Industrial/organizational psychology and the federal judiciary: expert witness testimony and the Daubert standards.

Abstract

This research examined judicial perceptions of the field of industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology, explored how judges evaluate and weigh I/O psychology expert witness testimony, and scrutinized the use of the Daubert factors in judicial assessments (of social scientific evidentiary reliability. In a mail survey, federal judges were randomly presented with one of four prototypical descriptions of I/O psychology expert witness testimony in civil age discrimination in employment litigation. Judges were found to be relatively unfamiliar with the field of I/O psychology, and few had previously heard or read the testimony of an I/O psychologist. Sixty-six percent of the federal judges rated themselves at least moderately likely to admit the expert's testimony at trial, regardless of the testimony scenario presented. Judges rated the evidence overall as relevant, moderately reliable, moderately probative, and prejudicial. Both judicial familiarity with the field of I/O psychology and prior experience with I/O testimony were found to be positively related to likelihood of admitting the evidence. Manipulations of the scientific foundation for the expert testimony did not substantially affect admission decision. Judges ascribed the most importance to the general acceptance Daubert factor in their evaluation of evidentiary reliability. Implications for the science and practice of I/O psychology in the legal system are presented and discussed.