Source Credibility and the Language of Expert Testimony1
In an examination of the language used by expert witnesses during actual courtroom testimony, it was expected that experts who exhibited content themes related to their credentials or experience (expertise) and to objectivity (trustworthiness) would be perceived as being more credible. Forty‐three s...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of applied social psychology 1992-12, Vol.22 (24), p.1909-1939 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1939 |
---|---|
container_issue | 24 |
container_start_page | 1909 |
container_title | Journal of applied social psychology |
container_volume | 22 |
creator | Hurwitz, Steven D. Miron, Murray S. Johnson, Blair T. |
description | In an examination of the language used by expert witnesses during actual courtroom testimony, it was expected that experts who exhibited content themes related to their credentials or experience (expertise) and to objectivity (trustworthiness) would be perceived as being more credible. Forty‐three segments of expert testimony were taken from actual court transcripts and content analyzed. Two‐factor analytically derived factors predicted expert witness membership into low‐ and high‐credibility groups, defined a priori by credibility judgments of undergraduate raters (n = 348). These factors were (a) the use of passive voice and (b) the witnesses' background and qualifications. Further analyses revealed that perceptions of expert witness credibility were also a function of the usage of words that connote power (an expert's official status, degree of prominence and/or recognition) or negative (suffering or damage). Results are discussed in terms of dimensions of source credibility and their parallels to past research in persuasion. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb01530.x |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_wiley</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1873338661</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>4317850451</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p850-209dabe3caf653db9a873a428cff9de863bbf0bb73e33efd775b1b805c8e2d4e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kNFLwzAQxoMoOKf_Q9Dn1lyztMmbY8ypDBS295A0l9mytbXtcP3vTdnwXu6O-_i-40fII7AYQj2XMQihIpCQxqBUEveWgeAsPl2Ryf_pmkwYSyBSLFG35K7ryrAqweSEyE19bHOkixZdYYt90Q_UVI7230jXptodzQ5p7eny1GDb0y12fXGoqwHuyY03-w4fLn1Ktq_L7eItWn-u3hfzddRIwaKEKWcs8tz4VHBnlZEZN7NE5t4rhzLl1npmbcaRc_Quy4QFK5nIJSZuhnxKns62TVv_HEO6LsPDVUjUEKw4l2kKQfVyVv0Wexx00xYH0w4amB4p6VKPKPSIQo-U9IWSPumP-eZrHPkfI41epg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1873338661</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Source Credibility and the Language of Expert Testimony1</title><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Hurwitz, Steven D. ; Miron, Murray S. ; Johnson, Blair T.</creator><creatorcontrib>Hurwitz, Steven D. ; Miron, Murray S. ; Johnson, Blair T.</creatorcontrib><description>In an examination of the language used by expert witnesses during actual courtroom testimony, it was expected that experts who exhibited content themes related to their credentials or experience (expertise) and to objectivity (trustworthiness) would be perceived as being more credible. Forty‐three segments of expert testimony were taken from actual court transcripts and content analyzed. Two‐factor analytically derived factors predicted expert witness membership into low‐ and high‐credibility groups, defined a priori by credibility judgments of undergraduate raters (n = 348). These factors were (a) the use of passive voice and (b) the witnesses' background and qualifications. Further analyses revealed that perceptions of expert witness credibility were also a function of the usage of words that connote power (an expert's official status, degree of prominence and/or recognition) or negative (suffering or damage). Results are discussed in terms of dimensions of source credibility and their parallels to past research in persuasion.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-9029</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1559-1816</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb01530.x</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JASPBX</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Credibility ; Expert witness testimony</subject><ispartof>Journal of applied social psychology, 1992-12, Vol.22 (24), p.1909-1939</ispartof><rights>1992 V. H. Winston & Sons, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1559-1816.1992.tb01530.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1559-1816.1992.tb01530.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,33774,45574,45575</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hurwitz, Steven D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miron, Murray S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Blair T.