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.
Lee et al. (2026) studied this question.