Latest news with #PewResearch
Reuters
9 hours ago
- General
- Reuters
Expert testimony in an era of skepticism of expertise
June 03, 2025 - The public discourse in America surrounding the value of expertise — specialized knowledge in a particular subject matter gained over years of study and experience — has markedly shifted over the past several years. Where individuals once looked to so-called "traditional institutions" — academia, old-guard print media, books, or network TV — for news and information, many now look to social media or alternative news outlets that align with a certain viewpoint or ideology. This shift in news/information consumption aligns with a growing skepticism toward expertise in everyday life, including skepticism of scientific, medical and legal experts. While American courtrooms have mechanisms that insulate them from the shift away from reliance on experts, the jury pool may still be affected by this change. Because expert testimony is a critical aspect of jury trials, we provide recommendations for tailoring expert testimony to accommodate jurors' changing preferences and to overcome the skepticism that they may bring to the courtroom. The change in preferred news and information sources has resulted in a pronounced difference in the way that average Americans receive and digest information. Today, approximately one in five Americans say they regularly get news from news influencers on social media, according to the Pew Research Center. Unlike traditional formats, information shared on social media sites is chopped into seconds-long snippets and presented by individuals of largely unknown or unverified qualifications, as reported by The New York Times, "For Gen Z, Tik Tok Is the New Search Engine." Sept. 16, 2022. As a result, an individual with only anecdotal knowledge of a complex issue such as ADHD ("TikTok Misinformation is Warping Young People's Understanding of ADHD," ScienceAlert, March 21, 2025) may be presented opining on the condition alongside — and apparently co-equal to — a Ph.D. psychologist with decades of experience. This contrasts with the traditional-news format in which only vetted "experts" were given a platform to speak to the masses. Commensurate with the evolution in the ways Americans consume news and media, there has been a recent systemic departure from reliance on expertise in everyday life. With access to unlimited information and online encouragement to "do your own research," Americans are placing less value in expertise, which manifests in multiple ways. Americans are losing trust in science. A 2023 survey by the Pew Research Center showed that 57% of Americans say science has a mostly positive effect on society, compared with 73% in January 2019. This loss of public trust in science matters because "[p]eople with greater trust in scientists are more likely to align their own beliefs and actions with expert guidance and understanding," the report concluded. Americans have also demonstrated a shift away from reliance on experts in the medical field, which was accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Association of American Medical Colleges attributes the shift to several factors, including that people are overwhelmed by information, the country is increasingly socially divided and politically polarized and trust in traditional institutions is eroding. Changes in the way average Americans consume information and the loss of trust in science means the jury pool is changing. Today's jurors, unlike those of 30 years ago, each have a powerful computer in their pockets that is connected via the internet to virtually all human knowledge (not to mention the budding field of AI). These jurors are much more likely to view themselves as capable of researching complex questions to gain expertise on a given subject matter than their predecessors. Jurors are normally instructed not to use outside sources for information, and there have been instances where such use has led to mistrial. Against this backdrop, what is a trial attorney to do? Experts are important in the courtroom. They are the only avenue by which a jury can be presented with opinions based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge. (See Federal Rules of Evidence 701 and 702.) It is also the experts' job to make complicated and often dry technical material both accessible and engaging to lay jurors. And experts matter to cases and case outcomes. For example, in the extremely high-profile murder trial of Derek Chauvin in 2021, in the death of George Floyd, the medical experts are widely considered to have been key to guiding the jury's understanding of the case, particularly Dr. Martin Tobin, a pulmonologist and critical care specialist, as reported in The New York Times. Dr. Tobin's testimony guided the jury through his analysis of hours of video footage of the arrest of Floyd, highlighting critical details in the videos. He also provided an anatomy lesson on the structure of the airway and operation of the lungs, with instructions for jurors to place their hands on their own necks to illustrate the areas he was describing. Other high-profile cases in which expert testimony has played a critical role include the OJ Simpson murder trial (forensic scientists), and various opioid litigations (public health and pharmaceutical industry experts). Patent litigators need effective expert testimony in every single one of their cases. How do trial lawyers meet this critical need for expert testimony given the current skepticism toward expertise? In some ways, the courtroom is uniquely insulated from the shift away from reliance on 701 of the Federal Rules of Evidence safeguards against parties offering unreliable opinions from lay witnesses. And Rule 702 requires courts to undertake rigorous analyses of the reliability and relevance of opinions offered by expert witnesses. See, "The New Daubert Standard: Implications of Amended FRE 702," JDSupra, May 17, 2024. But the courtroom is not immune to changes in the way that society prefers to receive and digest information. Jurors today bring their habits for consuming information into the courtroom with them. They may also have shorter attention spans and strong convictions that complicated issues are simple and they can figure them out on their own. Trial attorneys must adjust to accommodate these changing preferences; they should adapt to use the changing jury pool to their advantage. Do not rely on an expert's credentials alone. Academic degrees and experience are important in establishing an expert's credibility and the admissibility of their testimony, but attorneys cannot rely on an expert's qualifications alone to persuade jurors. Jurors are not going to believe an expert just because of their degrees or the number of papers they have published. Similar to the social media news providers, the best experts have the ability to connect with both the material they are presenting and the audience, which comes across as more authentic. One benefit of not relying on credentials alone is that it opens the door to junior, more enthusiastic experts who may have previously been dismissed as lacking the gravitas assumed to come with age. Create relatable expert narratives. No one likes listening to a seemingly endless march through boring, technical material, but certain areas of law (patent, products liability, etc.) can require the presentation of large amounts of technical data. Even worse than boredom, inauthenticity renders obvious "hired guns" especially risky in this environment of skepticism. In contrast, skilled experts can tell a story that not only makes the technical information understandable and relatable to the jury, but also gives them a reason to care about the outcome. What can the expert provide that a juror could not get from his/her own internet research? The best expert testimony incorporates opportunities for the expert to interject personal experiences with the technology or field of expertise to make it more relatable, such as research that they care about personally or that solved a problem they faced in their own career. Effective expert testimony will also incorporate engaging material such as testing that the jury can see with their own eyes or personalized tutorials on the technical issues at hand, like the one presented by the pulmonologist in the Chauvin trial. When jurors expect a feeling of proximity to the source of information, connection with jurors and authenticity are paramount. Incorporate expert testimony into a cohesive, resonant story. Great trial lawyers know that even the most technically challenging cases require a resonant story that incorporates ethos (is your case morally right?), pathos (does your case connect on an emotional level?) and logos (does your case make sense?). Often these thematic points are conveyed through narratives that highlight sympathetic parties, such as a scrappy inventor who toiled to bring about her invention or an innocent party harmed by another's actions. Strategic use of expert testimony can amplify these thematic points. For example, an expert with the right experience can not only explain the technical details of a case, but can also share first-hand knowledge, such as the challenges faced in the field, the historical context of the dispute, and the moral factors at play. By carefully connecting this information to overall themes of the case, the trial team can highlight the ethos, pathos, and logos of the story. Implementing these recommendations requires investment both in the selection of experts at the beginning of a case and the detailed planning for expert testimony at trial. The benefit of that investment is a compelling trial story that meets jurors where they are and presents critical expert testimony in a way that can overcome any skepticism they may bring to the courtroom.
Fast Company
16 hours ago
- Business
- Fast Company
Using AI at work requires confidence. Here's how to build it
The Little Engine That Could wasn't the most powerful train, but she believed in herself. The story goes that, as she set off to climb a steep mountain, she repeated: 'I think I can, I think I can.' That simple phrase from a children's story still holds a lesson for today's business world—especially when it comes to artificial intelligence. AI is no longer a distant promise out of science fiction. It's here and already beginning to transform industries. But despite the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on developing AI models and platforms, adoption remains slow for many employees, with a recent Pew Research Center survey finding that 63% of U.S. workers use AI minimally or not at all in their jobs. The reason? It can often come down to what researchers call technological self-efficacy, or, put simply, a person's belief in their ability to use technology effectively. In my research on this topic, I found that many people who avoid using new technology aren't truly against it—instead, they just don't feel equipped to use it in their specific jobs. So rather than risk getting it wrong, they choose to keep their distance. And that's where many organizations derail. They focus on building the engine, but don't fully fuel the confidence that workers need to get it moving. What