Abstract
Critics of the civil jury system question whether jurors can adequately evaluate complex expert testimony. Based on current models of research in persuasion, we hypothesized that when expert testimony is complex, factors other than content will influence persuasion. Participants, serving as mock jurors, watched a videotaped trial in which two scientists provided evidence on whether PCBs could have caused a plaintiff's illness. The complexity of the expert's testimony and the strength of the expert's credentials were varied in a 2×2 factorial design. After watching the videotape, mock jurors rendered a verdict and completed a number of attitude measures related to the trial. Overall, consistent with our prediction, we found that jurors were more persuaded by a highly expert witness than by a less expert witness, but only when the testimony was highly complex. When the testimony was less complex, jurors relied primarily on the content of that testimony, and witness credentials had little impact on the persuasiveness of the message.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bell, B. E., & Loftus, E. F. (1989). Trivial persuasion in the courtroom: The power of (a few) minor details.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 669–679.
Biggers, T., & Pryor, B. (1982). Attitude change: A function of emotion-eliciting qualities of environment.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 94–99.
Carlsmith, J. M., & Aronson, E. (1963). Some hedonic consequences of the confirmation and disconfirmation of expectancies.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 151–156.
Cecil, J. S., Hans, V. P., & Wiggins, E. C. (1991). Citizen comprehension of difficult issues: Lessons from civil jury trials.The American University Law Review 40, 727–774.
Cecil, J. S., Lind, E. A., & Bermant, G. (1987).Jury service in lengthy civil trials. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–766.
Eagly, A. H. (1974). Comprehensibility of persuasive arguments as a determinant of opinion change.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 759–773.
Elwork, A., Sales, B. D., & Alfini, J. J. (1977). Juridic decisions: In ignorance of the law or in light of it?Law and Human Behavior, 1, 163–189.
Enquist, D. J. (1980). The use of juries in complex cases.The Corporation Law, Review, 3, 277–298.
Frank, J. (1949).Courts on trial: Myth and reality in American justice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Freckelton, I. R. (1987).The trial of the expert. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gross, S. R., & Syverud, K. D. (1991). Getting to no: A study of settlement negotiations and the selection of cases for trial.Michigan Law Review, 90, 319.
Guinther, J. (1988).The jury in America. New York: Facts on File Publications.
Hass, R. G. (1981). Effects of source characteristics on cognitive responses and persuasion. In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Eds.),Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 141–172). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hastie, R., Penrod, S. D., & Pennington, N. (1983).Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness.Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635–650.
Kalven, H., Jr., & Zeisel, H. (1966).The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown.
Leippe, M. R., & Elkin, R. A. (1987). When motives clash: Issue involvement and response involvement as determinants of persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 269–278.
Luneburg, W. V., & Nordenburg, M. A. (1987). Specially qualified jurors and expert nonjury tribunals: Alternatives for coping with the complexities of modern civil litigation. Federal Judicial Center Report.
Mackie, D. M., & Worth, L. T. (1989). Cognitive deficits and the mediation of positive attitude in persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 27–40.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69–81.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986).Communication and persuasion: Central, and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument based persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847–855.
Ratneshwar, S., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Comprehension's role in persuasion: The case of its moderating effects on the persuasive impact of source cues.Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 52–62.
Wiggins, E. C., & Breckler, S. J. (1991). Management of complex civil litigation. In D. K. Kagehiro & W. S. Laufer (Eds.),Handbook of psychology and law (pp. 77–94). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
About this article
Cite this article
Cooper, J., Bennett, E.A. & Sukel, H.L. Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions?. Law Hum Behav 20, 379–394 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01498976
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01498976