ABA Journal Blawg 100!
We Participate In:
Archive for the ‘Self Presentation’ Category
Feel the power of that deep and resonant voice!
Remember our Simple Jury Persuasion post on channeling James Earl Jones? Well, here’s another good reason to use a deep and resonant voice! And (of course) it’s backed up by research published in a peer reviewed journal.
As you may recall, earlier research found that women are particularly prone to remember information given to them in a deep voice. So there are reasons to use your own deep voice or to pluck a baritone associate from obscurity to gain practice in the courtroom. But now, we have information that there is benefit to the speaker with that deep voice as well as persuasive power for the listener.
Researchers knew from the literature on embodied cognition that when we speak, we influence not only others but we also feed our own reaction. For example, making sounds of distress, joy, sadness or anger often results in corresponding emotions within. They were also interested in the relationship of hearing a low voice and corresponding assumptions of the speaker being powerful. They wondered what would happen if they had research participants either raise their voice pitch (i.e., speak higher) or lower their voice pitch (i.e., speak in a lower tone than usual).
And the results? When you speak in tone lower than your usual voice pitch, you feel more powerful and you think more abstractly! When research participants listened to someone else speaking in a low voice, it had no influence on their own feelings of power or ability to think abstractly. They had to actually be doing the speaking themselves. In other words, when your voice drops in tone (not just in volume), not only do others pay closer attention, but you measure your words more meaningfully as well.
“The present results imply that when one needs to be powerful (for instance, when being placed in a high-power role or when trying to persuade others), lowering one’s voice is sufficient to feel and think like a powerful person and may help to get the job done.”
While we don’t necessarily recommend you have a special “deep and resonant courtroom-only voice”–there are actors and news anchors who have a special voice they use for certain situations. The point is that when you hear that deeper voice emanating from yourself, you feel more powerful and think more abstractly.
It’s an intriguing idea for courtroom performance–but would likely be a less useful and strategic tool for female attorneys. Women can still tilt heads and strike poses though so a deep voice isn’t everything! It will be interesting to see whether this same result is seen in research about women. Overall though, ditzy or flighty characters in movies and television are usually played by people with higher (even squeaky) voices, while gravitas is typically represented by lower (baritone or alto) voices.
Stel, M., van Dijk, E., Smith, P., van Dijk, W., & Djalal, F. (2011). Lowering the Pitch of Your Voice Makes You Feel More Powerful and Think More Abstractly. Social Psychological and Personality Science DOI: 10.1177/1948550611427610
“I like you but I don’t know why”
Ahhh….it’s a good thing we know why. We write regularly about increasing likability of your client by making them “like” your jurors. And for the same reason, we cover research about values, attitudes, beliefs, community and family involvement and so on. This research nugget points out another way of making your client “like” the jurors–and frankly, it’s not one we would have suggested!
Researchers were curious about whether facial resemblance to one’s significant other would influence liking. They recruited heterosexual couples who had been together at least a year. But (naturally) they wanted to test their hypotheses outside of the research participant’s conscious awareness so they took photos of random people and electronically combined them “using morphing techniques” [yes, they really say that] with photographs of the participants’ significant others so that half of the photographs shown to participants resembled their partner and half did not. Then they showed photographs [a combination of the morphed photos and the random shots of strangers] to the participants and had them make “snap judgments” as to characteristics of the person in the photograph.
You guessed it. Participants tended to “like” those photographs morphed to resemble their partners and tended to presume the positive characteristics they saw in their partner belonged to the person resembling their partner. But there were several twists.
Gender makes a difference: Women were more likely than men to judge the ‘morphed’ faces more positively.
Relationship quality makes a difference: People who were happier in their relationships were more likely to make snap positive judgments on the morphed faces than those who were less happy.
The researchers explain these differences by pointing out that past research shows women are more sensitive to subtle facial cues and tend to process visual information more thoroughly than do men.
That may be true. What we wonder about though is whether this might be a “I have to choose between two jurors and I have no idea which one to choose” sort of study. We make snap judgments about people based on their appearance all the time. And so do jurors. But we don’t pause as often to ask ourselves why. Maybe they have a nice smile, or they gratify our vanity by appearing to respond to what we say. But as often as not, we probably fall back onto attributing to that person the qualities we find in someone that looks like them, or dresses like them, or has the same voice.
So. If you have a case with a lot of visual information–you choose your juror based on whether you wish to have them process that information more thoroughly [the female juror] or less thoroughly [the male juror].
Does your anxious client look culpable? Women may pay more attention to that than men since women are more attuned to subtle facial cues. Defense lawyers might want the male jurors while opposing counsel would choose the female.
