Further action toward valid science in Law and Human Behavior: Requiring open data, analytic code, and research materials.

In 2019, the inaugural editorial of Law and Human Behavior promised a measured approach to increasing transparency, openness, and replicability practices in the journal. Now, 3 years later, and on the brink of the present authors' last year as the editorial team, it seems only fitting that they take further action to bolster the validity of science published in the journal by requiring that authors openly report data, analytic code, and research materials. The purpose of this editorial is to briefly outline Law and Human Behavior's new requirements. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The American Psychology-Law Society scientific review paper on the collection and preservation of eyewitness identification evidence.

The lead article in this issue of Law and Human Behavior is "Policy and Procedure Recommendations for the Collection and Preservation of Eyewitness Identification Evidence" by Gary Wells and colleagues (2020). This special article is an official Scientific Review Paper (SRP) of the American Psychology-Law Society (AP-LS), Division 41 of the American Psychological Association (APA). This SRP is the product of an extensive, multistep vetting process designed to ensure that it represents the best research, analysis, and recommendations the AP-LS can provide. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Taking the next steps: Promoting open science and expanding diversity in Law and Human Behavior.

In this editorial, the authors note that steady submission rate and a rejection rate that hovers at 80%, indicates the journal is flourishing and provides them with the fortunate opportunity to make an excellent journal even better. To that end, they describe three initiatives they are working on and explain the changes readers can expect as they begin to implement them in the journal. Specifically, these initiatives include: (1) promoting transparency, openness, and reproducibility in published research; (2) improving author-reviewer fit; and (3) expanding the diversity of journal content and decision makers. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Investigating predictors of true and false guilty pleas.

An estimated 90% to 95% of convictions are obtained via guilty pleas, and roughly 11% of individuals exonerated with the help of the Innocence Project falsely pleaded guilty (innocenceproject.org). Despite the prevalence of guilty pleas (and the existence of false guilty pleas), relatively little scholarship has examined what influences a defendant to plead guilty (Redlich, 2010). In this study, we investigated factors that affected whether guilty and innocent students who were accused of cheating pleaded guilty or took their case before the Student Conduct Committee in a hearing (analogous to a trial). Using social psychological literature on social influence (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004), we manipulated two legally and theoretically relevant factors: the attorney's recommendation and the guilt of the defendant. Overall, guilty individuals were more likely to accept a guilty plea than innocent individuals. Advocate recommendation affected innocent and guilty participants' plea decisions; however, the effect was stronger for innocent individuals. Innocent participants advised to go to trial were less likely to falsely plead guilty (M = 4%) compared with those without an advocate (M = 35%), those who were given educational information (M = 47%), or those who were advised to plead guilty (M = 58%). Overall, findings suggest that innocent individuals may be more vulnerable to the effects of social influence when considering advice from an advocate compared with guilty individuals. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Can expert testimony sensitize jurors to variations in confession evidence?

Confession evidence can be extremely damaging in the courtroom; jurors are more willing to convict based on the presence of a confession than eyewitness evidence and character testimony (Kassin & Neumann, 1997). To date, no research has examined whether jurors notice variations in confession evidence based on whether the confession is consistent or inconsistent with the crime evidence (a likely low quality confession). In Study 1, mock jurors read a trial summary in which a suspect's confession was consistent or inconsistent with other case facts. Jurors were marginally more likely to convict if the confession and case facts were consistent than if they were not, but did not view the confession differently based on the consistency of the confession and case facts. In Study 2, we varied whether an expert testified about the consistency of the confession and case facts. Jurors who reported for jury duty did not render different trial decisions or view the confession differently based on the consistency of the confession and case facts or the presence of the expert testimony. We expanded the design in Study 3 to vary the content of the confession in addition to the case facts. Jurors used the consistency of the confession and case facts in making decisions, and expert testimony sensitized jurors to variations in the content of confession evidence on the verdict measure. Findings suggest jurors notice variations in confession evidence and expert testimony shows promise for educating jurors about characteristics of confessions. (PsycINFO Database Record

The potentially biasing effects of voir dire in juvenile waiver cases.

An analysis of transcripts from cases in which a juvenile is adjudicated in adult criminal court showed that potential jurors may be questioned about their attitudes toward juvenile waiver during voir dire. If jurors express concerns about trying juveniles in adult criminal court, they are excused from the jury for cause (Danielsen et al., Paper presented at the meetings of the American Psychology-Law Society, 2004). We conducted a series of three studies to examine whether questions about juvenile adjudication practices and juvenile offenders during voir dire influenced jurors' pretrial and post-trial judgments of defendant guilt. Jurors who viewed a juvenile qualification voir dire provided higher pretrial probabilities of defendant guilt than did jurors who watched a standard voir dire that did not contain juvenile qualification questions. However, this pretrial guilt bias as a function of voir dire type did not persist after the presentation of trial evidence. Jurors who viewed a juvenile qualification voir dire and jurors who viewed a standard voir dire did not differ in their post-trial judgments of defendant guilt. Implications for the abilities of juvenile defendants to receive a fair trial in adult court are discussed.

The effects of harassment severity and organizational behavior on damage awards in a hostile work environment sexual harassment case.

Community members reporting for jury duty (N = 128) read a sexual harassment trial summary in which harassment severity and the organization's sexual harassment policy and response were manipulated. Jurors who read the severe harassment scenario were more likely to agree that the plaintiff had suffered and should be compensated for her suffering and that the organization should be punished than were jurors who read the mild harassment scenario. When the organization had and enforced a sexual harassment policy, jurors believed that the plaintiff had suffered little and the organization should not be punished compared with conditions in which the organization did not have an enforced sexual harassment policy. Harassment severity influenced jurors' compensatory awards, and organizational behavior influenced jurors' punitive awards. These results have implications for plaintiffs, who must decide whether to claim specific or garden-variety damages; organizations, which could create or modify sexual harassment policy to limit damages; and trial lawyers, who could tailor arguments to maximize or minimize awards.

The effectiveness of opposing expert witnesses for educating jurors about unreliable expert evidence.

We tested whether an opposing expert is an effective method of educating jurors about scientific validity by manipulating the methodological quality of defense expert testimony and the type of opposing prosecution expert testimony (none, standard, addresses the other expert's methodology) within the context of a written trial transcript. The presence of opposing expert testimony caused jurors to be skeptical of all expert testimony rather than sensitizing them to flaws in the other expert's testimony. Jurors rendered more guilty verdicts when they heard opposing expert testimony than when opposing expert testimony was absent, regardless of whether the opposing testimony addressed the methodology of the original expert or the validity of the original expert's testimony. Thus, contrary to the assumptions in the Supreme Court's decision in Daubert, opposing expert testimony may not be an effective safeguard against junk science in the courtroom.