Premium
Juror Responses to Direct and Mediated Presentations of Expert Testimony 1
Author(s) -
Jacoubovitch M.Daniel,
Bermant Gordon,
Crockett Geraldine T.,
McKinley William,
Sanstad Alan
Publication year - 1977
Publication title -
journal of applied social psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.822
H-Index - 111
eISSN - 1559-1816
pISSN - 0021-9029
DOI - 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1977.tb00748.x
Subject(s) - plaintiff , damages , psychology , competence (human resources) , ceteris paribus , social psychology , law , political science , philosophy , epistemology
One hundred twenty‐one King County (Washington) jurors viewed one of four videotaped versions of medical testimony relevant to the determination of a claim for damages against an employer in an industrial accident case. Two versions presented the claimant's physician (direct testimony), and two presented an attorney reading the physician's testimony verbatim (mediated testimony). Two professional actors (one female, one male) portrayed the physician in one version and the attorney in the other. Videotape presentations were introduced by written material and followed by a questionnaire in which Ss answered a number of legal, attitudinal, and factual questions. Responses to direct testimony differed from those to mediated testimony on several dimensions: number of items listed as significant to the determination of a cash award, estimates of sufficiency of material presented to determine an award, estimates of physician's competence, estimates of confidence in ratings of physician's competence, and number of correct items in a factual retention test. Significant correlations were found between scores on some of these dimensions and number of dollars awarded as compensation. Differences between the actors produced no significant effects, nor were there any significant interactions. It is concluded that, ceteris paribus , direct testimony is to be preferred to mediated testimony.