self-efficacy has to do with AI Albert Bandura, the psychologist who developed the theory of self-efficacy, noted that skill alone doesn't determine people's behavior. What matters more is a person's belief in their ability to use that skill effectively. In my study of teachers in one-to-one technology environments —classrooms where each student is equipped with a digital device like a laptop or tablet—this was clear. I found that even teachers with access to powerful digital tools don't always feel confident using them. And when they lack confidence, they may avoid the technology or use it in limited, superficial ways. The same holds true in today's AI-equipped workplace. Leaders may be quick to roll out new tools and want fast results. But employees may hesitate, wondering how it applies to their roles, whether they'll use it correctly, or if they'll appear less competent—or even unethical—for relying on it. Beneath that hesitation may also be the all-too-familiar fear of one day being replaced by technology. Going back to train analogies, think of John Henry, the 19th-century folk hero. As the story goes, Henry was a railroad worker who was famous for his strength [as a steel driver]. When a steam-powered machine threatened to replace him, he [competed against] it—and won. But the victory came at a cost: He collapsed and died shortly afterward. Henry's story is a lesson in how resisting new technology through sheer willpower can be self-defeating. Rather than leaving some employees feeling like they have to outmuscle or outperform AI, organizations should invest in helping them understand how to work with it—so they don't feel like they need to work against it. Relevant and role-specific training Many organizations do offer training related to using AI. But these programs are often too broad, covering topics like how to log in to different programs, what the interfaces look like, or what AI 'generally' can do. In 2025, with the number of AI tools at our disposal—ranging from conversational chatbots and content creation platforms to advanced data analytics and workflow automation programs—that's not enough. In my study, participants consistently said they benefited most from training that was 'district-specific,' meaning tailored to the devices, software, and situations they faced daily with their specific subject areas and grade levels. Translation for the corporate world? Training needs to be job-specific and user-centered—not one-size-fits-all. The generational divide It's not exactly shocking: Younger workers tend to feel more confident using technology than older ones. Gen Z and millennials are digital natives —they've grown up with digital technologies as part of their daily lives. Gen X and boomers, on the other hand, often had to adapt to using digital technologies mid-career. As a result, they may feel less capable and be more likely to dismiss AI and its possibilities. And if their few forays into AI are frustrating or lead to mistakes, that first impression is likely to stick. When generative AI tools were first launched commercially, they were more likely to hallucinate and confidently spit out incorrect information. Remember when Google demoed its Bard AI tool in 2023, and its factual error led to its parent company losing $100 billion in market value? Or when an attorney made headlines for citing fabricated cases courtesy of ChatGPT? Moments like those likely reinforced skepticism—especially among workers already unsure about AI's reliability. But the technology has already come a long way in a relatively short period of time. The solution to getting those who may be slower to embrace AI isn't to push them harder, but to coach them and consider their backgrounds. What effective AI training looks like Bandura identified four key sources that shape a person's belief in their ability to succeed: Mastery experiences, or personal success Vicarious experiences, or seeing others in similar positions succeed Verbal persuasion, or positive feedback Physiological and emotional states, or someone's mood, energy, anxiety, and so forth In my research on educators, I saw how these concepts made a difference, and the same approach can apply to AI in the corporate world—or in virtually any environment in which a person needs to build self-efficacy. In the workplace, this could be accomplished with cohort-based trainings that include feedback loops —regular communication between leaders and employees about growth, improvement, and more—along with content that can be customized to employees' needs and roles. Organizations can also experiment with engaging formats like PricewaterhouseCoopers' prompting parties, which provide low-stakes opportunities for employees to build confidence and try new AI programs. In Pokemon Go!, it's possible to level up by stacking lots of small, low-stakes wins and gaining experience points along the way. Workplaces could approach AI training the same way, giving employees frequent, simple opportunities tied to their actual work to steadily build confidence and skill. The curriculum doesn't have to be revolutionary. It just needs to follow these principles and not fall victim to death by PowerPoint, or end up being generic training that isn't applicable to specific roles in the workplace. As organizations continue to invest heavily in developing and accessing AI technologies, it's also essential that they invest in the people who will use them. AI might change what the workforce looks like, but there's still going to be a workforce. And when people are well trained, AI can make both them and the outfits they work for significantly more effective.
