Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McKimmie, B. M.
Right arrow Articles by Schuller, R. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 7, No. 2, 131-143 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/1368430204043724
© 2004 SAGE Publications

Jurors’ Responses to Expert Witness Testimony: The Effects of Gender Stereotypes

Blake M. McKimmie

Cameron J. Newton

Deborah J. Terry

University of Queensland

Regina A. Schuller

York University

The present study investigated whether the impact of expert testimony was influenced by the congruency between the gender of the expert and the gender orientation of the case. Participants (N = 62) read a trial transcript involving a price-fixing allegation in either a male or female oriented domain. Within the case, the gender of the expert was manipulated. As predicted, the impact of the expert (e.g. damage awards) was greater when the gender of the expert and domain of the case were congruent as opposed to incongruent. Results also indicated that the impact of gender-domain congruency was particularly pronounced following group discussion. In addition, there was evidence that this effect was mediated through participants’ evaluations of the expert witness.

Key Words: expert witnesses • juror decision-making • stereotypes

References

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Bray, R. M., & Kerr, N. L. (1979). Use of simulation method in the study of jury behavior: Some methodological considerations . Law and Human Behavior, 3, 107–120 .
  • Brekke, N., & Borgida, E. (1988). Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: A social-cognitive analysis . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 372–386 .[CrossRef]
  • 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 .[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P.Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social Influence: The Ontario Symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum .
  • Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1983). Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 241–256 .[CrossRef]
  • Cohen, C. E. (1981). Person categories and social perception: Testing some boundaries of the processing effect of prior knowledge . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 441–452 .[CrossRef]
  • Cooper, J., Bennett, E. A., & Sukel, H. L. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior, 20, 379–394 .[CrossRef]
  • Debono, K. G., & Telesca, C. (1990). The influence of source physical attractiveness on advertising effectiveness: A functional perspective . Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(17, Pt 1), 1383–1395 .[CrossRef]
  • Diamond, S., & Casper, J. D. (1992). Blindfolding the jury to verdict consequences: Damages, experts, and the civil jury . Law and Society Review, 26, 513–563 .[CrossRef]
  • Duncan, S. L. (1976). Differential social perception and attribution of intergroup violence: Testing the lower limits of stereotyping of blacks . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 590–598 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Eagly, A., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis . Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22 .
  • Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill .
  • Foss, R. D. (1976). Group decision processes in the simulated trial jury . Sociometry, 39, 305–316 .[CrossRef]
  • Freckelton, I., & Selby, H. (1989). The use and abuse of experts . Law Institute Journal, 63(1/2), 30–35 .
  • Gigone, D., & Hastie, R. (1993). The common knowledge effect: Information sharing and group judgment . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 959–974 .[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1952). The influence of source credibility in communication effectiveness . Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635–650 .
  • Insko, C. A., Lind, E. A., & LaTour, S. (1976). Persuasion, recall, and thoughts . Representative Research in Social Psychology, 7, 66–78 .
  • Jackson, L. M., Esses, V. M., & Burris, C. T. (2001). Contemporary sexism and discrimination: The importance of respect for men and women . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 48–61 .[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Kalven, H., Jr., & Zeisel, H. (1966) The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown .
  • Kaplan, M. F. (1977). Discussion polarization effects in a modified jury decision paradigm: Informational influences . Sociometry, 40, 262–271 .[CrossRef]
  • Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C. M. (1996). A general procedure for the estimation of interdependence . Psychological Bulletin, 119, 138–148 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Kerr, N. L., Nerenz, D., & Herrick, D. (1979). Role playing and the study of jury behavior . Sociological Methods and Research, 7, 337–355 .
  • Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory . Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 13, 585–589 .[CrossRef]
  • London, K., & Nunez, N. (2000). The effect of jury deliberations on jurors’ propensity to disregard inadmissible evidence . Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 932–939 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Mackie, D. M., & Worth, L. T. (1989). Cognitive deficits and the mediation of positive affect in persuasion . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 27–40 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Miller, N., Maruyama, G., Beaber, R. J., & Valone, K. (1976). Speed of speech and persuasion . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 615–624 .[CrossRef]
  • Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 125–135 .[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1991). Cognitive and social processes in decision making. In L. B. Resnick & J. M Levine (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association .
  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Brown .
  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69–81 .[CrossRef]
  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, 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 argument-based persuasion . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847–855 .[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Ratneshwar, S., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Comprehension’s role in persuasion: The case of its moderating effect on persuasive impact of source cues . Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 52–62 .[CrossRef]
  • Rudman, L. A., & Kilianski, S. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1315–1328 .[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Saks, M. J. (1977). Jury verdicts: The role of group size and social decision rule. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books .
  • Sangha, B., & Moles, B. (1997). Gendered stereotypes and unconscionability: Can we trust the judges to get it right? Flinders Journal of Law Reform, 1, 145–179 .
  • 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 .[CrossRef][ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
  • Schuller, R. A., Terry, D. J., & McKimmie, B. M. (2001). The impact of an expert’s gender on jurors’ decisions . Law and Psychology Review, 25, 59–79 .
  • Sereno, K. K. (1983). Source credibility . Journal of Forensic Sciences, 28, 532–536 .
  • Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
  • Stoner, J. A. F. (1968). Risky and cautious shifts in group decisions: The influence of widely held values . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 442–459 .
  • 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 .[CrossRef]
  • Tanford, S., & Penrod, S. (1986). Jury deliberations: Discussion content and influence processes in jury decision making . Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 322–347 .[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases . Science, 185, 1124–1130 .[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  • Vinnokur, A., & Burnstein, E. (1974). The effects of partially shared persuasive arguments on group-induced shifts. A problem-solving approach . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 305–315 .[CrossRef][ISI]
  • Wood, W., & Kallgren, C. A. (1988). Communicator attributes and persuasion: Recipients’ access to attitude-relevant information in memory . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 172–182 .[Abstract]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McKimmie, B. M.
Right arrow Articles by Schuller, R. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?