Abstract
This chapter provides an overview of the field of witness credibility. The credibility of witnesses is based on more than the substantive content of witness testimony. Ideally, the probative value of testimony by both lay and expert witnesses would contribute to understanding, would help triers of fact move toward conclusions, and would stand alone to be assessed clearly for what it is. Nonetheless, the credibility of witnesses is based on other aspects of witness testimony that make a difference in how substantive content is perceived by triers of fact. Trial consulting has emerged in the last 30 years and has a major investment in witness preparation. At its best, the trial consultation field seeks to relieve witnesses’ anxiety and intensely prepare witnesses without compromising the substantive content of their testimony. Source credibility is discussed since it has been the foundation for much of the research on the credibility of witnesses. A number of typologies have been organized to identify the component elements that make up source credibility and expert witness credibility. Research supports the conclusion that women experts are particularly likely to receive personally intrusive questions over men experts, and an evaluation of how these questions affect perceptions of experts is offered. The use of neuroscience in the courtroom has a long and controversial history and is briefly discussed, as well as its impact on juror decision-making in terms of witness credibility.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Appelbaum, P. S. (2009). Through the glass darkly: Functional neuroimaging evidence enters the courtroom. Psychiatric Services, 60, 21–23. doi:10.1176./appi.ps.60.1.21.
Baskin, J. H., Edersheim, J. G., & Price, B. H. (2007). Is a picture worth a thousand words? Neuroimaging in the courtroom. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 33, 239–269. Retrieved from http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/ajlm/.
Berlo, D. K., Lemert, J. B., & Mertz, R. J. (1969). Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of message sources. Public Opinion Quarterly, 33, 563–576.
Brodsky, S. L. (1999). In S. L. Brodsky (Ed.), The expert expert witness: More maxims and guidelines for testifying in court (pp. 63–66). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Brodsky, S. L. (2004). Coping with cross examination and other pathwas to effective testimony. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Brodsky, S. L. (2009). Principles and practice of trial consultation. New York: Guilford.
Brodsky, S. L., Griffin, M. P., & Cramer, R. J. (2010). The Witness Credibility Scale: An outcome measure for expert witness research. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28(6), 892–907.
Chopra, S., & Hess, D. T. (2009). Mental health professionals in the witness chair: Strategies for more effective legal testimony. Directions in Psychiatry, 29(4), 269–282.
Cramer, R. J., Brodsky, S. L., & DeCoster, J. (2009). Expert witness confidence and juror personality: Their impact on credibility and persuasion in the courtroom. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 37, 63–74.
DeBono, A., & Harnish, R. (1988). Source expertise, source attractiveness, and the processing of persuasive information: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(4), 541–546.
Dixit-Brunet, A. (2006). A qualitative study exploring the factors that contribute to stress in women forensic psychologists who testify in court as expert witnesses. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(4-B), 2221.
Ferrel v. State. (2005). 918 So. 2d 163 (S.C FL 2005).
Frye v. United States. (1923). 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
Gutheil, T. G., Commons, M. L., & Miller, P. M. (2001). Personal questions on cross-examination: A pilot study of expert witness attitudes. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 29, 85–88.
Heinlein, R. (1973). Time enough for love. New York: Ace.
Jones, O. D., Wagner, A. D., Faigman, D. L., & Raichle, M. E. (2013). Neuroscientist in court. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 730–736. doi:10.1038/nrn3585.
Kwartner, P. P. (2007). The impact of educative and evaluative expert witness testimony on trial outcome: A meta-analytic review. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX.
Kwartner, P. P., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2008). Testifying in court: Evidence-based recommendations of expert-witness testimony. In R. Jackson (Ed.), Learning forensic assessment (pp. 565–588). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Larson, B. A., & Brodsky, S. L. (2010). When cross-examination offends: How men and women assess intrusive questioning of male and female expert witnesses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(4), 811–830.
Larson, B. A., & Brodsky, S. L. (2013, March). Managing personally intrusive cross-examination questions: Gender & response style. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Portland, OR.
McCabe, D. P., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition, 107(1), 343–352. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.017.
McCabe, D. P., Castel, A. D., & Rhodes, M. (2011). The influence of fMRI lie detection evidence on juror decision-making. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 29, 566–577. doi:10.1002/bsl.993.
McCroskey, J. C. (1966). Scales for the measurement of ethos. Speech Monographs, 33, 65–72.
O’Connor, M., & Mechanic, M. (2000, June). A broader exploration of the role of gender in expert testimony. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues: Ann Arbor, MI.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243–281.
Rosen, B. R., & Savoy, R. L. (2012). fMRI at twenty: Has it changed the world? NeuroImage, 62(2), 1316–1324. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.004.
Rushing, S. E., & Langleben, D. D. (2011). Relative function: Nuclear brain imaging in United States courts. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 39, 567–593. Retrieved from http://www.federallegalpublications.com/journal-of-psychiatry-law.
Satel, S., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2013). Brainwashed: The seductive appeal of mindless neuroscience. New York: Basic Books.
Schweitzer, N. J., & Saks, M. J. (2011). Neuroimage evidence and the insanity defense. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 29, 592–601. doi:10.1002/bsl/.995.
Smith, C., De Houwer, T., & Nosek, B. A. (2013). Consider the source: Persuasion of implicit evaluations is moderated by source credibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(2), 193–205.
Sternthal, B., Dholakia, R., & Leavitt, C. (1978). The persuasive effect of source credibility: Tests of cognitive response. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(4), 252–260.
Sternthal, B., Phillips, L. W., & Dholakia, R. (1978). The persuasive effect of source credibility: A situational analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 285–314.
Stone, V. A., & Eswara, H. S. (1969). The likeability and self-interest of the source in attitude change. Journalism Quarterly, 46, 61–68.
United States v. Hinckley. (1982). 599 F. Supp. 1342 (D. C. District 1982).
Wardlaw, J. M., O’Connell, G., Shuler, K., DeWilde, J., Haley, J., Escobar, O., et al. (2011). “Can it read my mind?” What do the public and experts think of the current (mis)uses of neuroimaging? PLoS One, 6(10), 1–9. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025829.
Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(3), 470–477. Retrieved from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/loi/jocn.
Whitehead, J. L. (1968). Factors of source credibility. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 54, 59–63.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media, New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Brodsky, S.L., Pivovarova, E. (2016). The Credibility of Witnesses. In: Willis-Esqueda, C., Bornstein, B. (eds) The Witness Stand and Lawrence S. Wrightsman, Jr.. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2077-8_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2077-8_4
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-2076-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-2077-8
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)