Fast Company
17 hours ago
- Business
- Fast Company
These are some of the biggest financial regrets Americans have about their jobs
When asked, Americans express plenty of financial regret, such as making big, impulsive purchases and spending too much to keep up with higher earners. According to a new Clarify Capitol survey of more than 1,000 Americans (including boomers, Gen Xers, millennials, and Gen Zers), they also have deep regret over not investing earlier. Forty-three percent pointed to that oversight as their biggest financial failure. Following closely behind, 38% said they regret overspending, which ended up costing them about $63,000 in net worth. One in three said they overspent simply to 'keep up with the Joneses.' However, it's not just irresponsible spending that haunts Americans. They have regret about the financial choices they made on the job, too. Ten percent said that not negotiating a higher salary was their biggest financial regret. According to the report, the failure to negotiate with an employer ends up costing an estimated $78,000 of income. Likewise, working Americans also said they regretted quitting their job without a backup plan. One in 10 said they wished they had figured out their next move before giving their notice. According to a 2024 Pew Research Center study, one of the biggest reasons for dissatisfaction among workers is how much they're (not) being paid. Eighty percent said their pay has not kept up with increases in the cost of living, and 71% said their pay was too low for the quality of work they produce. Seventy percent said their pay is too low for the amount of work they do. Given how unhappy so many workers are with their pay, leaving a job can be the right move—as long as you have new employment lined up. Just make sure you negotiate your salary to avoid feeling regret down the line.
Miami Herald
a day ago
- Miami Herald
As demand for US passports grows, here are the states with the most aspiring world travelers
More Americans than ever before are gaining access to international travel with a U.S. passport. According to the Department of State, in 1990, only 5% of U.S. citizens had a passport. As of mid-2024, 48% of Americans have a passport. Pew Research from 2023 says half of Americans have visited between one and four countries in their lifetime, and about a quarter of Americans have visited five or more countries. Although airlines have adjusted their 2025 forecasts to account for lower demand for flying due to uncertainty in the economy, with the May 2025 deadline for a Real ID needed in order to travel domestically, the need for a passport, an alternative form of accepted identification, may continue to increase demand. In the next two years, the Department of State plans to open six new passport offices across the country to meet the need for urgent passport requests. For those with nonurgent requests, a new online renewal application process allows current passport holders to renew their passports in less than two weeks in some instances. In the future, you may not need a physical passport at all to travel-the department is considering digital passports in the next decade, much like the digital driver's licenses Arizona, California, and Georgia have already issued. Such international travel documents would be a world of difference compared to the beginnings of passports. In ancient Persia, before the common era, travel documents were simply papers signed by a king or dignitary to ensure someone's safe journey into foreign lands. The modern-day passport used in the U.S. didn't exist until after World War I, when the country began to try to curb the number of immigrants coming to its borders. Today, whether traveling for business or pleasure, very few places are accessible without this important traveling document. Spokeo used data from the Department of State to see where the rate of passports grew the most. The number of U.S. passports in circulation has skyrocketed over the last 30 years, from around 15,000 U.S.-issued passports per 100,000 people in the early 1990s to more than 45,000 today. By 2007, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection began to implement new programs, including the Trusted Traveler Program, to help make it easier for U.S. citizens to reenter the country after international travel. Programs such as Global Entry allow U.S. travelers enrolled in the program to "fast-track" through Immigration and Customs lines upon arrival in the United States. The Mobile Passport program allows travelers to get through Customs faster via a digital document while they're on their return flight or cruise before reentering the U.S. These programs facilitate faster, easier international travel for U.S. passport holders. District of Columbia residents are more ready for international travel than U.S. residents in any other part of the country. Washington D.C. far outpaces the rest of the country, with more than 35,000 residents out of every 100,000 in D.C. having valid passports. A few factors may be behind its ranking, including the area's higher-than-average median income and its place as an international hub of major government, nonprofit, and research organizations with global reach. D.C. passport holders also have greater access to foreign embassies, making it easier for them to apply for visas in person. Following behind D.C. are coastal states such as New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, and Hawai'i. Many of these states are among those with the most foreign-born citizens, who may be more likely to continue traveling internationally. Residents may also be more likely to travel abroad given their access to international airports, such as John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, Boston Logan International Airport in Massachusetts, and Los Angeles International and San Francisco International airports in California. These airports are more likely to offer cheaper or direct flights to international travel hubs such as London's Heathrow Airport and Singapore's Changi Airport. Story editing by Carren Jao. Copy editing by Kristen Wegrzyn. This story was produced by Spokeo and was produced and distributed in partnership with Stacker. © Stacker Media, LLC.
