TY - JOUR
T1 - The effects of evidence-based expert testimony on perceptions of child sexual abuse involving recantation
AU - Denne, Emily
AU - Stolzenberg, Stacia N.
AU - Neal, Tess M.S.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Denne et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2021/8
Y1 - 2021/8
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85112667729&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85112667729&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0254961
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0254961
M3 - Article
C2 - 34351935
AN - SCOPUS:85112667729
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 16
JO - PloS one
JF - PloS one
IS - 8 August
M1 - e0254961
ER -