Abstract
AbstractThe current study examined the impact of adversarial expert testimony on deliberations and verdicts in a mock trial involving recovered memories of child sexual abuse. Participants (N = 238) were randomly assigned to one of the six conditions in a 2 (Defense Expert: absent or present) × 3 (Plaintiff Expert: absent, general or specific/therapist) factorial design. After reading the mock trial transcript, participants completed a questionnaire and deliberated to reach a jury verdict. The defense expert's statements effectively reduced the number of pro‐plaintiff verdicts and the plaintiff's credibility. These effects were not mitigated by the plaintiff experts, suggesting that the plaintiff experts may only confirm jurors' prior pro‐repression beliefs. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
