The relationship between need for cognition, argument strength, and the persuasiveness of courtroom technology

Although the propensity for lawyers to incorporate various forms of courtroom technology (e.g., computer animation, presentation software, videoconferencing; Feigenson & Dunn, 2003) into litigation is becoming increasingly commonplace, research investigating the effects of such technologies on jury decision making and perceptions of lawyer and/or witness credibility is scant. In the current two studies, I tested predictions of the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) in an effort to clarify the persuasive effects of courtroom technology when incorporated into expert witness testimony. In Study 1, need for cognition interacted with level of technology such that courtroom technology served as a peripheral cue for low need for cognition participants, but not high need for cognition participants. In Study 2, need for cognition did not interact with technology or argument strength. Participants did perceive the expert as being more credible in the strong argument/PowerPoint condition as compared to the other conditions. These and other findings are discussed with regard to implications for the use of technology in the courtroom.