The impact of expert testimony on jurors' decisions: Gender of the expert and testimony complexity

Journal of Applied Social Psychology

Volumn 35, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 1266-1280

  Schuller, Regina A ^a   Terry, Deborah ^b   Mckimmie, Blake ^c  

^a YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^c QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 28044444563     PISSN: 00219029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02170.x     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91.
2. 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.
3. Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1976). Communication modality as a determinant of message persuasiveness and message comprehensibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 605-614.
4. Cooper, J., Bennett, E. A., & Sukel, H. L. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior, 20, 379-394.
5. Cooper, J., & Neuhaus, I. M. (2000). The "hired gun" effect: Assessing the effect of pay, frequency of testifying, and credentials on the perception of expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 149-171.
6. Diamond, S. S., & Casper, J. D. (1992). Blindfolding the jury to verdict consequences: Damages, experts, and the civil jury. Law and Society Review, 26, 513-563.
7. Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3-22.
8. Faigman, D., Kaye, D., Saks, M., & Sanders, J. (Eds.). (2002). Modern scientific evidence: The law and science of expert testimony (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West.
9. Gross, S. R., & Syverund, K. D. (1991). Getting to no: A study of settlement negotiations and the selection of cases for trial. Michigan Law Review, 90, 319-393.
10. McKimmie, B. M., Newton, C. J., Terry, D. J., & Schuller, R. A. (2004). Jurors' responses to an expert witness: The effects of gender stereotypes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 7, 131-143.
11. Memon, A., & Shuman, D. W. (1998). Juror perception of experts in civil disputes: The role of race and gender. Law and Psychology Review, 22, 179-197.
12. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
13. 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.
14. Petty, R. E., Fleming, M. A., & White, P. H. (1999). Stigmatized sources of persuasion: Prejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 19-34.
15. Ratneshwar, S., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Comprehension's role in persuasion: The case of its moderating effect on the persuasive impact of source cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 52-62.
16. Rose. V. G., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2001). Evaluating the comprehensibility of jury instructions: A method and an example. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 409-431.
17. Schuller, R. A., & Cripps, J. (1998). Expert evidence pertaining to battered women: The impact of gender of expert and timing of testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 17-31.
18. Schuller, R. A., Terry, D., & McKimmie, B. (2001). The impact of an expert's gender on jurors' decisions. Law and Psychology Review, 25, 59-79.
19. Swenson, R. A., Nash, D. L., & Roos, D. C. (1984). Source credibility and perceived expertness of testimony in a simulated child-custody case. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 15, 891-898.
20. Swim, J., Borgida, E., Maruyama, G., & Myers, D. G. (1989). Joan McKay versus John McKay: Do gender stereotypes bias evaluations? Psychological Bulletin, 105, 409-425.
21. Wegener, D. T., Kerr, N. L., Fleming, M. A., & Petty, R. R. (2000). Flexible corrections of juror judgments: Implications for jury instructions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 629-654.
22. Weiten, W., & Diamond, S. S. (1979). A critical review of the jury simulation paradigm: The case of defendant characteristics. Law and Human Behavior, 3, 71-93.
23. White, P. W., & Harkins, S. G. (1994). Race of source effects in the elaboration likelihood model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 790-807.