</creatorcontrib><title>Source Credibility and the Language of Expert Testimony1</title><title>Journal of applied social psychology</title><description>In an examination of the language used by expert witnesses during actual courtroom testimony, it was expected that experts who exhibited content themes related to their credentials or experience (expertise) and to objectivity (trustworthiness) would be perceived as being more credible. Forty‐three segments of expert testimony were taken from actual court transcripts and content analyzed. Two‐factor analytically derived factors predicted expert witness membership into low‐ and high‐credibility groups, defined a priori by credibility judgments of undergraduate raters (n = 348). These factors were (a) the use of passive voice and (b) the witnesses' background and qualifications. Further analyses revealed that perceptions of expert witness credibility were also a function of the usage of words that connote power (an expert's official status, degree of prominence and/or recognition) or negative (suffering or damage). Results are discussed in terms of dimensions of source credibility and their parallels to past research in persuasion.</description><subject>Credibility</subject><subject>Expert witness testimony</subject><issn>0021-9029</issn><issn>1559-1816</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1992</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kNFLwzAQxoMoOKf_Q9Dn1lyztMmbY8ypDBS295A0l9mytbXtcP3vTdnwXu6O-_i-40fII7AYQj2XMQihIpCQxqBUEveWgeAsPl2Ryf_pmkwYSyBSLFG35K7ryrAqweSEyE19bHOkixZdYYt90Q_UVI7230jXptodzQ5p7eny1GDb0y12fXGoqwHuyY03-w4fLn1Ktq_L7eItWn-u3hfzddRIwaKEKWcs8tz4VHBnlZEZN7NE5t4rhzLl1npmbcaRc_Quy4QFK5nIJSZuhnxKns62TVv_HEO6LsPDVUjUEKw4l2kKQfVyVv0Wexx00xYH0w4amB4p6VKPKPSIQo-U9IWSPumP-eZrHPkfI41epg</recordid><startdate>199212</startdate><enddate>199212</enddate><creator>Hurwitz, Steven D.</creator><creator>Miron, Murray S.</creator><creator>Johnson, Blair T.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>7U4</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199212</creationdate><title>Source Credibility and the Language of Expert Testimony1</title><author>Hurwitz, Steven D. ; Miron, Murray S. ; Johnson, Blair T.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p850-209dabe3caf653db9a873a428cff9de863bbf0bb73e33efd775b1b805c8e2d4e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1992</creationdate><topic>Credibility</topic><topic>Expert witness testimony</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hurwitz, Steven D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miron, Murray S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Johnson, Blair T.</creatorcontrib><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>Journal of applied social psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hurwitz, Steven D.</au><au>Miron, Murray S.</au><au>Johnson, Blair T.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Source Credibility and the Language of Expert Testimony1</atitle><jtitle>Journal of applied social psychology</jtitle><date>1992-12</date><risdate>1992</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>24</issue><spage>1909</spage><epage>1939</epage><pages>1909-1939</pages><issn>0021-9029</issn><eissn>1559-1816</eissn><coden>JASPBX</coden><abstract>In an examination of the language used by expert witnesses during actual courtroom testimony, it was expected that experts who exhibited content themes related to their credentials or experience (expertise) and to objectivity (trustworthiness) would be perceived as being more credible. Forty‐three segments of expert testimony were taken from actual court transcripts and content analyzed. Two‐factor analytically derived factors predicted expert witness membership into low‐ and high‐credibility groups, defined a priori by credibility judgments of undergraduate raters (n = 348). These factors were (a) the use of passive voice and (b) the witnesses' background and qualifications. Further analyses revealed that perceptions of expert witness credibility were also a function of the usage of words that connote power (an expert's official status, degree of prominence and/or recognition) or negative (suffering or damage). Results are discussed in terms of dimensions of source credibility and their parallels to past research in persuasion.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><doi>10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb01530.x</doi><tpages>31</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0021-9029 |
ispartof | Journal of applied social psychology, 1992-12, Vol.22 (24), p.1909-1939 |
issn | 0021-9029 1559-1816 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1873338661 |
source | Sociological Abstracts; Access via Wiley Online Library |
subjects | Credibility Expert witness testimony |
title | Source Credibility and the Language of Expert Testimony1 |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T01%3A58%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_wiley&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Source%20Credibility%20and%20the%20Language%20of%20Expert%20Testimony1&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20applied%20social%20psychology&rft.au=Hurwitz,%20Steven%20D.&rft.date=1992-12&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=24&rft.spage=1909&rft.epage=1939&rft.pages=1909-1939&rft.issn=0021-9029&rft.eissn=1559-1816&rft.coden=JASPBX&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb01530.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_wiley%3E4317850451%3C/proquest_wiley%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1873338661&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |