| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
REGULAR ARTICLE |
Dr. Brodsky is Professor of Psychology, and Ms. Neal, Mr. Cramer, and Mr. Ziemke are doctoral students in Psychiatry, The University of Albama, Tuscaloosa, AL. Address correspondence to: Stanley L. Brodsky, PhD, University of Alabama, Box 870348, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487. E-mail: sbrodsky{at}bama.ua.edu
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract Source CredibilityExtraversion as a Moderator...Gender, Extraversion, and...The Present StudyHypothesesMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
|
Source Credibility |
|---|
|
TopAbstractSource CredibilityExtraversion as a Moderator...Gender, Extraversion, and...The Present StudyHypothesesMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Griffin and colleagues5 have identified four empirically supported domains of courtroom credibility: trustworthiness, knowledge, confidence, and likeability. The components of credibility in the courtroom may be more specific than the components of general credibility, as conceptualized by McCroskey and Young,3,4 due to the specific dynamics involved in courtroom testimony. Existing research has already demonstrated the significant and curvilinear relation of expert witness confidence to credibility.6 Medium levels of witness confidence were rated as most credible, followed by high and then low levels of confidence. In this study, we sought to examine the relation between expert witness likeability and mock juror judgments of credibility and their sentencing decisions.
|
Extraversion as a Moderator ofPerceived Likeability |
|---|
|
TopAbstractSource CredibilityExtraversion as a Moderator...Gender, Extraversion, and...The Present StudyHypothesesMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The relation between extraversion and likeability has been shown to be different between the genders.11,12 In 1986, Riggio and Friedman12 used three measures of extraversion: one measure from the Personality Research Form, one measure from the Eysenck Personality Inventory, and one subscale of the Self-Monitoring Scale. The intercorrelations (computed separately for women and men) of these scales were all statistically significant and were all related to perceived likeability. The extraverted men tended to display outwardly focused and fluid expressive behavior and were in turn judged more likeable than were the men who scored low on expressiveness and extraversion. The women who displayed more facial expressiveness drew more favorable initial impressions as rated by others. In a 1984 study, Riggio11 found that the most frequently chosen women in a mock video-dating service (that is, the most likeable) were those who were less extraverted and expressive than their counterparts. The collective drawback of these studies is that the extraversion-likeability link was limited to the same person, rather than looking at how extraversion on the part of the perceiver influences their judgment of the likeability of others.
Studies of extraversion on the part of the perceiver have implications for the present study: extraverted and introverted jurors may differentially perceive witnesses as likeable and credible. For instance, Nass and Lee13 investigated computer-synthesized speech and personality. In a two-part study, they looked at participants (extraverts or introverts) who heard a synthesized voice (extraverted or introverted) on a book-selling Web site. They found that participants accurately assessed personality cues in the synthesized voice and showed similarity of attraction in their evaluation of the computer voice, the book reviews, and the reviewer. The second part of the study added an element of personality to the previous design (e.g., "It is guaranteed to be in very excellent condition!" versus "It is in like-new condition."), and the findings replicated those in part one. The authors concluded that to maximize likableness and trust, a computer personality should be created to be consistent with the user and with the content being presented. The results of this study suggest that an interaction between extraversion and likeability may exist between the personality of the juror and that of the expert witness.
Extraverted people, compared with their introverted counterparts, have been found to rate the likeability of target persons differently.14 Extraverted college students, compared with introverted ones, rated target persons described by unfavorable traits as less likable and target persons described by favorable traits as more likable. The differences in social responsiveness between the extraverts and the introverts could be related to two mechanisms. First, extraverts have a stronger need for stimulation and are thus more likely than introverts to interact with other persons.15 Second, as a result of this interaction, the extravert learns to be more responsive to the positive and/or negative reinforcement potential of other persons.14
|
Gender, Extraversion, and Perceptionsof Likeability |
|---|
|
TopAbstractSource CredibilityExtraversion as a Moderator...Gender, Extraversion, and...The Present StudyHypothesesMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
No studies were located in which differences were examined between men and women in perception of source likeability. Thus, the present study may address a new area for investigation. However, women have rated child witnesses as more credible than men have.21,22 If this pattern holds with adult witnesses, the juror's gender may influence perceptions of expert witness credibility.
