A guide for social science journal editors on easing into open science.

Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online community for social science journal editors: www.dpjedi.org ) has collated several resources on embedding open science in journal editing ( www.dpjedi.org/resources ). However, it can be overwhelming as an editor new to open science practices to know where to start. For this reason, we created a guide for journal editors on how to get started with open science. The guide outlines steps that editors can take to implement open policies and practices within their journal, and goes through the what, why, how, and worries of each policy and practice. This manuscript introduces and summarizes the guide (full guide: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hstcx ).

Gender Role Attitudes and Prosecutorial Decision-Making in a Case of Intimate Partner Violence.

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is a pervasive public health crisis that impacts individuals across the gender spectrum. Traditionally, IPV is conceptualized through a gendered lens, with men as the perpetrators and women as the victims. The current study explored the association between perpetrator/victim sex, prosecutor gender role attitudes, and prosecutorial decision-making in a case of alleged IPV. We hypothesized that prosecutors with more traditional gender role attitudes would be more lenient, and this effect to be exacerbated in cases involving a female perpetrator. Criminal prosecutors across the United States (N = 94) completed the Male Role Norms Inventory-Revised and read case materials describing the alleged IPV between a heterosexual couple (e.g., arrest report, medical records). The victim/perpetrator sex was manipulated to involve either a female- (male victim) or male- (female victim) perpetrated IPV case. Results indicate that gender role attitudes were not associated with prosecutorial decision-making. However, prosecutors perceived the violence as more serious and the perpetrator as more likely to reoffend when the perpetrator was male; further, they attributed more blame to the female victim. An interaction between perpetrator sex and prosecutor gender role attitudes indicates those with more traditional beliefs were more likely to blame the female (rather than male) victim. These data suggest extralegal factors related to the perpetrator (i.e., perpetrator sex), rather than prosecutor individual differences (i.e., gender role attitudes), are associated with prosecutor discretionary decision-making. In tandem with real-world disparities in the prosecution of IPV based on perpetrator sex, the current research stresses the importance of exploring a diversity of factors that account for these observed differences.

Income, Demographics, and Life Experiences of Clinical-Forensic Psychologists in the United States.

We provide aggregate data about income, demographics, and life experiences of women and men practicing clinical-forensic psychology primarily in the United States (N = 376). We examine how these variables relate to one another, as well as how gender demographics of the field have changed over time. The average hourly rate charged by psychologists for forensic work, aggregated across all types of referral questions, regions, and employment settings is $280.23 (US Dollars; SD = $108.12; median and mode = $250). Total median annual income is = $125,000 - $149,999 and mode is = $100,000 - $124,999. Men's annual income (median = $175,000 - $199,000) is significantly higher than women's (median = $100,000 - $124,999) even while controlling for years of experience and number of hours worked per week. Women forensic psychologists earn $0.83 for every $1.00 men make. Having a Ph.D. is disproportionately associated with men and PsyD with women; however, the difference is not significant once controlling for years of experience. Employment type related to pay, such that people in private practice make significantly more than those who work in institutions (e.g., prisons, hospitals) or universities. Year of highest degree associated with employment type, such that people in practice longer are more likely to be in private practice. Although we expected caretaking responsibilities and children would relate to gender and pay, no differences emerged in this sample. Women are more likely than men to have completed a formal postdoctoral fellowship in forensic psychology, even when controlling for year of highest degree. Regarding the gender composition of the field over time, we calculated the Index of Dissimilarity for each five year increment spanning 1965-2019. Before the late 1990s, proportionally more men entered the field; after the late 1990s, proportionally more women entered. We discuss the promising and less promising implications of these findings for gender equity and work-life management in forensic psychology, as well as how professionals in the field and students might make use of these data.

Personality Assessment in Legal Contexts: Introduction to the Special Issue.

