Correlational MethodSignificance testingWhat’s the chance that there is no relationship between the 2 variables?Limitations of Correlational AnalysisCausality required a controlled investigation in which we examine the effect of one or more independent variables on a dependent variableDesign comparison groupsExperimental groupsControl groupsExperimental MethodRandomly assign participantsRandomly choose whether or not the participant is in a certain testing group or notEliminate alternative explanationsDistribute individual differencesRandom assignment is different from random sampling, which aspires for representative groupsRandom sampling: Sampling people from the population at random, hoping to get a good representation of a populationInternal vs. External validityInternal: is the study set up soundly?External: what you find is generalizable to the rest of the population (random sampling)Quasi-ExperimentsCant assign participants to the desired group. Look at pre-existing group and try to come up with conclusions from that data.Randomly assigning patients to a “no treatment” condition that would severely impact healthEx: randomly assigning kids to abusive homesConfounds can be managed by using “matched” control groupsAgeGenderGeographic locationSESIntelligenceWhat do forensic psychologists do?Applied scienceExpert witness: possesses relevant and specialized knowledge, skills, or experience that jurors are not likely familiar withDon’t need to know anything about the people involved in the case, only need to know things about the topic of the caseOstensibly objective professionalsAdmissibility of Psychological testimonyFrye Standard (1923)General acceptance in the field to which it belongs before it can be used in courtWhat is “the scientific community?”Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993)Evidence of a link between Bendectin and birth defectsSubmitted studies based on animal experimentation and methodologies not generally accepted by the fieldEnactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence implicitly overturned the Frye standard Daubert Standard***Ruling: Judge serves as the “gate keeper”Daubert Standard1. Falsifiability: can the theory be tested? Has it been tested?2. Peer review: has the theory be subjected to evaluation by knowledgeable peers?3. Reliability: is the evidence presented reliable? Does it have a known error rate?4. Acceptance: has the theory been generally accepted by the relevant scientific community?What might be the problem with this requirement?Can be tricky to pass, especially for new things such as technologyExpert WitnessesHow do jurors perceive expert witnesses?Intelligent and reliable. Complicated language.Where does credibility come from?How do opposing counsel characterize and respond to expert witnesses?Adversarial team?:Mental Health Professional in the CourtsAre they essential? Valuable? HarmfulHarmful:... without the assistance of a psychiatrist to conduct a professional exam… [and] to present testimony…the risk of an inaccurate resolution of sanity issues is extremely high. With such assistance, the defendant is fairly able to present at least enough info to the jury… as to permit it to make a sensible determination. (Ake vs. Oklahoma, 1985, p. 82)James Grigson, M.D.--> “Doctor Death”Barefoot vs. Estelle (1983): “Antisocial personality of the severest type… 100% and absolute chance he will kill again…”“Killer Shrinks”Grigson, while outlandish and notorious, isn’t the only “expert” upon whom the state of Texas relies to convince jurors of the need to put a defendant to death. Other “killer shrinks” have followed Grigson’s lead and, in courtrooms around the state today, forecast the unknown cloaked in the aura of reliability conferred by the honorific title “Doctor”. (Texas Defender Service, 2004, p.19)Margaret Hagen, Ph.D.Whores of the court: the fraud of psychiatric testimony and the rape of American Justice“There is simply no mental stethoscope”“…What we’ve got now are thousands of self-styled soul doctors run amok on our courts, drunk with power, bedazzled by spectacular fees for the no-heavy lifting job of shooting off their mouths about any psychological topic that sneaks a toe into the courtroom.” (Hagen, 1997, p. 4)“It isn’t easy to maintain this ideal scientific objectivity, and a psychiatrist often fails in the effort. He finds himself judging and condemning , loving and hating and pitying like everybody else. He is only human after all.” – Brussel (1968)Hired Guns, Charlatans, and their Voodoo PsychobabbleCase law references to various forms of perceived bias among mental health expert witnessesPerceived Objectivity and NeutralitySaks (1990): Expert Witness RolesThe Conduit/Educator: bias free, neutral expert who’s disinterested in who “wins”The Advocate : expert has a theoretical, political or personal investment in the issue at handThe Hired Gun: expert’s opinion is determined by which side is willing to pay him or herThe 4th Cell: the conduit-advocate. The data are so clear the expert can objectively advocate for a given position/outcomeExpert Witness: Hired GunsMossman (1999)Identified 45 cases in which a mental health expert was referenced to as a “hired gun”, “whore”, or “prostitute”Prosecuting attorneys were the primary source of negative statementsNegative references to experts are increasingly common over the yearsEdens et al. (2012) expanded on Mossman’s research to investigate allegations of various forms of bias26 search terms including “for sale”, “advocacy”, “junk science” and “snake oil”Total Cases (thru 2009):160Total Disparaging Comments: 245Large minority of cases involved disparaging comments about the mental health field in general (vs. individual expert witness)“…the jury doesn’t need the so-called help of expert hired guns to offer their opinions.”“Well, let’s not mince words about the fine [Dr. X]. I submit to you he’s like a whore.”“…yet it’s okay for [Dr.X] to prostitute himself by flying all the way across the country to testify against his colleagues.”Expert Witnesses: Advocates“…is guilty of malfeasance in that he became a partisan and advocate for one of the parties“[Dr. X] was a ‘prosecutorial advocate’.”“…[Dr.X]’s testimony is seriously marred by a transparent partnership that undermines the objectivity of what he says…”Expert