Research and Professional Activities

Core Faculty:

Brian Bornstein - Dr. Bornstein and his students apply principles from cognitive and social psychology to real-world contexts, particularly within the legal system. The bulk of this work concerns juror decision making, in both civil and criminal domains, and eyewitness memory. For example, current jury projects address the effect of "split-recovery" plans (awarding part of damages to the state rather than the plaintiff) on punitive damage awards, jurors' treatment of religious defendants, and jurors' perceptions of eyewitness versus earwitness testimony. Current eyewitness memory projects address the cross-race effect, the effects of arousal on memory, and individual differences in eyewitness performance. Finally, Dr. Bornstein conducts research on justice, especially people's perceptions of what is fair in allocating limited resources, such as income or healthcare.

Eve Brank - Dr. Brank and the students who work with her bring together ideas in the context of family law, juvenile justice, and elder law. In particular, she has studied the public support, implementation, and effectiveness of parental responsibility laws within the context of the juvenile justice system. Parental responsibility laws and the way they impact juveniles, families, and general culture is critically important for a full understanding of the status of childhood, youth justice, and family law. Dr. Brank's research on parental responsibility laws has included studies on the public opinion, prevalence, media attention, and the history related to these statutes. Current projects focus on the implementation and effectiveness of these laws. Dr. Brank also studies elder law issues with a specific focus on the legal requirements of elder care giving. Not only can parents of youth be held responsible for the behavior of their children, children can be held responsible for the care (or lack of care) they provide for their elderly parents or other adults. Dr. Brank and her students are studying not only adult children's decisions to choose to care for their elderly parents, but also the potential for intentional and unintentional neglect of the elder. Current research includes the role of ageist attitudes in elder care giving and other interactions with elders.

Sarah Gervais - Dr. Gervais and her students are most interested in how the law considers power and discrimination. In one line of research, Dr. Gervais is examining when subtle forms of sexism, like sexual objectification and patronization, become actionable under the law. Dr. Gervais has shown, for example, that the objectifying gaze undermines performance, but at the same time, leads to increased interaction desires for women. Extending this work to the law, Dr. Gervais and her colleagues are examining when sexual objectification becomes sufficiently pervasive, severe, and unwelcome to constitute hostile work environment sexual harassment. In another line of research, Dr. Gervais is examining the role of power in confronting discrimination. Dr. Gervais has found that powerful people who are communal-oriented are more likely to confront prejudice than powerful people who are exchange-oriented. By confronting discrimination in the work place, powerful people may reduce discrimination and make legal action less necessary. Finally, Dr. Gervais is examining the factors that make women more or less likely to report sexual harassment.

Mario Scalora - Dr. Scalora is currently performing research in a variety of areas related to risk and threat assessment. Concerning sexual offending, he and his colleagues are investigating a range of personality and other risk factors related to sexual recidivism. He also performs treatment outcome research related to the response and subsequent recidivism of juvenile and adult sexual offenders to cognitive-behavioral treatment. Dr. Scalora also collaborates with local, state, and federal law enforcement on threat assessment research assessing predictive risk factors concerning threatening and violent activity toward public officials and institutions. On a related note concerning targeted violence, his research team is also investigating various risk-related issues (e.g., the nature of mental illness, predictive value of precious threatening behavior) concerning multiple samples of workplace violence. Dr. Scalora also maintains an active research interest in juvenile delinquency, currently investigating the impact of treatment programs upon juvenile recidivism as well as the predictors of such treatment response. Dr. Scalora currently supervises graduate students performing clinical service and research within the state's Forensic Mental Health Service. His graduate teaching activity currently includes courses on forensic assessment, personality assessment, and the supervision of clinical practica.

Robert Schopp - Bob Schopp completed the Ph.D. in clinical psychology and practiced clinically for approximately 10 years in a variety of clinical settings that raised a series perplexing legal and ethical questions. He turned to the study of law and philosophy in order to better understand those questions. He completed the J.D. in 1988 and the Ph.D. in philosophy in 1989. His work emphasizes issues that fall at the intersection of law, psychology, and philosophy. These include, for example, questions addressing criminal competence and responsibility, civil competence and commitment, the right to refuse treatment, and the significance of psychological impairment for the just administration of criminal punishment. His books and articles have addressed questions such as these and others within the broad categories of substantive criminal law and mental health law. His work tends to emphasize conceptual and normative analysis with available empirical evidence integrated into that analysis. Recent work in the general category of mental health law addresses outpatient commitment, sexually violent predator statutes, and a book advancing an integrated theory of mental health law. Recent work in the substantive criminal law addresses a variety of issues involving capital punishment, including the most defensible understanding of the Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment analysis, the integration of empirical data with that analysis, and the relationship between the justification in principle of capital punishment and evidence of various types of distortions in practice.

