Description

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

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).

Reuse Permissions
  • application/pdf

    Download count: 0

    Details

    Date Created
    • 2017-09-20
    Resource Type
  • Text
  • Collections this item is in
    Identifier
    • Digital object identifier: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183580
    • Identifier Type
      International standard serial number
      Identifier Value
      1045-3830
    • Identifier Type
      International standard serial number
      Identifier Value
      1939-1560

    Citation and reuse

    Cite this item

    This is a suggested citation. Consult the appropriate style guide for specific citation guidelines.

    Salerno, J. M., Bottoms, B. L., & Peter-Hagene, L. C. (2017). Individual versus group decision making: Jurors’ reliance on central and peripheral information to evaluate expert testimony. Plos One, 12(9). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0183580

    Machine-readable links