RT Article
T1 Exploring juror evaluations of expert opinions using the expert persuasion expectancy framework
JF Legal and criminological psychology
VO 25
IS 2
SP 90
OP 110
A1 Martire, Kristy A.
A1 Edmond, Gary
A1 Navarro, Danielle
A2 Edmond, Gary
A2 Navarro, Danielle
LA English
YR 2020
UL https://krimdok.uni-tuebingen.de/Record/1831600358
AB PURPOSE-Factfinders in trials struggle to differentiate witnesses who offer genuinely expert opinions from those who do not. The Expert Persuasion Expectancy (ExPEx) framework proposes eight attributes logically relevant to this assessment: foundation, field, specialty, ability, opinion, support, consistency, and trustworthiness. We present two experiments examining the effects of these attributes on the persuasiveness of a forensic gait analysis opinion.METHODS-Jury-eligible participants rated the credibility, value, and weight of an expert report that was either generally strong (Exp. 1; N = 437) or generally weak (Exp. 2; N = 435). The quality of ExPEx attributes varied between participants. Allocation to condition (none, foundation, field, specialty, ability, opinion, support, consistency, trustworthiness) determined which attribute in the report would be weak (cf. strong; Exp. 1), or strong (cf. weak; Exp. 2)RESULTS-In Experiment 1, the persuasiveness of a strong report was significantly undermined by weak versions of ability, consistency, and trustworthiness. In Experiment 2, a weak report was significantly improved by strong versions of ability and consistency. Unplanned analyses of subjective ratings also identified effects of foundation, field, specialty, and opinion.CONCLUSIONS-We found evidence that ability (i.e., personal proficiency), consistency (i.e., endorsement by other experts), and trustworthiness (i.e., objectivity) attributes influence opinion persuasiveness in logically appropriate ways. Ensuring that factfinders have information about these attributes may improve their assessments of expert opinion evidence.
NO Literaturverzeichnis: Seite 106-109
NO gesehen am 20.01.2023
NO First published: 6 February 2020
K1 expert opinion
K1 Persuasion
K1 Expert Testimony
K1 Jury decision-making
K1 Expert evidence
DO 10.1111/lcrp.12165