InstitutionalMANIPULATIVE

Expert Shopping

What it is

Searching for credentialed experts who will support a predetermined conclusion, then presenting them as independent authorities.

How it works

In any field, you can find someone with credentials who will support almost any position. Expert shopping involves identifying these outliers and presenting their views as mainstream expert opinion. The audience sees credentials and assumes mainstream consensus, not realizing the "expert" represents a fringe position within their own field.

Real-world examples

  • •Tobacco companies finding the handful of scientists willing to question the smoking-cancer link and showcasing them in media.
  • •Climate denial campaigns featuring the small percentage of climate scientists who dissent from consensus.
  • •Legal cases where both sides hire expert witnesses who conveniently support the hiring party's position.

Ethical guidelines

  • ●Expert testimony should represent the range of professional opinion, not just the convenient outlier.
  • ●Funding sources for expert opinions should always be disclosed.
  • ●Audiences deserve to know where an expert falls within the spectrum of professional consensus.

How to defend against it

  • ►Check whether the expert's view represents the consensus of their field or a minority position.
  • ►Look for who funded the research or testimony.
  • ►Seek meta-analyses and consensus statements rather than individual expert opinions.

From the Defense Playbook

Follow the Incentivesminutes

Before weighing a recommendation, find out what the person making it gains if you say yes (commission, funding, votes, attention, status), and adjust how much independent confirmation you require accordingly.

Lateral Readingminutes

To judge an unfamiliar website, leave it: open new tabs and find out what independent sources say about the organization behind it, before spending any time on the site's own content, design, or "About" page.

Every playbook entry states how strong its evidence is and when not to use it. Browse the full playbook.

References

  1. Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury Press
    Traces how the same small group of credentialed scientists was recruited to contest tobacco, acid rain, ozone and climate findings — the tobacco and climate examples.
  2. Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M. (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change, 14(2), 125–136
    Journalistic balance norms gave fringe dissent equal weight with consensus in climate coverage, making outliers look like half the field — how a shopped expert is presented as mainstream.
  3. Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S. A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., Way, R., Jacobs, P., & Skuce, A. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8(2), 024024 · link
    About 97% of abstracts taking a position endorsed human-caused warming — the size of the dissenting minority the entry refers to.
  4. Supreme Court of the United States (1993). Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579. U.S. Supreme Court
    Established the judge's gatekeeping role over expert testimony (testability, peer review, error rate, general acceptance) in response to hired expert witnesses — the litigation example.
Last reviewed
Suggest a correction

Detect Expert Shopping in any text

Paste any message, email, or article into our free Manipulation Detector to see if Expert Shopping or other techniques are being used on you.

Try the Detector FreeCreate Free Account