We examined how college students perceived and discussed an intimate partner stalking case during mock jury deliberations. Specifically, undergraduates constituting 22 mixed-gender mock juries provided individual pre- and postdeliberation verdicts and deliberated in mixed-gender groups. We used Pathfinder analyses to derive semantic networks from their written pre- and postdeliberation verdict reasoning and the transcribed jury deliberations. During deliberations, women primarily made pro-alleged victim and antidefendant comments, considering the alleged victim’s fear and the defendant’s capability of harm. Men mainly made prodefendant comments, such as romanticizing his behavior. After deliberations, women became more prodefendant in their verdict reasons, while men remained similarly prodefendant and sometimes anti-alleged victim pre- and postdeliberations. Results provide evidence for gendered perceptions of criminal stalking, particularly pertaining to defendant threat and alleged victim fear. We consider implications for stalking legislation and education, and legal decision-making.

Two experiments compared closely related interventions to teach the control of variables strategy (CVS) to fourth-grade students. Over the two experiments, an intervention first developed by Chen and Klahr (1999) was most effective at helping students learn how to design and evaluate single-factor experiments. In Experiment 1, attempts to reduce the cognitive load imposed by Chen and Klahr’s basic teaching intervention actually produced poorer learning and transfer of CVS. In Experiment 2, attempts to simplify Chen and Klahr’s algorithm for teaching students how to set up a valid experimental design also produced poorer learning and transfer of CVS. Both experiments illustrate that oversimplifying a domain or the logic behind controlling variables can undermine the effectiveness of an intervention designed to teach CVS.

Middle school students (n = 354) were tested for their understanding of the control of variables strategy (CVS) 2.5 years after participating in a study comparing three different interventions for teaching CVS. The key finding was that the pattern of effects observed in the 4th grade continued to be observed in the 6th grade. This was because (a) students who had mastered CVS in the 4th grade were likely to continue to perform at mastery levels in the 6th grade whereas (b) the learning of students who had not mastered CVS in 4th grade was independent of the teaching intervention they had received in the 4th-grade study. These findings demonstrate that a brief intervention of direct instruction in CVS can produce long-lasting learning of the principle of controlling variables.

The present research used a mock juror experiment (N = 360) to assess two primary goals: (1) to examine the direct and indirect effects of participant gender, stalking myth acceptance, and gender role stereotyping on guilt ratings in a stalking trial; and (2) to examine the role of perceived victim fear and distress, and defendant intended danger on perceptions of a stalking trial. Using structural equation modeling, we found an indirect effect of participant gender, and both direct and indirect effects of stalking myth acceptance and gender role stereotyping on guilt ratings. Men and participants who endorsed more traditional gender role stereotypes were associated with adherence to stalking myth acceptance beliefs. Endorsement of particular stalking myth acceptance beliefs offers a partial explanation for why women and men differed on perceptions of the defendant's intent to cause danger and the victim's perceived fear and distress. Results provide insight into the efficacy of current anti-stalking legislation that relies on a juror's capacity to evaluate an 'objective' interpretation (i.e., 'reasonable person') standard of fear for intimate partner stalking.

Reports an error in "Bidirectional relationships between trauma exposure and posttraumatic stress: A longitudinal study of Detroit residents" by Sarah R. Lowe, Kate Walsh, Monica Uddin, Sandro Galea and Karestan C. Koenen (Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 2014[Aug], Vol 123[3], 533-544). The prevalences in Table 1 did not correspond to the correct traumatic events due to a misalignment in rows and columns. All other results in the manuscript remain unchanged. The corrected table is provided.