|
The Present Study |
|---|
|
TopAbstractSource CredibilityExtraversion as a Moderator...Gender, Extraversion, and...The Present StudyHypothesesMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
|
Hypotheses |
|---|
|
TopAbstractSource CredibilityExtraversion as a Moderator...Gender, Extraversion, and...The Present StudyHypothesesMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
|
Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractSource CredibilityExtraversion as a Moderator...Gender, Extraversion, and...The Present StudyHypothesesMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Two actors were trained and then videotaped while they demonstrated high and low levels of expert likeability. Rehearsal feedback was given to shape successful manipulation of the likeability variable. Pilot studies were conducted to ensure successful manipulation of likeability and clarity of procedures and to avoid revealing the hypotheses to the participants. For the primary data collection, participants were apprised of their rights as research participants and then watched a randomly assigned condition of testimony. They then completed the questionnaire packet outlined herein. The procedures and protection of participants were approved by the Non-Medical Institutional Review Board, Office of Research Compliance, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.
Defining Likeability
Expert witness likeability may be defined as the degree to which an expert is friendly, respectful, kind, well-mannered, and pleasant.5 However, to assess the effect of expert likeability empirically, we sought to define it behaviorally. Drawing on literature from a variety of sources, we identified the following list of verbal and nonverbal components associated with high likeability: a pleasant, smiling facial expression23; use of "we" or "us" when referring to groups24; demonstration of a less controlling attitude24; physical attractiveness25; use of deferential speech and considerate disagreement as opposed to aggressive, defiant contradiction26; a low degree of arrogance exhibited in verbal responses, such as acknowledging limited certainty of findings or a potential for error27; use of informal speech, such as referring to an individual by name and use of less technical jargon28; direct eye contact29; and truthfulness30 (suspicion of lying was negatively associated with likeability).
We concentrated our efforts on the variables most reflective of likeability that could be readily manipulated in the context of testifying. Therefore, we operationally defined likeability according to degree of smiling, use of we or us in reference to groups, absence of arrogant responses, and maintenance of good eye contact. The following criteria were used in manipulated conditions of high and low likeability:
Pilot Study
Results of analysis of the pilot data showed generally that the manipulations were successful. Four conditions (low and high likeability with two different expert witnesses) were assessed to ensure differential ratings between conditions and equity in perceived likeability between actors. Results of an ANOVA (n = 44) showed that the overall model was significant (F(3,41) = 20.53, p < .001). Least significant difference post hoc analyses indicated that the manipulation was successful, as each low-likeability condition was rated significantly lower than each high-likeability condition (p < .001). When the actors were compared, neither the low (p = .46) nor the high (p = .71) conditions were significantly different from each other in likeability ratings. All but one participant indicated that the instructions were clear. (That person failed to answer the question.) In addition, mock juror ratings of other witness characteristics were collected to confirm the manipulation of likeability. Adjectives conceptually linked to likeability were selected based on a list adapted from earlier work.31 Results showed appropriate correlations of mock juror ratings of likeability with other constructs as follows: charm (r = 0.73, p < .001), friendliness (r = 0.73, p < .001), and conceit (r = –0.71, p < .001).
Participants
In the study proper, we enlisted 225 students in introductory psychology from a large public southeastern university. The stimulus materials involved expert testimony about dangerousness in a capital murder sentencing simulation. In accordance with the death-qualification criteria in Witherspoon v. State of Illinois,32 those who reported an absolute inability to assign the death penalty were excluded from data analysis to pursue verisimilitude. A total of 210 participants satisfied death penalty qualification criteria based on opinions expressed on a 10-point Likert scale, with higher values denoting increased support for the death penalty.
The mean age of the participants was 19.06 years (SD = 2.09). There were 59 men and 149 women; 2 did not identify their gender. A total of 97 participants viewed the low-likeability condition and 113 the high-likeability condition. The participants reported their religion as Christian (mostly Southern Baptist) (n = 114), Catholic (n = 41), Protestant (n = 31), Jewish (n = 3), agnostic (n = 5), atheist (n = 3), and other (n = 12); one person chose not to specify religion. Only four participants had served on a jury, and so this variable was not analyzed.
Materials
Demographics
The participants completed a demographic form inquiring about age, sex, ethnicity, religious orientation, attitudes toward the death penalty (10-point Likert scale), and previous experience as a juror.
