Individual versus group decision making: Jurors' reliance on central and peripheral information to evaluate expert testimony.

ABSTRACT: To investigate dual-process persuasion theories in the context of group decision making, we studied low and high need-for-cognition (NFC) participants within a mock trial study. Participants considered plaintiff and defense expert scientific testimony that varied in argument strength. All participants heard a cross-examination of the experts focusing on peripheral information (e.g., credentials) about the expert, but half were randomly assigned to also hear central information highlighting flaws in the expert's message (e.g., quality of the research presented by the expert). Participants rendered pre- and post-group-deliberation verdicts, which were considered "scientifically accurate" if the verdicts reflected the strong (versus weak) expert message, and "scientifically inaccurate" if the

SUBMITTER: Salerno JM 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5606931 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature