Likeability and Expert Persuasion: Dislikeability Reduces the Perceived Persuasiveness of Expert Evidence

Frontiers in Psychology ◽

10.3389/fpsyg.2021.785677 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 ◽

Author(s):

Mariam Younan ◽

Kristy A. Martire

Keyword(s):

Death Penalty ◽

Expert Opinion ◽

Past Research ◽

Expert Evidence ◽

Criminal Trials ◽

Sentencing Decisions ◽

Evidence Quality ◽

Quality Evidence ◽

Sentencing Outcomes

With the use of expert evidence increasing in civil and criminal trials, there is concern jurors' decisions are affected by factors that are irrelevant to the quality of the expert opinion. Past research suggests that the likeability of an expert significantly affects juror attributions of credibility and merit. However, we know little about the effects of expert likeability when detailed information about expertise is provided. Two studies examined the effect of an expert's likeability on the persuasiveness judgments and sentencing decisions of 456 jury-eligible respondents. Participants viewed and/or read an expert's testimony (lower vs. higher quality) before rating expert persuasiveness (via credibility, value, and weight), and making a sentencing decision in a Capitol murder case (death penalty vs. life in prison). Lower quality evidence was significantly less persuasive than higher quality evidence. Less likeable experts were also significantly less persuasive than either neutral or more likeable experts. This “penalty” for less likeable experts was observed irrespective of evidence quality. However, only perceptions of the foundational validity of the expert's discipline, the expert's trustworthiness and the clarity and conservativeness of the expert opinion significantly predicted sentencing decisions. Thus, the present study demonstrates that while likeability does influence persuasiveness, it does not necessarily affect sentencing outcomes.

Download Full-text

Limited not lazy: a quasi-experimental secondary analysis of evidence quality evaluations by those who hold implausible beliefs

Cognitive Research Principles and Implications ◽

10.1186/s41235-020-00264-z ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 5 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Kristy A. Martire ◽

Bethany Growns ◽

Agnes S. Bali ◽

Bronte Montgomery-Farrer ◽

Stephanie Summersby ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Secondary Analysis ◽

Past Research ◽

Linear Mixed Effect Model ◽

High Quality ◽

Mixed Effect ◽

High Quality Evidence ◽

Effect Model ◽

Evidence Quality ◽

Quasi Experimental ◽

Quality Evidence

AbstractPast research suggests that an uncritical or ‘lazy’ style of evaluating evidence may play a role in the development and maintenance of implausible beliefs. We examine this possibility by using a quasi-experimental design to compare how low- and high-quality evidence is evaluated by those who do and do not endorse implausible claims. Seven studies conducted during 2019–2020 provided the data for this analysis (N = 746). Each of the seven primary studies presented participants with high- and/or low-quality evidence and measured implausible claim endorsement and evaluations of evidence persuasiveness (via credibility, value, and/or weight). A linear mixed-effect model was used to predict persuasiveness from the interaction between implausible claim endorsement and evidence quality. Our results showed that endorsers were significantly more persuaded by the evidence than non-endorsers, but both groups were significantly more persuaded by high-quality than low-quality evidence. The interaction between endorsement and evidence quality was not significant. These results suggest that the formation and maintenance of implausible beliefs by endorsers may result from less critical evidence evaluations rather than a failure to analyse. This is consistent with a limited rather than a lazy approach and suggests that interventions to develop analytical skill may be useful for minimising the effects of implausible claims.