This special issue addresses a major gap in the literature by providing comprehensive, credible reviews of the psychometric evidence for and legal status of some of the most commonly-used psychological and personality assessment measures used in forensic evaluations. It responds to Neal and colleagues' (2019) call for research to improve the state of and access to knowledge about psychological assessments in legal contexts, and encourages critical thinking about forensic assessment in the spirit of improvement. These articles offer clarity about the strengths and weaknesses of a number of assessment instruments to inform psychologists' preparation for expert testimony, lawyers' preparation for direct and cross-examination, judges' evidence admissibility determinations, and scholars' future research. We assembled teams of authors with different perspectives and areas of expertise to review each tool fairly, including several adversarial collaborations. Articles on the Rorschach and R-PAS, MMPI-3, PCL-R, MCMI-IV and MACI-II, PAI and PAI-A, SIRS-2, HCR-20V3, TSI and TSI-2, and the MacCAT-CA, ECST-R, and CAST*MR are included. To increase visibility, accessibility, and impact, this issue is published as free access, meaning the articles are available to download without charge. We anticipate these articles will be widely read and useful to scholars and practitioners in both psychology and law.

A general model of cognitive bias in human judgment and systematic review specific to forensic mental health.

OBJECTIVE: Cognitive biases can impact experts' judgments and decisions. We offer a broad descriptive model of how bias affects human judgment. Although studies have explored the role of cognitive biases and debiasing techniques in forensic mental health, we conducted the first systematic review to identify, evaluate, and summarize the findings. HYPOTHESES: Given the exploratory nature of this review, we did not test formal hypotheses. General research questions included the proportion of studies focusing on cognitive biases and/or debiasing, the research methods applied, the cognitive biases and debiasing strategies empirically studied in the forensic context, their effects on forensic mental health decisions, and effect sizes. METHOD: A systematic search of PsycINFO and Google Scholar resulted in 22 records comprising 23 studies in the United States, Canada, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. We extracted data on participants, context, methods, and results. RESULTS: Most studies focused only on cognitive biases (k = 16, 69.6%), with fewer investigating ways to address them (k = 7, 30.4%). Of the 17 studies that tested for biases, 10 found significant effects (58.8%), four found partial effects (23.5%), and three found no effects (17.6%). Foci included general perceptions of biases; adversarial allegiance; bias blind spot; hindsight and confirmation biases; moral disengagement; primacy and recency effects; interview suggestibility; and cross-cultural, racial, and gender biases. Of the seven debiasing-related studies, nearly all (k = 6) focused at least in part on the general perception of debiasing strategies, with three testing for specific effects (i.e., cognitive bias training, consider-the-opposite, and introspection caution), two of which yielded significant effects. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable clinical and methodological heterogeneity limited quantitative comparability. Future research could build on the existing literature to develop or adapt effective debiasing strategies in collaboration with practitioners to improve the quality of forensic mental health decisions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The effects of evidence-based expert testimony on perceptions of child sexual abuse involving recantation.

Child sexual abuse (CSA) cases involving recantation invoke concerns about children's reliability. Expert testimony can help explain the complexities of these cases. Experts have historically relied on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS), yet this is not science-based. In a CSA case involving recantation, how would evidence-based testimony affect perceptions of child credibility when compared to CSAAS? Across 2 studies, we test the effects of expert testimony based on evidence-based science, nonscientific evidence, and experience-based evidence on outcomes in CSA cases involving recantation. Evidence-based testimony led to higher perceptions of credibility and scientific rigor of the evidence when compared to CSAAS testimony. Evidence-based testimony also led to more guilty verdicts when compared to the control. In sum, jurors had some ability to detect evidence strength, such that evidence-based expert testimony was superior to CSAAS testimony in many respects, and consistently superior to experience-based testimony in these cases.

The distinction between discriminability and reliability in forensic science.

