What question did this study set out to answer?

This research aims to examine how expert witness qualifications affect juror perceptions of credibility.

February 19, 2026Open Access

Expert Witness Qualifications (Ph.D., CPA, Teaching Experience) and Juror Credibility Assessments: A Laboratory Experiment

Key Points

This research aims to examine how expert witness qualifications affect juror perceptions of credibility.
Conducted a 2 × 2 experimental design with 131 mock jurors
Compared credential types: CPA versus Ph.D.
Assessed the impact of teaching experience on credibility judgments
No significant differences in credibility ratings between CPA and Ph.D. experts
Teaching experience did not improve perceived credibility or reliance on testimony
Jurors treated both credentials as adequate indicators of competence

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study investigates how expert witness credentials (CPA versus Ph.D.) and teaching experience influence jurors’ perceptions of credibility and reliance on testimony. Using a 2 × 2 experimental design with 131 mock jurors, results show no significant differences based on credential type or teaching experience. Jurors rated CPA and Ph.D. experts as equally credible, and teaching experience did not enhance credibility or reliance. The findings suggest that jurors apply a credibility threshold—such that once experts hold a well-recognized credential, additional qualifications offer no further benefit. Jurors appear to rely on heuristic cues, treating titles like “CPA” or “Ph.D.” as sufficient markers of competence. Practically, this study serves as a first look at the possible influence of selected forensic accounting expert witness credentials. Future research should (1) incorporate adversarial expert witness testimony and (2) examine a broader range of certifications, education, experience, and training to qualify expert witnesses. Data Availability: Data are available upon request. JEL Classifications: M49.

Bookmark

View Full Paper