Manipulated Likeability
Two levels (low and high) of likeability were manipulated with a scenario based on the scripts in Krauss and Sales33 that depict a state-hired expert witness testifying under direct and cross-examination about the recidivism potential of a convicted murderer. The only different content between the testimonies were the manipulated verbal and nonverbal likeability behaviors defined earlier. These conditions were presented in videotaped format.
Two male actors of similar age and credentials were used in the videotaped scenarios. Both actors presented themselves as tall, bearded, male professors at a major university. All scripts held the following psychologist credentials constant: licensed clinical psychologist, an established private psychotherapy practice, 14 years of experience in psycho-legal evaluations (more than 100 risk prediction assessments), and testimony in over 50 cases.
Expert Credibility
The Witness Credibility Scale5 was used to assess credibility. The scale consists of 20 bipolar adjectives on a 10-point Likert scale, in which higher values denote increasing agreement with the adjectives. Each of the four subscales comprises five items. The 
coefficients have been reported for each subscale as follows: confidence (0.88), likeability (0.86), trustworthiness (0.93), knowledge (0.86), and overall credibility (0.95).5 The likeability subscale was eliminated from the analyses to avoid conceptual overlap between the independent variables of behavioral likeability and the criterion measure of credibility.
Sentencing Recommendation
Items scored on a 10-point Likert scale were used for the mock jurors' ratings of the likelihood of assigning the death penalty or life without parole. Because the mock expert provided testimony suggesting that the convicted criminal posed a continuing danger to society, higher values reflected agreement with the observed testimony. Thus, higher likelihood of assigning the death penalty reflected agreement with testimony, while life without parole did not.
Juror Extraversion
Extraversion was assessed with Goldberg's Five-Factor Items.34,35 The scale comprises 50 statements, each of which is rated on a five-point Likert scale. Each of the Five-Factor Model domains, neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, is assessed with 10 items from the scale. Cronbach's for the reliability of the domains has been reported: neuroticism (0.86), extraversion (0.87), openness (0.84), agreeableness (0.82), and conscientiousness (0.79).34,35 Extraversion was the only subscale of interest in the present study.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractSource CredibilityExtraversion as a Moderator...Gender, Extraversion, and...The Present StudyHypothesesMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Independent samples t tests were used to assess the impact of expert likeability on dependent measures. The first hypothesis was that expert likeability influences juror perceptions of credibility in a linear manner, and it was supported by the results. The findings showed that highly likeable witnesses (mean [M] = 120.12, SD = 20.61) were rated higher in overall credibility than their less likeable counterparts (M = 112.11, SD = 21.54; t(205) = –2.74, p = .007). The impact of likeability on perceptions of credibility is clarified by examining differences in the subscale responses. Highly likeable experts (M = 37.60, SD = 8.41) were rated as more trustworthy than their less likeable counterparts (M = 29.79, SD = 10.14; t(206) = –6.06, p < .001). There was no significant main effect of expert likeability on juror perceptions of knowledge (t(207) = –0.72, p = NS) or confidence (t(206) = 0.14, p = NS).
The second hypothesis, which predicted that expert likeability would directly affect juror sentencing decisions, was not supported. Independent samples t tests showed no significant main effect of expert likeability on assignment of the death penalty (t(208) = –0.88, p = NS) or life without parole (t(208) = 0.72, p = NS).
Moderation Analyses
Custom general linear modeling (GLM) was used for all moderation analyses. All continuous predictor variables were standardized. Participant support for the death penalty was included as a covariate in all moderation models, to obtain the most comprehensive predictive model of dependent measures. Thus, each predictive model featured support for the death penalty, likeability conditions, juror gender, and juror extraversion. All two- and three-way interaction terms were included in moderation analyses to clarify any main effects of moderators. One model was run for each dependent measure: total expert witness credibility, likelihood of assigning the death penalty, and likelihood of assigning life without parole.