Forensic science plays an increasingly important role in the criminal justice system; yet, many forensic procedures have not been subject to the empirical scrutiny that is expected in other scientific disciplines. Over the past two decades, the scientific community has done well to bridge the gap, but have likely only scratched the tip of the iceberg. We offer the discriminability-reliability distinction as a critical framework to guide future research on diagnostic-testing procedures in the forensic science domain. We argue that the primary concern of the scientist ought to be maximizing discriminability and that the primary concern of the criminal justice system ought to be assessing the reliability of evidence. We argue that Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis is uniquely equipped for determining which of two procedures or conditions has better discriminability and we also demonstrate how estimates of reliability can be extracted from this Signal Detection framework.

Generalist and specialist training in professional correctional psychology are compatible: Reply to Magaletta and Patry (2020).

Replies to comments made by P. R. Magaletta and M. W. Patry (see record 2019-81943-002) on the original article by T. M. S. Neal (see record 2018-05574-001). In their constructive critique of Neal (2018), Magaletta and Patry (2020) argue that specialized training is not necessary for the development of professional correctional psychologists and suggest generalized training is a better model. These approaches are not mutually exclusive. Identifiable features relevant to the practice of correctional psychology are distinct from other areas of professional psychology. These features require the development of particular competencies and applied skill sets. Establishing a clearer identity for correctional psychology could promote the education and recruitment of the next generation of students and may accelerate the generation and cumulation of high-quality correctional psychological science. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

A Call for Research on Sex Offender Treatment Programs.

The effects of sex offender treatment programs have been addressed in the literature, but there are opportunities to expand research and potentially improve existing sex offender treatment programs. The Federal Bureau of Prison's Sex Offender Treatment Program gives offenders the opportunity to change their behavior by reducing criminality and recidivism, and receive transition services as offenders exit the prison system and reenter society. This program is evidence-based and utilizes landmark research in sex offender treatment, however there are a few details that may present limitations to the effectiveness of the treatment program within the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Entry requirements, such as literacy, cognitive, and remaining sentence requirements, as well as the treatment program environment, present opportunities for research to evaluate the effects of these variables on the convicted sex offender population.

Psychological Assessments in Legal Contexts: Are Courts Keeping "Junk Science" Out of the Courtroom?

In this article, we report the results of a two-part investigation of psychological assessments by psychologists in legal contexts. The first part involves a systematic review of the 364 psychological assessment tools psychologists report having used in legal cases across 22 surveys of experienced forensic mental health practitioners, focusing on legal standards and scientific and psychometric theory. The second part is a legal analysis of admissibility challenges with regard to psychological assessments. Results from the first part reveal that, consistent with their roots in psychological science, nearly all of the assessment tools used by psychologists and offered as expert evidence in legal settings have been subjected to empirical testing (90%). However, we were able to clearly identify only about 67% as generally accepted in the field and only about 40% have generally favorable reviews of their psychometric and technical properties in authorities such as the Mental Measurements Yearbook. Furthermore, there is a weak relationship between general acceptance and favorability of tools' psychometric properties. Results from the second part show that legal challenges to the admission of this evidence are infrequent: Legal challenges to the assessment evidence for any reason occurred in only 5.1% of cases in the sample (a little more than half of these involved challenges to validity). When challenges were raised, they succeeded only about a third of the time. Challenges to the most scientifically suspect tools are almost nonexistent. Attorneys rarely challenge psychological expert assessment evidence, and when they do, judges often fail to exercise the scrutiny required by law.

Discerning bias in forensic psychological reports in insanity cases.

This project began as an attempt to develop systematic, measurable indicators of bias in written forensic mental health evaluations focused on the issue of insanity. Although forensic clinicians observed in this study did vary systematically in their report-writing behaviors on several of the indicators of interest, the data are most useful in demonstrating how and why bias is hard to ferret out. Naturalistic data were used in this project (i.e., 122 real forensic insanity reports), which in some ways is a strength. However, given the nature of bias and the problem of inferring whether a particular judgment is biased, naturalistic data also made arriving at conclusions about bias difficult. This paper describes the nature of bias - including why it is a special problem in insanity evaluations - and why it is hard to study and document. It details the efforts made in an attempt to find systematic indicators of potential bias, and how this effort was successful in part, but also how and why it failed. The lessons these efforts yield for future research are described. We close with a discussion of the limitations of this study and future directions for work in this area.

