The purpose of the present study was to experimentally examine whether testimony modality leads to differences in perceptions of expert witnesses and their opinions. We hypothesized that simulated testimony delivered via phone would be perceived as less credible, efficacious, and assigned less weight than testimony delivered via videoconference or in-court. We recruited a sample of 275 U.S. men and women via Amazon Mechanical Turk. After viewing a videotaped mock court scenario depicting testimony by a forensic psychological expert witness, participants completed measures of expert credibility, efficacy, and expert social presence. A simple contrast multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) revealed perceptions did not differ between in-court, videoconferencing, and phone testimony conditions. Higher social presence scores predicted more favorable perceptions of the expert. These findings provide clearer support for the continued implementation of remote videoconference testimony in courts. We offer recommendations on how to optimize the use of remote testimony based on the present study and previous findings.
American Bar Association. (1984). Attacking litigation costs and delay: Project reports and research findings supporting the final report of the Action Commission to Reducing Court Costs and Delays.
3.
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct.
4.
BatastiniA. B.PikeM.ThoenM. A.JonesA. C. T.DavisR. M.EscaleraE. (2020). Perceptions and use of videoconferencing in forensic mental health assessments: A survey of evaluators and legal personnel. Psychology, Crime & Law, 26(6), 593–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2019.1708355
5.
BatastiniA. B.VitaccoM. J.DavisR. M.JonesA. C. T. (2021). Perceived credibility of social media data as a collateral source in criminal responsibility assessment using an experimental design. The International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 20(4), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2021.1880504
6.
BerinskyA. J.HuberG. A.LenzG. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr057
BornsteinB. H.GreeneE. (2011). Jury decision-making: Implications for and from psychology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(1), 63–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410397282
9.
BrodskyS. L.GriffinM. P.CramerR. J. (2010). The Witness Credibility Scale: An outcome measure for expert witness research. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 28, 892–907. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.917
10.
BrodskyS. L.NealT. M. S.CramerR. J.ZiemkeM. H. (2009). Credibility in the courtroom: How likeable should an expert witness be?Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 37, 525–532. https://psycnet-apa-org.lynx.lib.usm.edu/record/2009-24449-009
11.
CooperJ.NeuhausI. M. (2000). The “hired gun” effect: Assessing the effect of pay, frequency of testifying, and credentials on the perception of expert testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 149–171. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005476618435
12.
CramerR. J.BrodskyS. L.DeCosterJ. (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. https://psycnet-apa-org.lynx.lib.usm.edu/record/2009-04176-011
13.
CramerR. J.DeCosterJ.HarrisP. B.FletcherL. M.BrodskyS. L. (2011). A confidence-credibility model of expert witness persuasion: Mediating effects and implications for trial consultation. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 63, 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024591
14.
CramerR. J.DeCosterJ.NealT. M. S.BrodskyS. L. (2013). The Observed Witness Efficacy Scale: A measure of testimony skills. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 1696–1703. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12124
15.
CramerR. J.RodriquezM. D. C.FletcherL. M. (2012). Self-efficacy in the courtroom: Conceptualization, measurement, and application. In BritnerS. L. (Ed.), Self-efficacy in school and community settings (pp. 183–193). Nova Science.
16.
CroftE. (1991). Telephonic testimony in criminal and civil trails. Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal, 14(1), 107–136.
17.
Dahlstrom-HakkiI.AlstadZ.BanerjeeM. (2020). Comparing synchronous and asynchronous online discussions for students with disabilities: The impact of social presence. Computers & Education, 150, 103842. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103842
18.
DaleM. D.SmithD. (2021). Making the case for videoconferencing and remote child custody evaluations (RCCEs): The empirical, ethical, and evidentiary arguments for accepting new technology. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 27(1), 30–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/law0000280
19.
EdensJ. F.SmithS. T.MagyarM. S.MullenK.PittaA.PetrilaJ. (2012). “Hired guns,”“charlatans,” and their “voodoo psychobabble”: Case law references to various forms of perceived bias among mental health expert witnesses. Psychological Services, 9(3), 259–271.
20.
Federal Rules of Evidence. (2000). Taking Testimony. Article VII, §43.
GarofanoA. (2007). Avoiding virtual justice: Video-teleconference testimony in federal criminal trials. Catholic University Law Review (1975), 56(2), 683–714.
24.
GoodmanG. S.TobeyA. E.Batterman-FaunceJ. M.OrcuttH.ThomasS.ShapiroC.SachsenmaierT. (1998). Face-to-face confrontation: Effects of closed-circuit technology on children’s eyewitness testimony and jurors’ decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 165–203. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1025742119977
25.
GourdetC.WitwerA. R.LangtonL.BanksD.PlantyM. G.WoodsD.JacksonB. A. (2020). Court appearances in criminal proceedings through telepresence. RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/RR3222
26.
GreenbergJ.WurstenA. (1988). The psychologist and the psychiatrist as expert witnesses: Perceived credibility and influence. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19(4), 373–378.
27.
GrissoT. (1987). The economic and scientific future of forensic psychological assessment. American Psychologist, 42, 831–839. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.42.9.831
HahnD. A.CumminsR. G. (2017). Effects of attractiveness, gender, and athlete-reporter congruence on perceived credibility of sport reporters. International Journal of Sport Communication, 7(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1123/IJSC.2013-0113
30.