Students (n = 1,069) from 60 4th-grade classrooms were taught the control of variables strategy (CVS) for designing experiments. Half of the classrooms were in schools that performed well on a state-mandated test of science achievement, and half were in schools that performed relatively poorly. Three teaching interventions were compared: an intervention that used examples of invalid designs to explain the logic of CVS (Invalid condition); an intervention that used examples of valid designs to explain CVS (Valid condition); and a control condition, in which no explicit instruction was provided until after an immediate posttest. The relative effectiveness of the teaching interventions depended jointly on school achievement level and the type of learning assessment. For students from lower achieving schools, the Valid and Invalid condition were similarly effective and both were superior to the Control condition on an immediate posttest of near transfer. However, only the Invalid condition resulted in better performance than the Control condition on immediate and delayed posttests of intermediate and far transfer. For students from higher achieving schools, the Valid and Invalid conditions were equally effective on the near and intermediate transfer tests. However, on the far transfer test, the Invalid condition was superior to the Valid condition which, in turn, was superior to the Control condition. The pattern of superiority of the Invalid over the Valid condition is attributed to the emphasis in the Invalid condition on the rationale for controlling irrelevant variables.

The perception of elder financial exploitation was investigated using community members (N = 104) and undergraduates (N = 143). Participants read an exploitation trial summary; an 85-year-old victim accused her son of stealing her money. Primary results indicated that alleged victims described as healthy rendered more guilty verdicts than those described as having a cognitive deficit; pro-victim judgments were higher for women than men; and younger and older community members' rendered more guilty verdicts than middle-aged mock jurors. The results are discussed in terms of the factors that impact the perception of exploitation in court.

Two experiments investigated mock-juror perceptions of intimate stalking using Kentucky’s (United States) anti-stalking legislation. Experiment 1 used a mock-juror methodology in which 177 undergraduates (87 men and 90 women) from a large southeastern US university read a stalking trial summary and rendered individual judgments as mock jurors. The main research question of Experiment 1 was how participant gender impacted trial judgments (e.g., verdict) when the gender of both the defendant and victim were manipulated. Overall, the results showed that men rendered significantly fewer guilty verdicts than women, particularly in conditions that included the prototypical type of intimate stalking (female victim/male defendant). In Experiment 2, also using a mock-juror methodology, 129 undergraduates (51 men and 78 women) from a large southeastern U.S. university read a stalking trial summary (involving a female victim and male defendant) and rendered individual judgments as mock jurors. The main research question of Experiment 2 focused on whether victim fear (high or low) impacted trial judgments (e.g., verdict). The results yielded an interaction of participant gender and victim fear. Specifically, whereas different levels of fear did not impact women, men yielded fewer guilty verdicts in the low victim fear condition compared to the high victim fear condition. The results of the present experiments are discussed in terms of the implications of stalking allegations brought to trial.

Community members (N = 187) rendered judgments about a case of a battered woman who killed her abuser allegedly in self-defense. The experiment was designed to isolate the effects of time delay before killing and the victim's sleeping status, as prior research has confounded these two variables. Results showed that delay affected conviction rates only for women; men convicted at high rates regardless of delay, whereas women convicted at higher rates when the killing occurred following a long delay versus a short delay. Regardless of participant gender, sleeping status significantly predicted verdicts: conviction rates were higher when the victim was asleep than when he was awake. Implications for the use of the self-defense plea and potential policy changes related to domestic violence are discussed.