Forensic psychology and correctional psychology: Distinct but related subfields of psychological science and practice.

This article delineates 2 separate but related subfields of psychological science and practice applicable across all major areas of the field (e.g., clinical, counseling, developmental, social, cognitive, community). Forensic and correctional psychology are related by their historical roots, involvement in the justice system, and the shared population of people they study and serve. The practical and ethical contexts of these subfields is distinct from other areas of psychology-and from one another-with important implications for ecologically valid research and ethically sound practice. Forensic psychology is a subfield of psychology in which basic and applied psychological science or scientifically oriented professional practice is applied to the law to help resolve legal, contractual, or administrative matters. Correctional psychology is a subfield of psychology in which basic and applied psychological science or scientifically oriented professional practice is applied to the justice system to inform the classification, treatment, and management of offenders to reduce risk and improve public safety. There has been and continues to be great interest in both subfields-especially the potential for forensic and correctional psychological science to help resolve practical issues and questions in legal and justice settings. This article traces the shared and separate developmental histories of these subfields, outlines their important distinctions and implications, and provides a common understanding and shared language for psychologists interested in applying their knowledge in forensic or correctional contexts. (PsycINFO Database Record

A longitudinal and experimental study of the impact of knowledge on the bases of institutional trust.

This study examined a knowledge-centered theory of institutional trust development. In the context of trust in water regulatory institutions, the moderating impact of knowledge was tested to determine if there were longitudinal changes in the bases of institutional trust as a function of increases in knowledge about a target institution. We hypothesized that as people learn about an institution with which they were previously unfamiliar, they begin to form more nuanced perceptions, distinguishing the new institution from other institutions and relying less upon their generalized trust to estimate their trust in that institution. Prior to having specific, differential information about a new institution, we expected institutional trust to be a function of generalized trust variables such as dispositional trust and trust in government. The longitudinal experiment involved 185 college students randomly assigned to one of three information conditions. Every 3 months for 15 months, participants read information about water regulatory institutions or a control institution. At each time point, participants reported their trust in and perceptions of the trust- and distrust-worthiness of the water regulatory institutions. Participants also completed measures of knowledge of water regulatory institutions, dispositional trust, and governmental trust. Our manipulation check indicated that, as expected, those in the experimental group increased in subjective knowledge of water regulatory institutions to a greater extent than those in the control condition. Consistent with our hypotheses, there was some evidence that, compared to the control group, the experimental group relied less on their general trust in government as a basis for their trust in water regulatory institutions. However, contrary to our hypotheses, there was no evidence the experimental group relied less on dispositional trust as a basis for institutional trust. There also was some evidence the experimental group's trust in water regulatory institutions was less affected by fluctuations of trustworthiness (but not distrustworthiness) perceptions over time. This suggests that knowledge results in the development of more stable institutional trust attitudes, but that trustworthiness and distrustworthiness perceptions may operate somewhat differently when impacting trust in specific institutions.

Are Forensic Experts Already Biased before Adversarial Legal Parties Hire Them?

This survey of 206 forensic psychologists tested the "filtering" effects of preexisting expert attitudes in adversarial proceedings. Results confirmed the hypothesis that evaluator attitudes toward capital punishment influence willingness to accept capital case referrals from particular adversarial parties. Stronger death penalty opposition was associated with higher willingness to conduct evaluations for the defense and higher likelihood of rejecting referrals from all sources. Conversely, stronger support was associated with higher willingness to be involved in capital cases generally, regardless of referral source. The findings raise the specter of skewed evaluator involvement in capital evaluations, where evaluators willing to do capital casework may have stronger capital punishment support than evaluators who opt out, and evaluators with strong opposition may work selectively for the defense. The results may provide a partial explanation for the "allegiance effect" in adversarial legal settings such that preexisting attitudes may contribute to partisan participation through a self-selection process.