Richard Wiener - Dr. Wiener and his students are most interested in studying the ways in which deviations from a rational decision making model influences judgments of law. Most centrally, the team is actively collecting data examining the impact of recent U.S. court decisions on the evaluation of allegations of sexual harassment law in the workplace. These data will test some components of a social cognitive model of sexual harassment that Wiener has written about extensively. Recent efforts have extended this work into other areas of possible discrimination including hate speech, bias against the mentally ill, and biases in judicial decision making. The team is also studying jury decision making in death penalty cases, examining the role of jury instruction incomprehensibility in the jury's willingness to invoke the death penalty. In addition, several members of the team are examining the role of emotional appraisal theory in worker reactions to sexual harassment allegations, juror and jury bias against general categories of offenders (e.g., sexual abusers), judges' decisions in abuse and neglect cases, and symbolic hate speech. Dr. Wiener and his team developed a generic prejudice paradigm to study these and other important biases that emerge at trial. As a member of the Coalition for Consumer Bankruptcy Debtor Education, Dr. Wiener studies financial literacy training programs for debtors. Dr Wiener's group is beginning to make use of internet research. One study looks at the influence of drug courier profiles on case evaluations and a new study will test the role of experienced and anticipated emotion in limiting the efficacy of proposed credit disclosure laws among bankruptcy filers.

Cynthia Willis-Esqueda - Dr. Willis Esqueda and her students concentrate on research that examines how the law defines race and ethnicity and the presence and impact of discrimination within the legal system. In the broadest sense, the research focuses on culpability decisions concerning minorities and how such decisions are connected to historical and current legal and societal notions about race and ethnicity. In one program of research, Dr. Willis Esqueda has examined the biases that are present in domestic violence culpability assignment, based on stereotypes concerning women of color. In a series of studies, Dr. Willis Esqueda and her students have shown that, due to stereotypes about African American women, biases exist in domestic violence culpability assignment, regardless of the race of the abuser. This research is currently being extended to examine unique biases against American Indian women and Latinas, particularly where there is perceived provocation or mutual battering. Another on-going area of research focuses on aversive racism as an explanation for biases against Mexican American male defendants, when considering socio-economic status, and how such biases affect perceptions of an attorney's representation. American Indian law and issues of criminal jurisdiction are an area for future research, particularly for inter-racial crime where alcohol is a factor.

 

Center on Children, Families, and the Law (CCFL)

Director, Brian Wilcox
The Center on Children, Families, and the Law at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln was established in 1987 as a home for interdisciplinary research, teaching and public service on issues related to child and family policy and services. The mission of the Center on Children, Families and the Law is to educate, conduct research, analyze policy, and provide community services related to children, families and legal policy issues. The data on child and family issues generated by the Center are widely distributed to educate policy makers, scholars, service providers and the public. Work done by the Center has served as the primary basis for new local, state and national legislation, and has been cited in court rulings, including the U.S. Supreme Court. The Center on Children, Families and the Law holds a strong commitment to the people of Nebraska. Center faculty work closely with state and local agencies, the Governor's Office on Child and Family Policy, the legislature, and nonprofit organizations to promote child and family welfare through training and educational programs, legal and policy analyses, consultation with service providers, and research intended to address practical child and family welfare issues.

Scientific Resources for the Law (SRL)

Director, Richard Wiener
A University-Based Research and Consulting Service for Attorneys
SRL, Inc. is our university-based research and legal consulting service, which assists attorneys, state legislators, and government executives with their law-related scientific and social science needs. SRL, Inc., a nonprofit organization supported by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) facilitates the ability of attorneys to draw upon and utilize the expertise and resources of the UNL Law/Psychology program. SRL, Inc. offers four primary services:
- Identifying, contacting, and preparing consultants or potential expert witnesses
- Conducting empirical research to assist members of the legal community with their work (e.g. threat assessment, financial literacy training for bankruptcy filers)
- Providing trial and jury consultation services (e.g., jury selection, mock juries, focus groups, and trial strategies).
-- Identifying legal issues for which social science theory and research can assist in answering questions of legal and policy significance and presenting on point evidence to policy makers
SRL, Inc. is operated by Law and Psychology Program faculty and students and has provided consulting services in criminal cases (e.g. the Timothy McVeigh trial) and in civil cases (including large class-action suits and commercial disputes involving damage claims in the hundreds of millions of dollars).

The Public Policy Center (PPC)

Director, Alan Tomkins
The PPC seeks to inform public policy by facilitating, developing, and making available objective research and analysis on issues important to Nebraskans. The PPC is a link between the University of Nebraska's public policy resources and elected and appointed officials; state and local agency staff; the public at large; and others who represent the diverse policy interests of Nebraskans. Drawing on faculty, staff, and student expertise from throughout the University of Nebraska system, the PPC facilitates, coordinates, and supports public policy research, and undertakes collaborative projects to benefit Nebraska. The PPC brings a proactive focus to identification and research on emerging policy issues and establishing networks among researchers, educators, and policymakers.
The PPC's primary focus centers around longer-term analytic studies that address new or ongoing public policy issues of importance to Nebraskans. Topics are suggested by policymakers and administrators from the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative branches of government, as well as by faculty, students, and staff from the University. The entities with which the PPC works closely include the Nebraska Legislative Research Office, the Executive Board of the Legislature, the Governor's Policy Research and Energy Office, and the State Court Administrator's Office. The PPC also works with other recognized groups in Nebraska that have an interest in public policy.