OF DISSERTATION Emily Elizabeth Dunlap The Graduate School University of Kentucky 2010 STALKING MYTH ACCEPTANCE: AN INVESTIGATON OF ATTITUDINAL CONSTRUCTS ASSOCIATED WITH GENDER DIFFERENCES IN JUDGMENTS OF INTIMATE STALKING _______________________________________ ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION _______________________________________ A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Psychology at the University of Kentucky By Emily Elizabeth Dunlap Lexington, Kentucky Director: Dr. Jonathan M. Golding, Professor of Psychology Lexington, Kentucky 2010 Copyright  Emily Elizabeth Dunlap 2010 ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATIONOF DISSERTATION STALKING MYTH ACCEPTANCE: AN INVESTIGATON OF ATTITUDINAL CONSTRUCTS ASSOCIATED WITH GENDER DIFFERENCES IN JUDGMENTS OF INTIMATE STALKING Emerging research has shown that women and men perceive criminal stalking differently, yet there is little research addressing why these differences exist. For example, mock juror research on intimate stalking has found that men are more likely than women to render lenient judgments (e.g., not-guilty verdicts). Understanding the underlying attitudes associated with differences in how men and women interpret whether certain behaviors would cause reasonable fear is crucial to an evaluation of current anti-stalking legislation. The primary goals of this research were: (1) to examine the extent to which beliefs that support stalking (i.e., stalking myth acceptance – SMA victim blame, SMA flattery, and SMA nuisance) predicted individual trial judgments of men and women, and (2) to test whether endorsement of SMA can be predicted from particular attitudinal correlates (e.g., hostility toward women). Overall, women were more likely than men (N = 360) to render trial judgments (e.g., guilty verdicts) supportive of the victim and were less likely to endorse SMA beliefs. Results also indicated that endorsement of particular SMA beliefs and personal experience (being the victim of and/or knowing a victim) explained why women and men differed on some trial judgments. For example, the odds of rendering a guilty verdict were less for participants who endorsed SMA flattery beliefs. In addition, participants who reported knowing someone who had been a victim were at greater odds of rendering a guilty verdict. Finally, participants who endorsed more traditional gender-role stereotypes were more likely to adhere to SMA beliefs. Results provide insight into the efficacy of current antistalking legislation that relies on a juror’s capacity to evaluate an “objective” interpretation (i.e., “reasonable person”) standard of fear for intimate stalking.

Students (n = 797) from 36 4th-grade classrooms were taught the control of variables strategy for designing experiments. In the instruct condition, classes were taught in an interactive lecture format. In the manipulate condition, students worked in groups to design and run experiments to determine the effects of four variables. In the both condition, classes received the interactive lecture and also designed and ran experiments. We assessed students' understanding using a written test of their ability to distinguish valid from invalid experimental comparisons. Performance on this test improved from the pretest to the immediate posttest in all conditions, and gains were maintained at a 5-month delay. For students from both higher and lower achieving schools, gains ordered as follows: both > instruct > manipulate. However, students from higher achieving schools showed greater gains in all conditions. Item analyses showed that the interactive lecture improved students' understanding of the need to control irrelevant variables. and experimentation improved students' understanding of the need to vary the focal variable.

This commentary supports the use of hearsay testimony (secondhand testimony) exceptions in cases of elder abuse (EA). Given that EA victims are often unavailable for in-court testimony due to (1) a refusal to testify for personal reasons, (2) ethical concerns regarding the impact of in-court testimony on the well-being of the victim, or (3) age-related physical or cognitive impairments, hearsay testimony provides a viable means of protecting and relaying the victim's story to jurors. The benefits of hearsay testimony are discussed in terms of the necessity and reliability of utilizing hearsay as evidence as well as the implications of admitting hearsay testimony in EA cases.

This study investigated how the gender composition of mock juries affects deliberations and conviction rates in a child sexual assault (CSA) trial. As opposed to studies in which mock jurors make decisions as individuals, mock jury research allows for investigation of how individual decisions translate into group verdicts. Gender composition within mock juries was varied to examine whether well-established gender differences in individual judgments affect the jury-level decision-making process. Three hundred men and women, in 6-member mock juries, heard a fictional CSA trial. During deliberations, proprosecution/ prodefense statements by women were approximately equal, whereas men made more prodefense statements. Women switched votes during deliberations more than did men; jurors in woman majority mock juries changed from not guilty to guilty more often than did jurors in nonwoman majority juries, and vice versa; and woman majority mock juries convicted most often. Findings indicate that predeliberation gender differences led to unique jury deliberation strategies and voting patterns.

ABSTRACT A community sample of 226 participants (41% men, 59% women) who answered questions about a trial summary that manipulated what type of witness (a 45-year-old hearsay [second-hand information based on the report of a crime victim] witness, a 75-year-old hearsay witness, or the 75-year-old victim) presented an allegation of elder physical abuse. Overall, participants who read the testimony of a 45-year-old hearsay witness had higher conviction rates than participants who read the testimony of the 75-year-old hearsay witness or the elder victim. Additionally, participants who had previously been victims of abuse and/or who had positive attitudes toward elderly people rendered more pro-prosecution verdicts. Finally, as the age of the participant increased so did conviction rates.