Skip to main content

Individual versus group decision making: Jurors’ reliance on central and peripheral information to evaluate expert testimony


Abstract To investigate dual-process persuasion theories in the context of group decision making, we studied low and high need-for-cognition (NFC) participants within a mock trial study. Participants considered plaintiff and defense expert scientific testimony that varied in argument strength. All participants heard a cross-examination of the experts focusing on peripheral information (e.g., credentials) about the expert, but half were randomly assigned to also hear central information highlighting flaws in the expert’s message (e.g., quality of the research presented by the expert). Participants rendered pre- and post-group-deliberation verdicts, which were considered “scientifically accurate” if the verdicts reflected the strong (versus weak) expe... (more)
Created Date 2017-09-20
Contributor Salerno, Jessica (ASU author) / Bottoms, Bette L. (Author) / Peter-Hagene, Liana C. (Author) / New College of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences / School of Social and Behavioral Sciences
Series PLOS ONE
Type Text
Extent 27 pages
Language English
Identifier DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183580 / ISSN: 1045-3830 / ISSN: 1939-1560
Copyright
Reuse Permissions
Citation Salerno, J. M., Bottoms, B. L., & Peter-Hagene, L. C. (2017). Individual versus group decision making: Jurors’ reliance on central and peripheral information to evaluate expert testimony. Plos One, 12(9). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0183580
Note The article is published at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0183580
Collaborating Institutions ASU Library
Additional Formats MODS / OAI Dublin Core / RIS


  Individual versus group_2017.pdf
2.2 MB application/pdf
Download Count: 74