Accounting for the Appeal to the Authority of Experts

Work in Argumentation Studies (AS) and Studies in Expertise and Experience (SEE) has been proceeding on converging trajectories, moving from resistance to expert authority to a cautious acceptance of its legitimacy. The two projects are therefore also converging on the need to account for how, in the course of complex and confused civic deliberations, nonexpert citizens can figure out which statements from purported experts deserve their trust. Both projects recognize that nonexperts cannot assess expertise directly; instead, the nonexpert must judge whether to trust the expert. But how is this social judgment accomplished? A normative pragmatic approach from AS can complement and extend the work from SEE on this question, showing that the expert’s putting forward of his view and “bonding” it with his reputation for expertise works to force or “blackmail” his audience of citizens into heeding what he says. Appeals to authority thus produce the visibility and accountability we want for expert views in civic deliberations.     

The Legitimacy of Pseudo‐Expert Discourse in the Public Sphere

This article examines the role of expertise in public debate, specifically the ways in which expertise can be mimicked and deployed as “pseudo‐expert discourse” to generate legitimacy for views that have otherwise been discredited. The article argues that pseudo‐expert discourse having a clear public health or safety impact should be regulated. There have been some attempts to legally regulate this speech through various means; however, these attempts at regulation have been met with fierce resistance, because of free‐speech concerns. The article suggests that these appeals to free speech in the context of pseudo‐expert discourse are both misguided and misplaced. Moreover, because speakers with the relevant expertise or perceived expertise are able to secure uptake of their views, they have a moral responsibility to not deceive or mislead audiences, and may also have various legal responsibilities.     

Perceptions of source efficacy and persuasion: Multiple mechanisms for source effects on attitudes

When communicators are perceived as likely to bring proposed outcomes to fruition, they have source efficacy. Although perceptions of source efficacy are common in persuasion settings, this construct has received little direct research attention. The present research explored how source efficacy may impact persuasion in different ways at different levels of motivation to process messages. Across three experiments, participants encountered message arguments of varying quality from a source manipulated to be relatively efficacious or inefficacious. When motivation to process the message was low, source efficacy served as a peripheral cue (Experiment 1). When motivation was high, efficacy information learned before the message biased processing of ambiguous messages (Experiment 2), but source efficacy learned after the message affected the amount of confidence people had in their message‐related thoughts (Experiment 3). These effects of source efficacy were distinct from effects of perceived source expertise/credibility. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Minority versus majority influence and uncertainty orientation: processing persuasive messages on the basis of situational expectancies

The authors examined the effects of uncertainty orientation on processing persuasive messages from minority sources versus majority sources. The authors gave participants a proattitudinal or counterattitudinal message that either a numerical majority or a numerical minority endorsed and that contained strong or weak arguments. In support of the hypothesis that was related to message scrutiny, uncertainty-oriented individuals engaged in greater message scrutiny when the Source-Position (i.e., minority/majority-pro/con) pairing was imbalanced (in majority-con, minority-pro conditions) than when it was balanced (in majority-pro, minority-con conditions). Certainty-oriented participants showed the opposite pattern, scrutinizing the message more when the situation was balanced than when the situation was imbalanced. Support for the hypothesis that was related to nonsystematic processing was less clear because the majority appeared to have played a greater role in accounting for the aforementioned interaction than did the minority. Additional analyses supported this interpretation. However, in all cases, individual differences in uncertainty orientation moderated strength and direction of information processing.     

Attitudinal ambivalence and message-based persuasion: motivated processing of proattitudinal information and avoidance of counterattitudinal information

Attitudinal ambivalence has been found to increase processing of attitude-relevant information. In this research, the authors suggest that ambivalence can also create the opposite effect: avoidance of thinking about persuasive messages. If processing is intended to reduce experienced ambivalence, then ambivalent people should increase processing of information perceived as proattitudinal (agreeable) and able to decrease ambivalence. However, ambivalence should also lead people to avoid processing of counterattitudinal (disagreeable) information that threatens to increase ambivalence. Three studies provide evidence consistent with this proposal. When participants were relatively ambivalent, they processed messages to a greater extent when the messages were proattitudinal rather than counterattitudinal. However, when participants were relatively unambivalent, they processed messages more when the messages were counterattitudinal rather than proattitudinal. In addition, ambivalent participants perceived proattitudinal messages as more likely than counterattitudinal messages to reduce ambivalence, and these perceptions accounted for message position effects on amount of processing.     

When what you know is not enough: expertise and gender dynamics in task groups

This study investigates how the contribution, identification, and consideration of expertise within groups are affected by gender differences. The authors examined the effects of member expertise and gender on others' perceptions of expertise, actual and own perceptions of influence, and group performance on a decision-making task. The authors' findings are consistent with social role theory and expectation states theory. Women were less influential when they possessed expertise, and having expertise decreased how expert others perceived them to be. Conversely, having expertise was relatively positive for men. These differences were reflected in group performance, as groups with a female expert underperformed groups with a male expert. Thus, contrary to common expectations, possessing expertise did not ameliorate the gender effects often seen in workgroups. The findings are discussed in light of their implications for organizational workgroups in which contribution of expertise is critical to group performance.     