HaraK.AdamsA.MillandK.SavageS.Callison-BurchC.BighamJ. P. (2018). A data-driven analysis of workers’ earnings on Amazon Mechanical Turk. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–14). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174023
31.
HauserD. J.SchwarzN. (2016). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 400–407. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428015-0578-z
32.
JohnsonD. R.BordenL. A. (2012). Participants at your fingertips: Using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to increase student–faculty collaborative research. Teaching of Psychology, 39(4), 245–251.
33.
KennedyR.CliffordS.BurleighT.WaggonerP. D.JewellR.WinterN. J. G. (2020). The shape of and solutions to the MTurk quality crisis. Political Science Research and Methods, 8, 614–629. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2020.6
34.
LandströmS.GranhagP. A.HartwigM. (2005). Witnesses appearing live versus on video: Effects on observers’ perception, veracity assessments and memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 19(7), 913–933.
35.
LedererF. I. (2004). The potential use of courtroom technology in major terrorism cases. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 12(3), 887–938.
36.
LedererF. I. (2009). The legality and practicality of remote witness testimony. The Practical Litigator, 19.
LuxtonD. D.LexcenF. J. (2018). Forensic competency evaluations via videoconferencing: A feasibility review and best practice recommendations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 49, 124–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000179
39.
LuxtonD. D.PruittL. D.OsenbachJ. E. (2014). Best practices for remote psychological assessment via telehealth technologies. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45, 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034547
40.
Maryland v. Craig. 497 US 836, 110 S. Ct. 3157, 111 L. Ed. 2d 666—Supreme Court (1990).
41.
McDonaldB. R.MorganR. D.MetzeP. S. (2016). The attorney-client working relationship: A comparison of in-person versus videoconferencing modalities. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(2), 200–210. https://doi.org/1076-8971/16
42.
MillerR. D. (1991). The presentation of expert testimony via live audio-visual communication. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 19(1), 5–20.
43.
MillerT. W.ClarkJ.VeltkampL. J.BurtonD. C.SwopeM. (2008). Teleconferencing model for forensic consultation, court testimony, and continuing education. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 26, 301–313. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.809
NealT. M. S.BrodskyS. (2008). Expert witness credibility as a function of eye contact behavior and gender. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 3, 51515–51526. https://doi.org/10.1177/009385-4808325405
46.
NealT. M. S.GuadagnoR. E.EnoC. A.BrodskyS. L. (2012). Warmth and competence on the witness stand: Implications for the credibility of male and female expert witnesses. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 40(4), 488–497.
47.
OrcuttH. K.GoodmanG. S.TobeyA. E.Batterman-FaunceJ. M.ThomasS. (2001). Detecting deception in children’s testimony: Factfinders’ abilities to reach the truth in open court and closed-circuit trials. Law and Human Behavior, 25, 339–372. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010603618330
48.
PatzerG. L. (1983). Source credibility as a function of communicator physical attractiveness. Journal of Business Research, 11(2), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(83)90030-9
49.
PeffleyM.HurwitzJ.SnidermanP. M. (1997). Racial stereotypes and whites’ political views of blacks in the context of welfare and crime. Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 30–60.
50.
PerseE. M.BurtonP. I.LearsM. E.KovnerE. S.SenR. J. (1992). Predicting computer-mediated communication in a college class. Communication Research Reports, 9, 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099209359908
51.
RossJ.IraniL.ZaldivarA.TomlinsonB.SilbermanM. S. (2010). Who are the crowdworkers? Shifting demographics in Mechanical Turk. In CHI’10 Extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2863–2872). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753846.1753873
ShortJ.WilliamsE.ChristieB. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. John Wiley.
54.
SourdinT.ZeleznikowJ. (2020). Courts, mediation and Covid-19. Australian Business Law Review, 48(2), 138–158. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3595910
55.
SpenceP. R.LachlanK. A.WestermanD.SpatesS. A. (2013). Where the gates matter less: Ethnicity and perceived source credibility in social media health messages. Howard Journal of Communications, 24, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2013.748593
ThomasK. C.EllisA. R.KonradT. R.HolzerC. E.MorrisseyJ. P. (2009). County-level estimates of mental health professional shortage in the United States. Psychiatric Services, 60(10), 1323–1328. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.2009.60.10.1323
Van EsR. M. S.KunstM. J. J.de KeijserJ. W. (2020). Forensic mental health expert testimony and judicial decision-making: A systematic literature review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 51, Article 101387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101387
60.
WeinbergJ. D.NielsenL. B.AlbrechtK. (2019). The deserving worker: Decisions about workplace accommodation by judges and laypeople. Law & Policy, 41(3), 286–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12133
61.
WikA.HollenV.FisherW. H. (2020). Forensic patients in state psychiatric hospitals: 1999–2016. CNS Spectrums, 25(2), 196–206. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1092852919001044
62.
WilliamsG. R.FarmerL. C.LeeR. E.CundickB. P.HowellR. J.RookerC. K. (1975). Juror perceptions of trial testimony as a function of the method of presentation: A comparison of live, color video, black-and-white video, audio, and transcript presentations. Brigham Young University Law Review, 1975(2), 375–421. https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=40781
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