Download Full-text

Perception of District Judges and Lawyers Towards Medico-legal Reports, Medical Certificates and Medical Expert Opinion

Journal of Nepal Medical Association ◽

10.31729/jnma.3410 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 56 (212) ◽

pp. 735-739

Author(s):

Nuwadatta Subedi ◽

Hima Raj Giri

Keyword(s):

Expert Opinion ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Documentary Evidence ◽

Expert Evidence ◽

Medical Expert ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

District Attorneys ◽

Medical Expert Opinion ◽

Medical Reports

Introduction: The medico legal reports and certificates prepared by doctors can be used as valuable documentary evidence in the court of law. The study was designed with objectives to explore the perception of judges and lawyers about the quality of medico legal reports prepared by the doctors and their competence in providing the expert evidence in the court. Methods: It is a questionnaire based cross sectional study conducted among the district judges and government attorneys of 75 districts of Nepal from March to May 2016. The data obtained was analysed by SPSS version 16.0. Results: Among a total of 78 participants who responded the questionnaire, 40 (51.3%) were district judges and 38 (48.7%) district attorneys. Most of them graded that the reports prepared by the doctors were just average. Among them, 49 (63.6%) strongly agreed and 28 (36.4%) partially agreed that the reports were useful in deciding the cases. A total of 44 (56.4%) respondents strongly agreed and 34 (43.6%) partially agreed that expert opinion of the doctors in the courts were useful to decide the cases. Seventy one (92.2%) of them rated general doctors as moderately competent. Conclusions: The medical reports prepared by the Nepalese doctors were just average as perceived by judges and lawyers and the competency in presenting the evidence in courts was moderate as rated by them.

Download Full-text

8. Opinion evidence

Concentrate Questions and Answers Evidence ◽

10.1093/he/9780198819905.003.0008 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Maureen Spencer ◽

John Spencer

Keyword(s):

Expert Opinion ◽

Expert Witness ◽

Common Law ◽

Expert Evidence ◽

High Quality ◽

Criminal Trials ◽

Questions And Answers ◽

Flow Charts ◽

Scientific Expertise ◽

Civil Trials

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each book includes typical questions, bullet-pointed answer plans and suggested answers, author commentary and diagrams and flow charts. This chapter explores an area of evidence law dominated by expert witness evidence and the extent to which flawed testimony leads to miscarriages of justice. Expert evidence is now commonplace in criminal and civil trials, and the courts and Parliament have developed procedures to ensure that it is of high quality. These are an eclectic mix of common law and statute and their development reflects the importance of scientific expertise. It is necessary to be familiar with the differences between expert and non-expert opinion evidence and on when and in what circumstances both types are admissible and questions that can be asked of the expert whilst giving evidence. The approach depends on whether the question relates to civil or criminal trials

Download Full-text

A Critical Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on Acupuncture for Poststroke Insomnia

Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine ◽

10.1155/2020/2032575 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 2020 ◽

pp. 1-7

Author(s):

Jinke Huang ◽

Manli Wu ◽

Simin Liang ◽

Xiaohui Qin ◽

Min Shen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Quality Assessment ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Acupuncture Treatment ◽

Descriptive Analysis ◽

Control Group ◽

Evidence Quality ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Quality Evidence

Objectives. Acupuncture has increasingly been used for insomnia relief after stroke. We aimed to evaluate the methodological quality and summarize the evidence regarding the effectiveness of acupuncture for poststroke insomnia (PSI) from systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs). Methods. Eight databases were searched from inception through August 23, 2020. SRs/MAs on acupuncture treatment for PSI were included. Methodological quality assessment was performed using Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), and evidence quality assessment was performed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Results. Six SRs/MAs on acupuncture treatment for PSI were included. The AMSTAR-2 showed that the methodological quality of all included SRs/MAs was rated as critically low. According to the evaluation results of GRADE, 38.9% (7/18) of outcomes were rated as very low-quality evidence, 22.2% (4/18) were low-quality evidence, and 8.9% (7/18) were moderate-quality evidence. Descriptive analysis results showed that acupuncture was an effective treatment modality for PSI. Conclusions. All included reviews indicated that acupuncture was more effective than the control group for the treatment of PSI, but the credibility of the results is limited owing to the generally low methodological and evidence quality of the included SRs/MAs. More high-quality evidence is needed to determine whether acupuncture is more effective than other treatments.