Differences in expert witness knowledge: do mock jurors notice and does it matter?

The knowledge of experts presumably affects their credibility and the degree to which the trier of fact agrees with them. However, specific effects of demonstrated knowledge are largely unknown. In this experiment, we manipulated a forensic expert's level of knowledge in a mock-trial paradigm. We tested the influence of low versus high expert knowledge on mock juror perceptions of expert credibility, on agreement with the expert, and on sentencing. We also tested expert gender as a potential moderator. Knowledge effects were statistically significant; however, these differences carried little practical utility in predicting mock jurors' ultimate decisions. Contrary to the hypotheses that high knowledge would yield increased credibility and agreement, knowledge manipulations influenced only perceived expert likeability. The low-knowledge expert was perceived as more likeable than the high-knowledge counterpart, a paradoxical finding. No significant differences across expert gender were found. Implications for conceptualizing expert witness knowledge and credibility and their potential effects on juror decision-making are discussed.

Women as expert witnesses: a review of the literature.

This review of women's participation in the legal system as expert witnesses examines the empirical literature on the perceived credibility and persuasiveness of women compared with men experts. The effects of expert gender are complex and sometimes depend on the circumstances of the case. Some studies find no differences, some find favorable effects for women and others for men, and still others find that expert gender interacts with other circumstances of the case. The findings are interpreted through social role theory and the role incongruity theory of prejudice. Future directions for research are identified and implications are considered for attorneys who select and prepare expert witnesses. Suggestions for men's and women's behavior as expert witnesses are provided.

Warmth and competence on the witness stand: implications for the credibility of male and female expert witnesses.

In this study, we examined how manipulations of likeability and knowledge affected mock jurors' perceptions of female and male expert witness credibility (n = 290). Our findings extend the person-perception literature by demonstrating how warmth and competence overlap with existing conceptions of likeability and knowledge in the psycholegal domain. We found that experts high in likeability, knowledge, or both were perceived equally positively, regardless of gender, in a death penalty sentencing context. Gender differences emerged when the expert was low in likeability or knowledge. In these conditions the male expert was perceived more positively than the comparable female expert. Although intermediate judgments (e.g., perceptions of credibility) were affected by our manipulations, ultimate decisions (e.g., sentencing) were not. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Examining the factor structure of the Hare Self-Report Psychopathy Scale.

The 64-item Hare Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (Hare SRP; Paulhus, Neumann, & Hare, in press ) is the most recent revision of the SRP, which has undergone numerous iterations. Little research has been conducted with this new edition; therefore, the goal of this study was to elucidate the factor structure as well as the criterion-related, convergent, and discriminant validity of the measure in a large sample of college students (N = 602). Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the best fitting model was the original 4-factor model proposed by the authors of the Hare SRP (compared to a 1-factor, 2-factor, and 4-factor random model). The 4-factor model revealed superior fit for the data relative to the other alternative models. In addition, we elaborated on the psychometric properties of this 4-factor model in this sample. The Hare SRP total and factor scores evidenced good internal reliability as well as promising criterion-related, convergent, and discriminant validity in terms of predicting scores on conceptually relevant external criteria. Implications for theory and future research are discussed.

Witness self-efficacy: development and validation of the construct.

Despite the application of Self-Efficacy Theory (Bandura, 1977, 2000) to many areas of psychology, there is a lack of research on self-efficacy in the ability to testify in court. The present study fills this gap by incrementally developing the construct of Witness Self-Efficacy and establishing its psychometric properties. Study I features exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses yielding a two-factor Witness Self-Efficacy Scale (WSES). The two components are Poise and Communication Style. Study II uses a second data collection to show that both WSES domains possess convergent, divergent, and predictive validity relations consistent with those expected using an SET framework. Notably, WSES components predicted perceptions of witness credibility and sentencing outcomes above and beyond witness extraversion, general self-efficacy, and general self-confidence. Implications for SET and witness preparation training are discussed. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.