Washington Post
2 days ago
- Business
- Washington Post
Trump rides to the rescue of Chicago's flailing mayor
Two years ago, Chicago voters dumped their unpopular incumbent mayor, Lori Lightfoot, a standard-issue Democratic progressive, and replaced her with Brandon Johnson, who is, if anything, an even harder-left progressive. It was as though voters thought there was only one way to run a city, and they were ready to keep trying until they got it right. Fast-forward to this year, and Johnson's approval rating is 14 percent, according to an Illinois Policy Institute poll in January. Of the 798 registered Chicago voters polled by M3 Strategies, nearly 80 percent had an unfavorable view of Johnson, including 65 percent 'very unfavorable.' Johnson defends his record by pointing to a decline in crime that has been dramatic by some measures — this past April saw the fewest murders in that month since 1962, though violent crime has been declining nationwide. And you might figure a drop in crime should make the mayor's approval numbers rise, not fall close to the level of disdain Americans show for Russian dictator Vladimir Putin (8 percent, according to a Pew Research poll). Beyond crime, the story of Johnson's first two years is a familiar one: lousy public services with a high cost of living exacerbated by seemingly endless tax increases. The Chicago budget passed in December included $181 million in new taxes and fees. These included hiking a cloud services and digital goods tax from 9 percent to 11 percent; raising the streaming and cable TV tax from 9 percent to 10.25 percent; and increasing the parking tax to 23.25 percent. Oh, and adding a $3 ride-hailing surcharge on weekends and increasing the single-use bag tax from 7 cents to 10 cents. Johnson wanted even higher taxes. In 2024, the mayor offered a ballot referendum called Bring Chicago Home that would have raised transfer taxes on properties that sell for more than $1 million and used the revenue to fund homelessness programs, but 52 percent of voters rejected it. When Johnson was a mayoral candidate, one of the few areas where he didn't want to raise taxes was property taxes, and no wonder. The Civic Federation, a nonpartisan local research organization, noted in a report last fall that 'a taxpayer in the City of Chicago pays property taxes to 7 or 8 local governments, depending on which part of the City they live.' (Those local governments include Cook County, the city of Chicago, Chicago Public Schools, City Colleges of Chicago, Chicago Park District, Forest Preserve District of Cook County and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District. Chicago residents living south of 87th Street also pay property taxes to the South Cook Mosquito Abatement District.) But despite Johnson's campaign promise, he proposed $300 million in property tax hikes in October that the City Council unanimously rejected. After the defeat, the Wall Street Journal editorial board called Johnson 'America's worst mayor.' In Johnson's defense, at the time of that editorial, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass (D) had yet to be photographed posing for photos at a cocktail party in Ghana while the Palisades Fire was torching a good chunk of her city. This is why we need a playoff system. Living in a big city almost always costs more than in the suburbs or rural areas, but Chicago's city government seems dead-set on wringing money from residents in every way imaginable. Now, they are rationally concluding that the mayor and his administration aren't delivering. With such an abysmal approval rating and no sign of Johnson reconsidering his governing philosophy, you might think it would take a miracle to resuscitate his popularity and political future. Well, that miracle seems to be arriving in the form of the U.S. Justice Department. On May 19, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon wrote to Johnson, informing him that the Justice Department is investigating his administration to see if it 'engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination based on race.' The day before, in a speech at the Apostolic Church of God in Chicago's Woodlawn neighborhood, Johnson boasted that his deputy mayors, budget director, chief operations officer and senior advisers were Black, and added, 'When you hire our people, we always look out for everybody else. We are the most generous people on the planet.' That's a thin reed on which to base an accusation of racial discrimination in city hiring, and you're forgiven if you doubt that's the wisest use of Justice Department resources. (If prosecutors can prove that the city is turning away qualified applicants because of their race, that's a different story.) It isn't as if bringing down a Democratic mayor would boost Republican prospects in Chicago; Donald Trump received just 28 percent of the vote in Cook County in November, his worst performance in any Illinois county. If anything, the Trump administration is helping Johnson by going after him; few things could make Chicago Democrats instinctively unite like an attack on the mayor by this White House. If Johnson's numbers improve and the severely underperforming mayor tightens his grip on City Hall, that will ensure Chicago remains a prime example of progressive failure. Perhaps that would be Trump's ultimate, if unintended, revenge on Chicago voters for preferring Kamala Harris to him — getting them to sign up for four more years of Johnson's mismanagement.
