Attorney Credibility and Civil Litigation Verdicts

Abstract

Past research has shown that high credibility sources are more persuasive than low credibility sources. However, much of this research was done in a non-legal setting with limited questions regarding source credibility. Using these past studies as a theoretical starting point, the present research had two primary goals. The first goal was to examine whether the Behavioral Assessment of Trial Attorney (BATA) instrument measures the expertise and trustworthiness aspects of source credibility. An exploratory factory analysis on the 10-item BATA instrument revealed that the BATA measures presentation (similar to source credibility’s expertise factor) aspects of an attorney’s performance, but not aspects of social skills (similar to source credibility’s trustworthiness factor). The second goal was to examine whether source credibility, as measured by scores on the BATA-p (BATA presentation) subscale, is related to verdict, damage awards, and apportionment of fault to the Plaintiff and/or Defendant in a mock civil trial. Although BATA-p scores were not related to negligence verdicts, increases in Defense BATA-p scores resulted in decreases in general damage awards and increases in apportionment of Plaintiff fault. High Defense BATA-p, combined with low Plaintiff BATA-p, resulted in decreases in special damage awards and apportionment of Defendant fault. These findings suggest that, while other factors such as case evidence may influence negligent/not negligent verdicts, source credibility influences decisions (e.g., damage awards and apportionment of fault to parties) in which jurors have more discretion.