And when shall a little child lead them? evidence for an altercasting theory of source credibility

In two crucial test experiments pitting altercasting against traditional source credibility theories (Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953; Kelman, 1958), students received a message emphasizing either technical or protective themes attributed to a child or an expert. Traditional theories predict an expert should be more effective than a child. According to altercasting theory, credibility is a function of the privileges and responsibilities associated with positions in a role-set. A child places a message recipient into the role of protector and is most effective when arguing for protective as opposed to technical messages. An expert is most effective when arguing within a domain of expertise (technical issues) as opposed to common opinion. The results overwhelmingly support an altercasting interpretation of source credibility.     

And when shall a little child lead them? evidence for an altercasting theory of source credibility

In two crucial test experiments pitting altercasting against traditional source credibility theories (Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953; Kelman, 1958), students received a message emphasizing either technical or protective themes attributed to a child or an expert. Traditional theories predict an expert should be more effective than a child. According to altercasting theory, credibility is a function of the privileges and responsibilities associated with positions in a role-set. A child places a message recipient into the role of protector and is most effective when arguing for protective as opposed to technical messages. An expert is most effective when arguing within a domain of expertise (technical issues) as opposed to common opinion. The results overwhelmingly support an altercasting interpretation of source credibility.     

Working models of attachment shape perceptions of social support: evidence from experimental and observational studies

Two studies examined the association between attachment style and perceptions of social support. Study 1 (N = 95 couples) used an experimental paradigm to manipulate social support in the context of a stressful task. Insecure participants (anxious and avoidant) who received low-support messages appraised these messages more negatively, rated a prior behavioral interaction with their partner as having been less supportive, and performed significantly worse at their task compared with secure participants. Study 2 (N = 153 couples) used a similar paradigm except that partners were allowed to send genuine support messages. Insecure participants (especially fearful) perceived their partners' messages as less supportive, even after controlling for independent ratings of the messages and relationship-specific expectations. These studies provide evidence that individuals are predisposed to appraise their support experiences in ways that are consistent with their chronic working models of attachment, especially when the support message is ambiguous.     

How chronic self-views influence (and potentially mislead) estimates of performance

An important source of people's perceptions of their performance, and potential errors in those perceptions, are chronic views people hold regarding their abilities. In support of this observation, manipulating people's general views of their ability, or altering which view seemed most relevant to a task, changed performance estimates independently of any impact on actual performance. A final study extended this analysis to why women disproportionately avoid careers in science. Women performed equally to men on a science quiz, yet underestimated their performance because they thought less of their general scientific reasoning ability than did men. They, consequently, were more likely to refuse to enter a science competition.     

Social Value Orientations and Decisions to Take Proenvironmental Action1

This study assessed whether social value orientations influence decisions to actively support a proposal for a transportation pollution reduction program. Participants with prosocial or proself orientations were given the opportunity to send letters of support or opposition to the program director. Proself participants were more likely to send letters opposing the program, whereas prosocial participants were more likely to send letters of support. Although proself and prosocial participants reported equivalent support for the program and equivalent perceptions of the program's environmental benefits, proself participants reported higher perceptions of personal costs associated with the program. Social value orientations may lead to differences in environmental behaviors, primarily because of differences in perceptions of the personal costs incurred from engaging in these behaviors.     

The interactive effects of duality expertise and coping frames on responses to ambivalent messages

We examine the interactive effects of biculturals' duality expertise and externally provided coping resources on attitudinal responses to ambivalence. Three studies reveal that ambivalence is associated with greater discomfort for biculturals more (vs. less) conflicted about their cultural duality and with limited exposure to accessing their two cultural knowledge systems simultaneously. Among biculturals with lower duality expertise, coping frames lower their negative evaluation of messages that elicit ambivalence because coping frames help these biculturals resolve the discomfort associated with ambivalence. Provision of coping frames does not impact attitudes of biculturals with greater levels of duality expertise.     

Using the internet to extend training in team problem solving

A hybrid training approach, composed of both computer-mediated communication on the Internet and face-to-face meetings, was implemented. The goals were to examine whether such an approach (1) could be used to extend traditional, short-term training, and (2) would be perceived as useful by the trainees. A central element of the approach was thelinchpin expert, a trainer who served as a communication bridge on the Internet between a team of trainers and a team of trainees. A coding system was developed to analyze the content of the Internet messages. Logistic regression analysis revealed that two types of content were related to the trainees’ perceptions that the messages enhanced their expertise in team problem solving: (1) outcome feedback given to a trainee about a specific activity, and (2) the sharing of conceptual information. The trainees perceived face-to-face and computer-mediated communications with the linchpin expert as being important to their development of expertise.     

