The knowledge of experts presumably affects their credibility and the degree to which the trier of fact will agree with them. However, specific effects of demonstrated knowledge are largely unknown. This experiment manipulated a forensic expert’s level of knowledge in a mock trial paradigm. We tested the relation between low versus high expert knowledge on mock juror perceptions of expert credibility, on agreement with the expert, and on sentencing. We also tested expert gender as a potential moderator. Knowledge effects were statistically significant; however, these differences carried little practical utility in predicting mock jurors’ ultimate decisions. Contrary to hypotheses that high knowledge would yield increased credibility and agreement, knowledge manipulations only influenced perceived expert likeability. The low knowledge expert was perceived as more likeable than his or her high knowledge counterpart, a paradoxical finding. No significant differences across expert gender were found. Implications for conceptualizing expert witness knowledge, credibility, and their potential effects on juror decision-making are discussed.
Details
- Differences in Expert Witness Knowledge: Do Mock Jurors Notice and Does it Matter?
- Parrott, Caroline Titcomb (Author)
- Neal, Tess M.S. (Author)
- Wilson, Jennifer K. (Author)
- Brodsky, Stanley L. (Author)
-
Digital object identifier: http://jaapl.org/content/43/1/69
-
This is a pre-print version of the paper available on the JAAPL website at http://www.jaapl.org/. This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the journal. It is not the copy of record.
© 2015 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
Citation and reuse
Cite this item
This is a suggested citation. Consult the appropriate style guide for specific citation guidelines.
Parrott, C.T., Neal, T.M.S., Wilson J.K., & Brodsky, S.L. (2015). Differences in expert witness knowledge: Do mock jurors notice and does it matter? Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 43, 69-81.