OBJECTIVE The present research examined whether concurrent expert testimony ("hot tubbing") and court-appointed testimony reduced adversarial allegiance in clinical experts' judgments compared with traditional adversarial expert testimony. HYPOTHESES We predicted Hypothesis 1: Defense experts would render more not responsible judgments and lower ratings of criminal responsibility than would prosecution experts; Hypothesis 2: Adversarial allegiance effects on experts' judgments would be heightened for adversarial experts and attenuated for concurrent experts over time; Hypothesis 3: Adversarial and concurrent experts would report higher dissonance than would court-appointed experts and adversarial experts' ratings would increase over time, concurrent experts' ratings would decrease, and court-appointed experts' ratings would remain unchanged. METHOD Clinicians and advanced clinical doctoral students conducted simulated criminal responsibility evaluations for the prosecution, defense, or court. We categorized participants as favoring the prosecution or defense based on their preexisting attitudes and randomly assigned them to the adversarial, concurrent, or court-appointed expert testimony conditions. Participants completed a dichotomous responsibility judgment, strength of responsibility ratings, and cognitive dissonance measure after initial evidence review (n = 93), report completion (n = 52), and testimony (n = 48). Concurrent experts generated a joint report outlining areas of agreement and disagreement before providing testimony. RESULTS Concurrent testimony did not eliminate adversarial allegiance. Adversarial and concurrent experts' perceptions of responsibility did not significantly differ (d = .04, 95% CI [-.64, .71]) or change over time (ηp2 = .03); however, prosecution experts-across testimony types-rated the defendant as significantly more responsible than did defense experts (d = 1.87, 95% CI [1.06, 2.67]). Concurrent and adversarial experts did not differ in their reports and minimally differed in testimony content. CONCLUSIONS Experts who initially favored the prosecution or defense showed adversarial allegiance regardless of expert testimony method, and we observed no attenuation of this bias over the course of their case involvement. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

试水：从转介到证词，调查热水浴缸对专家的影响。

目标本研究检验了与传统对抗性专家证词相比，同时进行的专家证词（“热水浴缸”）和法院指定的证词是否会降低临床专家判断中的对抗性忠诚度。假设 我们预测了假设 1：与起诉专家相比，辩护专家会做出更多不负责任的判决和更低的刑事责任评级；假设 2：随着时间的推移，对抗性专家对专家判断的对抗效忠效应会随着时间的推移而增强，而对于同时存在的专家则减弱；假设 3：对抗性专家和兼职专家报告的失调程度高于法院指定专家，并且对抗性专家的评分会随着时间的推移而增加，兼职专家的评分会下降，而法院指定的专家的评分会随着时间的推移而增加。评级将保持不变。方法 临床医生和高级临床博士生对控方、辩方或法院进行模拟刑事责任评估。我们根据参与者先前存在的态度将参与者分类为支持控方或辩方，并将他们随机分配到对抗性、并发性或法院指定的专家证词条件。参与者在初始证据审查 (n = 93)、报告完成 (n = 52) 和证词 (n = 48) 后完成了二分责任判断、责任强度评级和认知失调测量。与会的专家在提供证词之前编写了一份联合报告，概述了同意和不同意的领域。结果 同时的证词并没有消除对抗性的效忠。对抗和并发专家 责任感没有显着差异 (d = .04, 95% CI [-.64, .71]) 或随时间变化 (ηp2 = .03)；然而，控方专家——各种证词类型——认为被告比辩护专家更负责任（d = 1.87, 95% CI [1.06, 2.67]）。并行专家和对抗专家的报告没有差异，证词内容差异很小。结论 最初支持控方或辩方的专家无论采用何种专家证词方法都表现出敌对的忠诚，而且我们观察到在他们参与案件的过程中这种偏见没有减弱。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2021 APA，保留所有权利）。控方专家——各种证词类型——认为被告比辩护专家更负责任（d = 1.87, 95% CI [1.06, 2.67]）。并行专家和对抗专家的报告没有差异，证词内容差异很小。结论 最初支持控方或辩方的专家无论采用何种专家证词方法都表现出敌对的忠诚，而且我们观察到在他们参与案件的过程中这种偏见没有减弱。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2021 APA，保留所有权利）。控方专家——各种证词类型——认为被告比辩护专家更负责任（d = 1.87, 95% CI [1.06, 2.67]）。并行专家和对抗专家的报告没有差异，证词内容差异很小。结论 最初支持控方或辩方的专家无论采用何种专家证词方法都表现出敌对的忠诚，而且我们观察到在他们参与案件的过程中这种偏见没有减弱。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2021 APA，保留所有权利）。结论 最初支持控方或辩方的专家无论采用何种专家证词方法都表现出敌对的忠诚，而且我们观察到在他们参与案件的过程中这种偏见没有减弱。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2021 APA，保留所有权利）。结论 最初支持控方或辩方的专家无论采用何种专家证词方法，都表现出敌对的忠诚，我们观察到在他们参与案件的过程中这种偏见没有减弱。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2021 APA，保留所有权利）。