The reality is that we can never know for certain which juror is going to be ‘best’ for our case when it comes down to two evenly matched ‘not so good for us’ potential jurors– certainly not based on whether they more closely resemble favorite cousin Ruth or ex-wife Sandra. You can choose based on information like this (culled from the research literature) or go based on your intuition/gut. And you can make an amusing anecdote about it during voir dire:
“Ladies and gentlemen, I once had a juror explain to me afterwards that she didn’t trust me for half of the trial because I looked like a bum that dated her sister. I’m glad she kept her mind open, but I don’t want you to struggle with that. Does anyone here see in me or in my co-counsel or clients a familiar face? I promise you we’re nice people, but does anyone see in us the face of someone you don’t like?”
Choose the path you feel best about. The most important issue while presenting a case is not so much having made the ‘right’ decision, as having confidence you made the best decision you could given the information you had available.
Gunaydin, G., Zayas, V., Selcuk, E., & Hazan, C. (2012). I like you but I don’t know why: Objective facial resemblance to significant others influences snap judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 350-353
“Myside bias”: I was wrong and so are you
We’ve commented on economists writing about psychological principles before on this blog. We tend to enjoy their different perspective. And we especially enjoyed seeing this retraction in the Atlantic by an economist who learned about a form of bias we see often in the courtroom.
Essentially, in the first article, Buturovic and Klein said liberals were less knowledgeable on economic questions than were conservatives. And a firestorm erupted. The authors were accused of either rigging the results or thanked for validating a long-held belief about the inferiority of liberals.
They listened, and they learned. A new study (based on feedback they received from the original work) found a different pattern. For the second study, they added nine additional questions that balanced the study so that the questions either challenged conservative beliefs or challenged liberal beliefs. This time, it didn’t find any difference between the two groups. Their retraction goes as follows:
“One year ago, we reported the results of a 2008 Zogby survey that purported to gauge economic enlightenment. [snip] We also found that that self-identified Progressives and Liberals did much worse than Conservatives and Libertarians, and this finding generated a lot of controversy. Those results were based on eight questions [snip] that specifically challenged leftist positions and/or reassured conservative and/or libertarian positions, while none had a clear slant against conservatives and/or libertarians.
In a new survey, conducted in December 2010, we supplemented those eight questions with another nine new questions, all specifically challenging conservative and/or libertarian positions (and often reassuring leftist positions). [snip] However, the new test consisting of all 17 questions yielded results that vitiated prior evidence of the left being worse. Now, all groups do poorly, with each group tending to do relatively poorly on the questions challenging its positions.”
So, in other words, there is no evidence that liberals or conservatives are smarter when it comes to economics. The differences found were all about the ‘myside bias’–more commonly referred to as the confirmation bias. We want to have our preexisting beliefs validated. We see it pretty consistently with mock jurors.
This week we did a mock trial and divided the jurors into deliberation groups based on age, gender, education and income. On these characteristics, they were as evenly balanced as possible. And then we sat and watched the deliberations to see some jurors responding in favor of the defense and others passionately supporting the plaintiff. As we listened, it seemed to come down to a decision-making style difference. Some emotionally focused on the morality of the issues inherent in the story, while others pounded the evidence and facts and need for personal responsibility.
The point is, that like the economist Daniel Klein, we all have biases. And to revisit that sage, Paul Simon, “a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.” When challenged, we see see and hear things through the lens of our values and personal experience. Ultimately, we interpret the meaning of what we see and what we hear in accordance with our own biases. It’s a frustrating experience for all involved. Most of us are neither as open nor as gracious in acknowledging our emotional and cognitive errors as is Daniel Klein. For that, he is to be commended. Now if he can just figure out how we can all block that bias in the first place…
Buturovic, Z., & Klein, D.B. (2010). Economic Enlightenment in Relation to College-going, Ideology, and Other Variables: A Zogby Survey of Americans. Econ Journal Watch
Klein, D.B., & Buturovic, Z. (2011). Economic Enlightenment Revisited: New Results Again Find Little Relationship Between Education and Economic Enlightenment but Vitiate Prior Evidence of the Left Being Worse. Econ Journal Watch.
Shepherd S, & Kay AC (2011). On the perpetuation of ignorance: System dependence, system justification, and the motivated avoidance of sociopolitical information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology PMID: 22059846
Image
What? Me? Apologize? [Herman Cain doesn’t read our blog]
2011 began mildly enough but it’s gotten pretty strange. Nancy Grace is (actually, was) on Dancing With the Stars. And now Herman Cain.
First, we are given the campaign video with his campaign adviser taking a very long drag on a cigarette and then Herman’s long, slow smile. Followed up with sexual harassment allegations (on and on). We can’t imagine what will happen next, but we know one thing for sure–Herman Cain doesn’t read this blog.