Too Good to Be True? Using Realism to Enhance Applicant Attraction

Research that has examined the effects of realism on pre-hire outcomes has suggested that it does not harm recruitment. We present evidence that realistic information may, under certain circumstances, increase organizational attractiveness. Participants (N = 225) evaluated one of two recruitment messages, positive only or realistic, and reported their perceptions of organizational attractiveness, source credibility, and perceptions of the challenge inherent in the job. Consistent with our hypothesis, the realistic recruitment message led to higher organizational attractiveness than the positive only message. Contrary to expectations, however, this effect appears to be mediated through perceptions of challenge in the job, rather than perceptions of source credibility.     

A consideration of challenges to psychological assessment instruments used in forensic settings: Rorschach as exemplar

In this brief primer, we provide an outline of key issues that will help psychologists organize and prepare their expert testimony. These issues include the need to obtain essential sources of research, a review of the actual legal standards regarding admissibility of test data in expert testimony, the nature of the expert relative to the assessment instrument in expert testimony, the nature of legal versus scientific debate, and the examination of appropriate qualifications of expertise when offering legal testimony. In addition, we use a summary of information contained in several recent articles to address challenges directed against forensic psychological testing. We use the empirical literature on the Rorschach as an exemplar in discussing these issues, as the admissibility of the Rorschach in particular has been challenged, and the issues frequently focused on with the Rorschach are equally applicable to other psychological measures. In this article, we provide essential sources of Rorschach research regarding several empirical studies that summarize important information and directly address previous criticisms of the measure.     

A Comparison of Assessment Methods and Raters in Product Creativity

Although previous studies have attempted to use different experiences of raters to rate product creativity by adopting the Consensus Assessment Method (CAT) approach, the validity of replacing CAT with another measurement tool has not been adequately tested. This study aimed to compare raters with different levels of experience (expert ves. nonexpert raters) using both CAT and the product creativity measurement instrument (PCMI) to assess the product creativity of 56 design works based on a design competition. The results showed that nonexpert raters who used either CAT or PCMI had higher interreliability than expert raters. Using PCMI was found to result in higher correlation than using CAT for the expert and nonexpert raters, although the correlation between the CAT and PCMI methods was statistically insignificantly different. After regression analysis, the results showed that all PCMI items had higher explanatory power for the creativity scores using CAT and, moreover, the nonexpert raters were found to have higher explanatory power than the expert raters. Based on these results, it is recommended that the use of both nonexpert raters and PCMI is an alternative way of enhancing the flexibility of product creativity assessment.     

The Expert Snare as an Influence Tactic: Surf,Turf, and Ballroom Demonstrations of Some Compliance Consequences of Being Altercast as an Expert

Two experiments provide evidence for a newly discovered influence tactic termed the expert snare. In the expert snare, alter—the target of influence—is cast into the role of “expert.” In that role, alter attempts to maintain status by putting on the trappings of expertise, avoiding embarrassing disclosures, and accepting absurd proposals deemed necessary to uphold the role. Surfers, Frisbee players, and recreational dancers were altercast as experts in their respective domains. Relative to controls, such “experts” were more likely to support absurd proposals within their domain of expertise such as requiring surfboard bellies to be painted yellow with purple polka dots and students to take an orientation course on the non-existent activities of Tanzimat Frisbee and root dancing.     

The impact of salesperson credibility-building statements on later stages of the sales encounter

Salespeople frequently attempt to build credibility on their first encounter with a customer. Because customers actively evaluate persuasive messages, it is important to understand their reactions to credibility-building tactics and how these reactions shape the sales interaction. Accordingly, this study investigates customers' reactions to two types of credibility-building statements – benevolence and expertise – using a multistep qualitative analysis of sales transactions in the life insurance industry, along with surveys before and after the sales encounter. Empirical results show that customers are more likely to react positively to credibility-building statements that match their buying style expectations. Furthermore, when customers react positively to a credibility-building tactic, salespeople are more likely to continue using that tactic when addressing customer objections. However, whereas benevolence tactics for addressing customer objections lead to stronger relational outcomes, the findings indicate that expertise tactics do not. Thus, matching sales tactics with customers' buying style expectations is beneficial in the early stages of the sales encounter, but customer objections are best addressed with benevolence tactics, regardless of customers' buying style.     

Source credibility and syllogistic reasoning

Two experiments examined whether a source credibility effect would be observed for a syllogistic reasoning task. In the experiments, people were given two statements, presented as the results from a survey, followed by a conclusion that was supposedly made by one of two sources. In Experiment 1, one of the sources was described as honest and the other as dishonest, and in Experiment 2, one of the sources was described as an expert and the other as a non-expert. Because a pilot experiment showed that credibility can be overridden by people’s experience with a source, all conclusions in Experiments 1 and 2 were ones that were likely to be accepted (i.e., necessary and possible strong conclusions). Both experiments showed a clear source credibility effect, particularly for the invalid conclusions. These results, along with the belief bias effect and previous research with conditional reasoning, suggest that people can be influenced by extraneous context, such as the honesty or expertise of a source, in a syllogistic reasoning task.