Abstract
One theory to explain why courts often ignore relevant social science research is that it often refutes judges' sociopolitical beliefs. Using the death penalty as the exemplar social issue, this study explored whether lawyers' sociopolitical attitudes affect their judgments about the legal relevance of social science research introduced in court cases. Law students and state court judges completed a questionnaire that presented vignette summaries of two U.S. Supreme Court death penalty cases along with descriptions of the social science evidence contained in the Court opinions, with the evidence manipulated in this study to either support or not support the death penalty. After reading each vignette, participants rated the legal relevance, admissibility, and dispositive weight of the social science evidence. They then were asked about their own attitudes about the death penalty, science and social science backgound, attitude about social science, and political attitudes. In the case where the social science evidence was used to make new law generally, there was a bias effect: participants rated the evidence higher when it matched their own beliefs as compared to when it did not match their beliefs. Participants' level of science background neither moderated nor mediated the bias effects. There was no relationship between political views and evidentiary ratings or attitude about the use of social science in law. However, there was a relationship between evidentiary ratings and attitudes about the use of social science in law, as well as between evidentiary ratings and attitudes about judicial interpretation. Implications of the results for the use of social science in law are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Bacon, F. (1960). The new organon and related writings. New York: Liberal Arts Press. (Originally published, 1620.)
Bailey, W. C., & Peterson, R. D. (1994). Murder, capital punishment, and deterrence: A review of the evidence and an examination of police killings. Journal of Social Issues, 50(2), 53–74.
Ballew v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 223 (1978).
Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983).
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
Bersoff, D. N. (1992a). Autonomy for vulnerable populations: The supreme court's reckless disregard for self-determination and social science. Villanova Law Review, 37, 1569–1605.
Bersoff, D. N. (1992b). Judicial deference to nonlegal decisionmakers: Imposing simplistic solutions on problems of cognitive complexity in mental disability law. Southern Methodist University Law Review, 46, 329–372.
Bersoff, D. N., & Glass, D. J. (1995). The not-so Weisman: The Supreme Court's continuing misuse of social science research. University of Chicago Law School Roundtable, 2(1), 279–302.
Biderman, P. L. (1996). Of vulcans and values: Judicial decision-making and implications for judicial education. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 1996, 61–83.
Bowers v. Hardwick, 106 S.Ct. 2841 (1986).
Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1981). The origins and meaning of liberal/conservative self-identifications. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 617–645.
Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identifications: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).
Davies, G. M., Lloyd-Bostock, S., McMurran, M., & Wilson, C. (Eds.). (1995). Psychology, law and criminal justice: International developments in research and practice. Berlin: DeGreuter.
DeLeon, P. H., O'Keefe, A. M., Vandenbos, G. R., & Kraut, A. G. (1982). How to influence public policy: A blueprint for activism. American Psychologist, 37(5), 476–485.
Diamond, S. S., & Casper, J. D. (1994). Empirical evidence and the death penalty: Past and future. Journal of Social Issues, 50(2), 177–197.
Dillman, D. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: Wiley.
Ellsworth, P. C., & Gross, S. R. (1994). Hardening of the attitudes: Americans' views on the death penalty. Journal of Social Issues, 50(2), 19–52.
Ellsworth, P. C., & Ross, L. (1983). Public opinion and capital punishment: A close examination of the views of abolitionists and retentionists. Crime & Delinquency, 29(1), 116–169.
Ericcson, K. A., & Smith, H. A. (1991). Toward a general theory of expertise: Prospects and limits. New York Cambridge University Press.
Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (1979).
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Frank, J. (1940). The cult of the robe. Saturday Review, 1940, (13 October), 12–13.
Frey, D. (1986). Recent research on selective exposure to information. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 41–80). New York: Academic Press.
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 153 (1972).
Goodman, G. S., Levine, M., Melton, G. B., & Ogden, D. W. (1991). Child witnesses and the Confrontation Clause: The American Psychological Association Brief in Maryland v. Craig. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 13–29.
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).
Haney, C. (1980). Psychology and legal change: On the limits of a factual jurisprudence. Law and Human Behavior, 4(3), 147–199.
Haney, C., & Logan, D. (1994). Broken promise: The Supreme Court's response to social science research in capital punishment. Journal of Social Issues, 50(2), 75–102.
Hastorf, A., & Cantril, H. (1954). They saw a game: A case study. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49(1), 129–134.
Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990).
Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). The effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290–314.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.) (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341–350.
L. v. D., 630 S.W.2d 240 (Mo. App. 1982).
Lee v. Weisman, 112 S.Ct. 2649 (1992).
Levine, M., & Howe, B. (1985). The penetration of social science into legal culture. Law and Policy, 7(2), 173–198.
