Persuasion Factors that Influence the Effectiveness of Cross-Examination of a Forensic Expert
type: CreativeWork
description: False and misleading forensic testimony is a large contributor to wrongful convictions. Many forensic science disciplines are subjective and have concerning error rates, and forensic experts often testify with unfounded certainty regarding their analyses. These issues, coupled with jurors' misbeliefs about forensic science, result in criminal convictions despite weak evidence against a defendant. A possible safeguard against false and misleading forensic testimony is cross-examination of a forensic expert. Some cross-examination research suggests that particular types of questioning of an expert witness effectively reduce jurors' perceptions of the expert's credibility. Research has identified factors that influence the persuasiveness of expert witnesses. Specifically, Martire and colleagues (2020) created an Expert Persuasion Expectancy Framework that includes eight factors that influence expert persuasiveness. Two of these factors, field and trustworthiness, serve as cues that affect the credibility of the message source (i.e., expert witness). Two other factors, foundation and consistency, serve as message credibility cues (i.e., testimony content). Because source credibility and message credibility are factors that affect persuasion, manipulating these four factors in an expert witness should influence the perceived credibility of the expert and the perceived credibility of the expert's message - and ultimately affect the persuasiveness of the expert testimony. The current study tested whether highlighting four of Martire's factors (i.e., consistency, field, foundation, and trustworthiness) in a cross-examination of a forensic expert effectively reduces the persuasiveness of the expert. The current study also tested individual differences (i.e., Need for Cognition, legal authoritarianism, attitudes toward the legal system, attitudes toward forensic science, and legal fiction consumption) as potential moderators of the framework. A total of 563 mock jurors read a…
abstract: False and misleading forensic testimony is a large contributor to wrongful convictions. Many forensic science disciplines are subjective and have concerning error rates, and forensic experts often testify with unfounded certainty regarding their analyses. These issues, coupled with jurors' misbeliefs about forensic science, result in criminal convictions despite weak evidence against a defendant. A possible safeguard against false and misleading forensic testimony is cross-examination of a forensic expert. Some cross-examination research suggests that particular types of questioning of an expert witness effectively reduce jurors' perceptions of the expert's credibility. Research has identified factors that influence the persuasiveness of expert witnesses. Specifically, Martire and colleagues (2020) created an Expert Persuasion Expectancy Framework that includes eight factors that influence expert persuasiveness. Two of these factors, field and trustworthiness, serve as cues that affect the credibility of the message source (i.e., expert witness). Two other factors, foundation and consistency, serve as message credibility cues (i.e., testimony content). Because source credibility and message credibility are factors that affect persuasion, manipulating these four factors in an expert witness should influence the perceived credibility of the expert and the perceived credibility of the expert's message - and ultimately affect the persuasiveness of the expert testimony. The current study tested whether highlighting four of Martire's factors (i.e., consistency, field, foundation, and trustworthiness) in a cross-examination of a forensic expert effectively reduces the persuasiveness of the expert. The current study also tested individual differences (i.e., Need for Cognition, legal authoritarianism, attitudes toward the legal system, attitudes toward forensic science, and legal fiction consumption) as potential moderators of the framework. A total of 563 mock jurors read a…
author: Kirshenbaum, Jacqueline Marie
keywords: Cross-examination, Expert credibility, Expert persuasion, Expert testimony, Forensic expert, Jury decision making
date published: 2021
date modified: 2026-07-27T21:47:25Z
provider: University of Nevada - Reno
publisher: Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations
type: WebPage
source organization: University of Nevada - Reno

PropertyValue
property ID: Handle
value: http://hdl.handle.net/11714/7801