When Cross‐Examination Offends: How Men and Women Assess Intrusive Questioning of Male and Female Expert Witnesses

Abstract

Personally intrusive questioning during cross‐examination has become commonplace. The differential impact of this questioning on female vs. male experts was the focus in this study, thus these questions are referred to as gender‐intrusive questions. The results demonstrated that the female expert was rated as less confident, trustworthy, likable, believable, and credible than the male expert. The male and female experts were both rated as more credible, trustworthy, and believable when subjected to gender‐intrusive questions. Furthermore, the use of these questions left the jurors with a negative impression of the prosecuting attorney and his case. Jury members were more likely to believe that the evidence exhibited the most support for the defense's case when the witness was subjected to gender‐intrusive questioning.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 20 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.