Impact of First-Person vs. Expert Testimony on Decision Making

AnnMarie Modler

Co-Presenters: Individual Presentation

College: College of Liberal Arts

Major: Forensic Psychology (M.A.)

Faculty Research Mentor: Christine Doyle

Abstract:

This study shows the impact of expert versus first-person testimony on the decision-making process. The research analyzes whether jurors perceive expert testimony as more credible and persuasive compared to first person directly involved in the situation. Using a survey-based method on Qualtrics, participants watched 2 videos featuring expert and first-person testimony. Once done watching each video, there were a series of questions assessing their judgments. The survey measured factors from 1 through 4, 1 being not at all, 2 being somewhat confident, 3 being neutral and lastly 4 being very confident. In doing this measurement, this will indicate trust in the testimony, perceived credibility and the impact of decision making. Results indicated that both testimonies are equally important and are very much needed in order to make a decision. These findings provide insight into the role of shaping judgements in the legal system and how being persuasive has such a big impact. This can lead to the understanding of the dynamic in how testimony is utilized in trials as a whole.