Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41464014›Full record

ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025

The Message or the Messenger: The Impact of Explanation Satisfaction and Source Characteristics on Perceptions of Experts and Verdicts.

Kristen L Gittings, Carly E Giffin, Jessica M Salerno

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kristen L GittingsDepartment of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA.ORCID 0009-0009-2635-2809
Carly E GiffinFederal Judicial Center, Washington, DC 20002, USA.
Jessica M SalernoDepartment of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding how expert characteristics shape verdicts is critical. This study identified message (e.g., explanation satisfaction) and source characteristics (e.g., education) that predict perceived expertise and verdicts. We hypothesized an expert with more (versus less) satisfying explanations, education, and hands-on contact with the evidence would be perceived as higher in expertise, and that female experts would be perceived as lower in expertise than male experts. Further, higher expertise would predict more verdicts in line with the expert's testimony. In three mock jury studies (N = 1853), we measured (Studies 1-3) and manipulated (Study 3) explanation satisfaction. We also manipulated source characteristics (i.e., education, Studies 1-3; evidence contact, Studies 1-2; expert gender, Studies 2-3). Mock jurors reported their verdicts and perceptions of the expert. Satisfaction with the expert's explanation was the only consistent predictor of perceived expertise, and in turn, verdicts. This effect operated independently from source characteristics; expert gender, education, and more hands-on contact with the evidence did not have consistent influence on satisfaction. We found evidence that expertise cues (education, Studies 1-3; evidence contact, Studies 1-2) impacted explanation satisfaction but did not consistently influence verdicts. Our findings suggest that explanation satisfaction-not source characteristics-reliably predicted expertise and verdicts. Thus, attorneys should ensure the experts they retain can effectively communicate to jurors.

Indexed as

educationexpertiseexpert witnessesexplanation satisfactiongender

Identifiers

PMID41464014
PMCPMC12730021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.