Three experiments addressed the proposition that jurors use short cuts in processing information when confronted with expert scientific testimony. The results of the first two studies demonstrated that experts who are highly paid for their testimony and who testify frequently are perceived as “hired guns.” They are neither liked nor believed. The results of the third experiment replicated the hired gun effect and showed that it is most likely to occur when the testimony is complex and cannot be easily processed. The results were discussed in terms of the theoretical differences between central and peripheral processing of persuasive messages in a legal context.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Abelson, R. P. (1988). Conviction. American Psychologist, 43, 267-275.
Abelson, R. P. (1995). Attitude extremity. In R. E. Petty and J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 25-41). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cecil, J. S., Hans, V. P., & Wiggins, E. C. (1991). Citizen comprehension of difficult issues: Lessons learned from civil jury trials. American University Law Review, 40, 727-774.
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.
Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 460-473.
Cooper, J., Bennett, E. A., & Sukel, H. L. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior, 20, 379-394.
Fienberg, S. E. (1980). The analysis of cross-classified categorical data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gross, S. R., & Syverud, K. D. (1991). Getting to no: A study of settlement negotiations and the selection of cases for trail. Michigan Law Review, 90, 319.
Hans, V. P., & Ivkovich, K. K. (1994). How jurors evaluate experts. Trial Lawyers Forum, 28, 5-9.
Mackie, D. M., & Worth, L. T. (1989). Cognitive deficits and mediation of positive attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 27-40.
Maheswaran, D., Mackie, D. M., & Chaken, S. (1992). Brand name as a heuristic cue: The effects of task importance and expectancy confirmation on consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1, 317-336.
Petty, R. E., & Caciopppo, 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 argumentbased 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.
Zuwerink, J.R. & Devine, P.G. (1996). Attitude importance and resistance to persuasion: It's not just the thought that counts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 931-944.
About this article
Cite this article
Cooper, J., Neuhaus, I.M. The “Hired Gun” Effect: Assessing the Effect of Pay, Frequency of Testifying, and Credentials on the Perception of Expert Testimony. Law Hum Behav 24, 149–171 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005476618435