Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 4, 2026

Holistic Facial Composite Creation and Subsequent Video Line-up Eyewitness Identification Paradigm
Published on: December 24, 2015
Can jurors recognize missing control groups, confounds, and experimenter bias in psychological science?
Bradley D McAuliff1, Margaret Bull Kovera, Gabriel Nunez
1Department of Psychology, California State University, Northridge, CA 91330-8255, USA. bradley.mcauliff@csun.edu
Abstract:
This study examined the ability of jury-eligible community members (N = 248) to detect internal validity threats in psychological science presented during a trial. Participants read a case summary in which an expert testified about a study that varied in internal validity (valid, missing control group, confound, and experimenter bias) and ecological validity (high, low). Ratings of expert evidence quality and expert credibility were higher for the valid versus missing control group versions only. Internal validity did not influence verdict or ratings of plaintiff credibility and no differences emerged as a function of ecological validity. Expert evidence quality, expert credibility, and plaintiff credibility were positively correlated with verdict. Implications for the scientific reasoning literature and for trials containing psychological science are discussed.
Related Concept Videos
Controls in Experiments
Blind Procedures
Confirmation Biases
Blinding
Statistical Significance
Bias
In statistics, a sampling bias is created when a sample is collected from a population, and some members of the population are not as likely to be chosen as others (remember, each member...