Download Full-text

Exploring Juror Evaluations of Expert Opinions Using the Expert Persuasion Expectancy (ExPEx) Framework

10.31234/osf.io/euh9g ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Kristy Martire ◽

Danielle Navarro ◽

Gary Edmond

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Gait Analysis ◽

Expert Opinion ◽

Expert Testimony ◽

Jury Decision Making ◽

Expert Evidence ◽

Subjective Ratings ◽

Expert Opinions ◽

Jury Decision

Title: Exploring Juror Evaluations of Expert Opinions Using the Expert Persuasion Expectancy (ExPEx) Framework PurposeFactfinders 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. MethodsJury-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). ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsWe found that 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. KEYWORDS: Expert opinion; Persuasion; Expert Testimony; Jury decision-making; Expert evidence

Download Full-text

Benefits and Safety of Chinese Herbal Medicine in Treating Psoriasis: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Frontiers in Pharmacology ◽

10.3389/fphar.2021.680172 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 ◽

Author(s):

Jie Zhang ◽

Qianying Yu ◽

Li Peng ◽

Yuesi Qin ◽

Mingyi Jing ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

High Quality ◽

Chinese Herbal ◽

Evidence Quality ◽

Meta Analyses ◽

Quality Evidence

Background: In recent years, systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for psoriasis have continuously emerged. Their methods and evidence quality, however, are yet to be evaluated, and whether their conclusions can provide clinicians with reliable evidence is still debatable.Objectives: This overview aims to evaluate the methodological quality, risk of bias, and reporting quality of relevant SRs/MAs, as well as the current evidence of CHM for treating psoriasis.Methods: We searched nine electronic databases from their respective time of establishment to January 20, 2021, as well as the reference lists of the included SRs/MAs, protocol registries, and gray literature. Two reviewers independently used the following: A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2, Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS), the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), and Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to evaluate the methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality, and evidence quality of the included SRs/MAs.Results: This review included 14 SRs/MAs involving 45 outcomes, of which 12 (85.71%) SRs/MAs had a very low quality evaluated by AMSTAR 2 and 7 (50.00%) SRs/MAs had a high risk of bias assessed by ROBIS. The protocol and registration and funding statements were the major reporting flaws according to the PRISMA checklist. The evaluation with the GRADE system demonstrated no outcome of high-quality evidence, and inconsistent efficacy evaluations were found in this overview. Only 15 (33.33%) outcomes were moderate-quality evidence, supporting the claim that CHM plus Western medicine (WM) was superior to WM. Generally low quality of evidence showed no difference in the incidence of adverse events between the combined therapy and WM. However, the conclusion that CHM was superior to WM cannot be drawn due to the inconsistent results.Conclusion: Despite that CHM has the potential benefit and safety in the adjuvant treatment of psoriasis, the conclusion should be treated with caution because of the generally low quality of methodology and evidence. In the future, high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should be carried out, and the quality of relevant SRs should also be improved to promote their clinical application.

Download Full-text

Does it take a good argument to be persuaded? How manipulating quality of evidence affects message persuasiveness

Psihologija ◽

10.2298/psi1601001b ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 49 (1) ◽

pp. 1-18

Author(s):

Marija Brankovic ◽

Iris Zezelj

Keyword(s):

Attitude Change ◽

Methodological Issues ◽

Good Argument ◽

Persuasive Message ◽

Quality Of Evidence ◽

Evidence Quality ◽

Within Subjects ◽

Normative Criteria ◽

Quality Evidence

Two experiments investigated the effects of manipulating quality of evidence that supports arguments on message persuasiveness. The evidence quality was systematically manipulated by violating one or two of the relevant normative criteria. In experiment one, participants were presented with arguments embedded within a persuasive message. All supportive evidence was of either high, medium or low quality (between-subjects design). In experiment two, each argument was presented separately and was supported with high, medium and low quality evidence (within-subjects design). The recipients were insensitive to manipulations of evidence quality in the first, but sensitive to it in the second experiment. The findings are discussed with reference to conceptual and methodological issues in the study of attitude change.

Download Full-text