The overall model predicting total credibility was significant (F(8,192) = 2.03, p = .05; adjusted R2 = 0.04). No significant main effects emerged; however, there was a significant two-way interaction between level of likeability and juror gender (F(1,192) = 5.22, p = 0.02). While the men showed stable ratings of expert credibility, the women rated high-likeability witnesses as more credible than low-likeability witnesses. Figure 1 depicts this moderation.
|
|
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractSource CredibilityExtraversion as a Moderator...Gender, Extraversion, and...The Present StudyHypothesesMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
From a theoretical standpoint, the credibility and likeability constructs are partially clarified in the specific setting of testimony. Perceptions of likeability directly influenced the jurors' trust, but not their decisions. This finding appears to be a new contribution to understanding believability of expert witnesses. Overall, likeability is a construct dependent on the influence of other individual difference factors (e.g., gender) in relation to decision-making. When credibility is examined, the present results combined with those of Cramer and colleagues6 highlight trustworthiness as a pivotal facet of expert witness credibility. Juror perceptions of both confidence and likeability have been shown to influence the trustworthiness component. Extrapolation of these findings suggests that being perceived as likeable and/or confident engenders trust. A possible implication is that trust is a factor that influences behavioral outcomes such as decision-making in the courtroom context. The role of trustworthiness as a determinant of trial outcomes should be further investigated.
Gender and extraversion were shown to be important individual difference factors in jury decision-making. For example, results from the model predicting overall credibility found that while the men showed stable ratings of expert credibility across the conditions of expert likeability, the women rated witnesses with high likeability as significantly more credible than witnesses who were not likeable. This finding may be interpreted through Tannen's conceptualization of distinctive gender communication patterns.36 Tannen argued that men and women may differentially perceive the same verbal behavior due to different communication structures and purposes. Her theory holds that, in general, men use fact-based conversation to uphold a hierarchical social world order, to avoid failure and preserve independence. In contrast, women's communication generally serves the primary purposes of building connections, providing support, and ultimately warding off social isolation.
A 1988 survey of American adults by Kroeger and Thuesen,37 utilizing the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, lends some support to Tannen's assertions. The researchers found that roughly two-thirds of American men prefer making decisions based on logic and rational thought, and that about two-thirds of American women prefer making emotion-based decisions. The finding that the women's, but not the men's, rating of credibility was affected by witness likeability can be interpreted through the more emotional purposes of communication for the genders, as presented by Tannen.36
Apart from witness likeability, juror gender and extraversion interacted to predict decisions. Extraversion and agreement with testimony correlated positively in the male jurors who assigned the death penalty; the female jurors exhibited the opposite pattern. A three-way trend emerged between these factors and the degree of expert witness likeability. Although the level of behavioral likeability offers a situational explanation, there is more to the picture on gender, extraversion, and subsequent decisions. Previous research shows consistent gender disparities in extraversion, in that women are more extraverted than men.16–18 Our findings begin to illuminate how such personality differences manifest in other behaviors and attitudes. From a five-factor perspective,38 highly extraverted persons seek out excitement and positive emotions, engage the social world often, and are gregarious. High degrees of this trait in men appear to result in an agreeable stance toward expert testimony, at least on the backdrop of a capital murder trial. For female jurors, less extraversion may lead to less agreement, based on the present results. Our basic two-way interaction finding allows only for speculation as to the cause of differential agreement, because we did not measure traditional subcomponents of extraversion such as excitement-seeking and gregariousness. A future step in ferreting out the link between gender differences in personality and resulting agreement with testimony would be to examine how various components of extraversion may mitigate decisions by gender.
There are limitations to the current study, including that the testimony was presented via videotape rather than live in a courtroom and that jury deliberations were not included in the study. Moreover, we used only men as mock experts. The findings of the present investigation should be examined with women acting as witnesses as well. In addition, our sample was composed of primarily Caucasian undergraduate students. However, it should be noted that research has found few differences between various trial media or mock juror samples. Bornstein39 and Dunn40 separately concluded that using students as mock jurors in jury-simulation research is not necessarily a cause for concern. Finally, the collection of behaviors conceived of as likeable may be a weakness, because the present design fails to identify which particular behaviors are related to credibility. At the same time the study did feature a comprehensive reflection of behavioral likeability.
The implications of the results in the present study may apply to trial consultation practice. For instance, juror gender and extraversion can be used in the jury selection process as markers for voir dire questions and questionnaire items. Furthermore, trial consultants and attorneys may seek to shape behaviors of experts during witness preparation explicitly to promote trust in the expert's testimony.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractSource CredibilityExtraversion as a Moderator...Gender, Extraversion, and...The Present StudyHypothesesMethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  G. D. Glancy and M. Saini The Confluence of Evidence-Based Practice and Daubert Within the Fields of Forensic Psychiatry and the Law J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, December 1, 2009; 37(4): 438 - 441. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
