Public Choice

, Volume 148, Issue 3–4, pp 283–312 | Cite as

The limited effects of testimony on political persuasion

  • Brendan NyhanEmail author


The procedure of witness testimony and cross-examination under oath, which is institutionalized in the court system and in Congress, may increase the credibility of political messages by strengthening perceived incentives for truth-telling. In this paper, I test the hypothesis that testimony can increase the persuasiveness of empirical claims in realistic political settings. However, results from a large number of experiments, including numerous national survey experiments, indicate that describing statements as being made in congressional or court testimony rarely generates significant change in respondents’ beliefs or attitudes—a result that is robust to numerous experimental design variations.


Social Security Public Choice Policy Opinion High Posterior Density Political Knowledge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Althaus, S. L. (1998). Information effects in collective preferences. American Political Science Review, 92(3), 545–558. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24(2), 117–150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boudreau, C. (2006). Jurors are competent cue-takers: how institutions substitute for legal sophistication. International Journal of Law in Context, 2(3), 293–304. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boudreau, C. (2009). Making citizens smart: when do institutions improve unsophisticated citizens’ decisions? Political Behavior, 31, 287–306. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2006). Understanding interaction models: improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 14(1), 63–82. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carpini, M. X. D., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press. Google Scholar
  7. Cunningham, B. (2003). Re-thinking objectivity. Columbia Journalism Review, 42(2), 24–32. Google Scholar
  8. Druckman, J. N. (2001). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23(3), 225–256. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Edwards, K., & Smith, E. E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(1), 5–24. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gelman, A., Pasarica, C., & Dodhia, R. (2002). Let’s practice what we preach: turning tables into graphs. The American Statistician, 56(2), 121–130. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gerber, A., & Malhotra, N. (2008). Do statistical reporting standards affect what is published? Publication bias in two leading political science journals. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 3, 313–326. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gilens, M. (2001). Political ignorance and collective policy preferences. American Political Science Review, 95(2), 379–396. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gill, J. (1999). The insignificance of null hypothesis significance testing. Political Research Quarterly, 52(3), 647–674. Google Scholar
  14. Grimmer, J. (2010). A Bayesian hierarchical topic model for political texts: measuring expressed agendas in senate press releases. Political Analysis, 18(1), 1–35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Howell, W. G., & West, M. R. (2009). Educating the public. Education Next, 9(3), 41–47. Google Scholar
  16. Jackman, S., & Sniderman, P. M. (2006). The limits of deliberative discussion: a model of everyday political arguments. Journal of Politics, 68(2), 272–283. Google Scholar
  17. Jerit, J., & Barabas, J. (2006). Bankrupt rhetoric: how misleading information affects knowledge about social security. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(3), 278–303. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Knight, K. (2000). Mathematical statistics. London/Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC. Google Scholar
  19. Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., Schwieder, D., & Rich, R. F. (2000). Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. Journal of Politics, 62(3), 790–816. Google Scholar
  20. Kull, S., Ramsay, C., & Lewis, E. (2003). Misperceptions, the media, and the Iraq war. Political Science Quarterly, 118(4), 569–598. Google Scholar
  21. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lebo, M. J., & Cassino, D. (2007). The aggregated consequences of motivated reasoning and the dynamics of partisan presidential approval. Political Psychology, 28(6), 719–746. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: the effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–2109. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88(1), 63–76. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lupia, A. (2004). Can political institutions increase citizens’ competence? Findings from a formal model and two experiments. In Morris, I., Oppenheimer, J. A., & Soltan, K. (Eds.), Politics from anarchy to democracy: rational choice in political science (pp. 132–156). Stanford: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
  26. Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: can citizens learn what they need to know? New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  27. Martin, A. D., & Quinn, K. M. (2006). Applied Bayesian inference in R using MCMCpack. R News, 6, 2–7. Google Scholar
  28. Mattei, L. R. W. (1998). Gender and power in American legislative discourse. Journal of Politics, 60(2), 440–461. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Molden, D. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). Motivated thinking. In Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 295–317). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  30. Mondak, J. J. (1993a). Public opinion and heuristic processing of source cues. Political Behavior, 15(2), 167–192. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mondak, J. J. (1993b). Source cues and public approval: the cognitive dynamics of public support for the Reagan agenda. American Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 186–212. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (forthcoming). When corrections fail: the persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior. Google Scholar
  33. Plummer, M., Best, N., Cowles, K., & Vines, K. (2006). CODA: convergence diagnosis and output analysis for MCMC. R News, 6(1), 7–11. Google Scholar
  34. Polk, L. D., Eddy, J., & Andre, A. (1975). Use of congressional publicity in Wisconsin district. Journalism Quarterly, 52(3), 543–546. Google Scholar
  35. Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: a critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243–281. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rahn, W. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(2), 472–496. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schaffner, B. F., & Streb, M. J. (2002). The partisan heuristic in low-information elections. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66(4), 559–581. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sellers, P. J. (2000). Manipulating the message in the us congress. Harvard International Journal of Press Politics, 5(1), 22–31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shapiro, R. Y., & Bloch-Elkon, Y. (2008). Do the facts speak for themselves? partisan disagreement as a challenge to democratic competence. Critical Review, 20(1), 115–139. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sides, J., & Citrin, J. (2007). How large the huddled masses? The causes and consequences of public misperceptions about immigrant populations. Paper presented at the 2007 annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL. Google Scholar
  41. Smith, E. R. A. N., & Squire, P. (1990). The effects of prestige names in question wording. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54(1), 97–116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sniderman, P. M., & Theriault, S. (2004). The dynamics of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In Saris, W. E., & Sniderman, P. M. (Eds.), Studies in public opinion: gauging attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error and change. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Google Scholar
  43. Sniderman, P. M., & Tomz, M. (2005). Brand names and the organization of mass belief systems. Working paper. Stanford: Stanford University. Google Scholar
  44. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public HealthUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations