206 distinguishable studies involving deliberating juries (actual or mock) were located and grouped into 4 categories on the basis of their focal variables: (a) procedural characteristics, (b) participant characteristics, (c) case characteristics, and (d) deliberation characteristics. Numerous factors were found to have consistent effects on jury decisions: definitions of key legal terms, verdict/sentence options, trial structure, jury—defendant demographic similarity, jury personality composition related to authoritarianism/dogmatism, jury attitude composition, defendant criminal history, evidence strength, pretrial publicity, inadmissible evidence, case type, and the initial distribution of juror verdict preferences during deliberation. Key findings, emergent themes, practical implications, and future research directions are discussed. The petit jury is a well-known component of the U.S. legal system that needs little introduction. More than 150,000 jury trials take place each year in the United States ( Landsman, 1999 ; Saks & Marti, 1997 ), and tens of thousands more in other countries throughout the world. Hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens serve on juries each year and a sizable percentage of the population will do so at some point in their lives. The jury system has been around for hundreds of years and it is considered a cornerstone of democracy ( Abramson, 1994 ). Despite frequent criticism (see Penrod & Heuer, 1998 , for a review), it has proven to be a remarkably resilient institution. Although juries have been used in the United States since its founding, scientific interest in jury decision making is a relatively recent phenomenon. Isolated studies were conducted before World War II (e.g., Weld & Danzig, 1940 ), but systematic research on juries did not begin until 1953 and the initiation of the Chicago Jury Project. This multiyear effort was undertaken by a team of researchers at the University of Chicago and financed by two large grants from the Ford Foundation ( Ellsworth & Mauro, 1998 ).

462 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A study of the statistical intuitions of experienced research psychologists revealed a lingering belief in what might be called the "law of small numbers," according to which even small samples are highly representative of the populations from which they are drawn.
Abstract: Misconceptions of chance are not limited to naive subjects. A study of the statistical intuitions of experienced research psychologists revealed a lingering belief in what might be called the "law of small numbers," according to which even small samples are highly representative of the populations from which they are drawn. The responses of these investigators reflected the expectation that a valid hypothesis about a population will be represented by a statistically significant result in a sample—with little regard for its size. As a consequence the researchers put too much faith in the results of small samples and grossly overestimated the replicability of such results. In the actual conduct of research, this bias leads to the selection of samples of inadequate size and to overinterpretation of findings.

389 citations