Exploring juror evaluations of expert opinions using the Expert Persuasion Expectancy framework

IF 2.2 2区社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY

Legal and Criminological Psychology Pub Date : 2020-02-06 DOI:10.1111/lcrp.12165

Kristy A. Martire, Gary Edmond, Danielle Navarro

{"title":"Exploring juror evaluations of expert opinions using the Expert Persuasion Expectancy framework","authors":"Kristy A. Martire, Gary Edmond, Danielle Navarro","doi":"10.1111/lcrp.12165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Jury-eligible participants rated the credibility, value, and weight of an expert report that was either generally strong (Exp. 1; <i>N</i> = 437) or generally weak (Exp. 2; <i>N</i> = 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 (<i>cf.</i> strong; Exp. 1), or strong (<i>cf.</i> weak; Exp. 2).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18022,"journal":{"name":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","volume":"25 2","pages":"90-110"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/lcrp.12165","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal and Criminological Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lcrp.12165","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

Abstract

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.

查看原文本刊更多论文

使用专家说服期望框架探索陪审员对专家意见的评估

审判中的事实查明者努力区分提供真正专家意见的证人和不提供专家意见的证人。专家说服期望(expx)框架提出了与此评估逻辑相关的八个属性:基础、领域、专业、能力、意见、支持、一致性和可信度。我们提出了两个实验检查这些属性对法医步态分析意见的说服力的影响。方法:符合评委资格的参与者对专家报告的可信度、价值和权重进行评分，要么一般较强(Exp. 1;N = 437)或一般较弱(Exp. 2;n = 435)。ExPEx属性的质量因参与者而异。对条件(无、基础、领域、专业、能力、意见、支持、一致性、可信度)的分配决定了报告中哪个属性是弱的(强的;例1)或strong(参见weak;在实验1中，强报告的说服力被弱报告的能力、一致性和可信度显著削弱。在实验2中，弱报告被强版本的能力和一致性显著提高。主观评价的计划外分析也确定了基础、领域、专业和意见的影响。我们发现证据表明，能力(即个人熟练程度)、一致性(即其他专家的认可)和可信度(即客观性)属性以逻辑上适当的方式影响意见说服力。确保事实调查人员掌握有关这些属性的信息，可以改善他们对专家意见证据的评估。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Legal and Criminological Psychology Multiple-

CiteScore

4.00

自引率

4.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： Legal and Criminological Psychology publishes original papers in all areas of psychology and law: - victimology - policing and crime detection - crime prevention - management of offenders - mental health and the law - public attitudes to law - role of the expert witness - impact of law on behaviour - interviewing and eyewitness testimony - jury decision making - deception The journal publishes papers which advance professional and scientific knowledge defined broadly as the application of psychology to law and interdisciplinary enquiry in legal and psychological fields.