Lipton, J. P. (1988). A new look at the use of social science evidence in trademark litigation. Trademark Reporter, 78, 32–64.
Lockhart v. McCree, 106 S.Ct. 1758 (1986).
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109.
Mahoney, M. J. (1976). Scientist as subject: The psychological imperative. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(2), 161–175.
Maryland v. Craig, 110 S.Ct. 3157 (1990).
McCleskey v. Kemp, 107 S.Ct. 1756 (1987).
Melton, G. B. (1984). Family and mental hospital as myths: Civil commitment of minors. In N. D. Reppucci, L. A. Weithorn, E. P. Mulvey, & J. Monahan (Eds.), Children, mental health, and the law (pp. 151–170). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Melton, G. B. (1987a). Guidelines for effective diffusion of child development research into the legal system. In G. B. Melton (Ed.), Reforming the law: Impact of child development research (pp. 280–300). New York: Guilford Press.
Melton, G. B. (1987b). The clashing of symbols: Prelude to child and family policy. American Psychologist, 42, 345–354.
Melton, G. B., & Russo, N. F. (1987). Adolescent abortion: Psychological perspectives on public policy. American Psychologist, 42(1), 69–72.
Miller, N., & Pollock, V. E. (1994). Meta-analysis and some science-compromising problems of social psychology. In The social psychology of science, (pp. 230–261). New York: Guilford Press.
Monahan, J. (1984). The prediction of violent behavior: Toward a second generation of theory and policy. American Journal of Psychiatry, 141, 10–15.
Monahan, J., & Walker, L. (1986). Social authority: Obtaining, evaluating, and establishing social science in law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 134(3), 477–516.
Monahan, J., & Walker, L. (1998). Social science in law: Cases and materials (4th ed.). Westbury, NY: Foundation Press.
Nagel, S. S. (1995). Improving the legal process. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
National Institute of Education. (1984). School desegregation and black achievement. Washington, DC: Author. [ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 241 671].
Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 497 U.S. 502 (1990).
Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584 (1979).
Patterson, C. J., & Redding, R. E. (1996). Lesbian and gay families with children: Implications of social science research for policy. Journal of Social Issues, 52(3), 29–50.
Perkins, D. D. (1988). The use of social science in public interest litigation: A role for community psychologists. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16(4), 465–485.
Redding, R. E. (1998). How common-sense psychology can inform law and psycholegal research. University of Chicago Law School Roundtable, 5(1), 107–142.
Redding, R. E. (1997). Relationships between lawyers' socio-political attitudes and their judgments of social science in legal decision making. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Virginia.
Rosen, P. (1972). The Supreme Court and social science. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Saks, M. J. (1989). Legal policy analysis and evaluation. American Psychologist, 44(8), 1110–1117.
Saks, M. J., & Baron, C. H. (Eds.). (1980). The use/nonuse/misuse of applied social science in the courts. Cambridge, MA: Abt Books.
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1996). Racism, conservatism, affirmative action, and intellectual sophistication: A matter of principled conservatism or group dominance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 476–490.
Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989).
Sundby, S. E. (1997). The jury as critic: An empirical look at how capital juries perceive expert and lay testimony. Virginia Law Review, 83, 1109–1188.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
Tanford, J. A. (1990). The limits of a scientific jurisprudence: The Supreme Court and psychology. Indiana Law Journal, 66, 137–173.
Tremper, C. R. (1987). Sanguinity and disillusionment where law meets social science. Law and Human Behavior, 11(4), 267–276.
United States v. Virginia, 116 S.Ct. 2264 (1996).
Vidmar, J., & Schuller, R. A. (1989). Juries and expert evidence: Social framework testimony. Law and Contemporary Problems, 52, 133–176.
Walker, L., & Monahan, J. (1987). Social frameworks: A new use of social science in law. Virginia Law Review, 73, 559–598.
Walker, L., & Monahan, J. (1996). Daubert and the Reference Manual: An essay on the future of science in law. Virginia Law Review, 82(5), 837–857.
Wilson, T. D., DePaulo, B. M., Mook, D. G., & Klaaren, K. J. (1993). Scientists' evaluations of research: The biasing effects of the importance of the topic. Psychological Science, 4(5), 322–325.
Woolard, J. L., Reppucci, N. D., & Redding, R. E. (1997). Theoretical and methodological issues in studying children's capacities in legal contexts. Law and Human Behavior, 20(3), 219–228.
Wursten, A., & Sales, B. (1988). Community psychologists in state legislative decision making. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16(4), 487–502.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
About this article
Cite this article
Redding, R.E., Reppucci, N.D. Effects of Lawyers' Socio-political Attitudes on Their Judgments of Social Science in Legal Decision Making. Law Hum Behav 23, 31–54 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022322706533
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022322706533