Or at least, he doesn’t take it to heart when he does. We have been writing for years about the art of apology, including effective ways of deflecting criticism, what level of candor the public expects of public figures, and how to avoid digging yourself an ever deepening hole. [Are you listening, Herman?] This is a skill that all of us could use, but survival in the media fishbowl requires it. Mr. Cain doesn’t feel that he owes anyone an apology, a classic characteristic of narcissistic witnesses.
In our previous blogs on the apologies of Tiger Woods, David Letterman, and Eliot Spitzer, we pointed out why the public responded supportively and critically to these various efforts and strategies. The lessons from each of these celebrity apologies are different, and we don’t need to repeat ourselves since you can read the posts yourself. But the hallmark of an effective apology follows the same rules as effective argument for any trial lawyer.
The triers of fact (voters, fans, or jurors) want to believe that
- There’s nothing shameful about being just like you.
- You are willing to tell the truth
- You freely admit what everyone knows
- You don’t hide behind fine print or loopholes
- Your apology is not ‘convenient’ or strategic, but rather, it is genuine and sincere.
Herman Cain’s response to the public statements of Sharon Bialek and Karen Kraushaar was perhaps more embarrassing than Rick Perry’s ‘brain freeze’ in the recent Republican candidate debate. Rick Perry stumbled over naming three federal agencies he would eliminate–while Cain seemed to have three ill-considered strategies in his responses to charges of harassment:
The Saint Strategy: Deny that he did anything wrong. Ever. In his entire life. Or to quote him, “I have never acted inappropriately with anyone. Period.” The problem with this approach is that only die-hard hero-worshippers believe that anyone is that perfect. Reasonable people view it as defensive and inevitably exaggerated, even for a good person.
The Hair-Splitting Strategy: Excuse himself from early statements of his not recalling settlements by later saying that the money paid to these women in exchange for their not filing a suit wasn’t a settlement, it was a ‘personnel action’. We remember clearly Bill Clinton’s deposition, and his hedging on whether he had sex with Monica Lewinsky based on his unspoken understanding of what ‘having sex’ meant. It didn’t work then, and it won’t help now as Jon Stewart ably demonstrates.
The ‘Fog of Time’ Strategy: Hide behind his poor memory of events, as if he hasn’t been poring over the details that might have faded over time. Even if he didn’t remember off-hand, the public expects him to work tirelessly to find the facts, and will not accept “I don’t recall” as candid truth. This approach breaks down because there are records (organizational records, appointment books, notes of meetings, memos, et cetera) that Cain could access that would fill in many blanks. The problem is that the response makes it appear that he doesn’t want to know, while the public [largely] does. He considers this unworthy of discussion, in contrast to many voters.
Of course, we can’t know what happened between Herman Cain and these women, although the public is beginning to believe his accusers. What we do know is that the first rule of public relations is: ‘If you’re in a hole, stop digging’. The arrogance of some celebrities, public figures, and witnesses causes them to believe that they haven’t done anything wrong, even when many outside the bubble of his or her entourage see it differently.
Herman Cain would be a difficult witness (or candidate) to prepare for a public examination, in part because he doesn’t feel he should be forced to answer uncomfortable questions. Unfortunately for Mr. Cain, there is nothing the public–voters or jurors–wants more.
Anchoring effects and your salary negotiations
You often hear about ‘anchoring’ when it comes to making damages requests to jurors. This is not one of those posts, although it tracks with much of the damages research. This post strikes closer to home—let’s talk about your salary and negotiating a higher income. You’ll like what these researchers found.
Most people hate negotiating salaries. Income is so important we fear the prospects of losing the confrontation. What if it goes wrong? If we go too high, the employer may lose interest and we could lose our job. If we go too low, we are stuck with a salary below what the employer may be willing to pay. There is ample research on what happens in negotiations when you lead off with an extreme initial offer (the final offer may be larger than it is if you lead off with a moderate initial offer). But there is no comparable research to tell us what to expect in salary negotiation situations when you lead with an implausible request. Until now.
New research looks at what happens when you make an overly high (i.e., implausible) salary request and how that may or may not affect the employer’s initial salary offer. Essentially, the idea is that you want to be the one providing the anchor to start the negotiation for salary. This research also includes the reality that there will be relevant anchors present as well—such as your prior salary, the salary of others in your position, and so on.
Participants in the study were given information on a job description and then asked what salary they would offer someone chosen for that job. In one condition, the participants were given information that the person’s prior salary for a similar job was $29,000. They were also told that the candidate had jokingly said they would “like $100,000, but really I am just looking for something that is fair” [high implausible anchor] or that the candidate had said they “would work for $1, but really I am just looking for something that is fair” [low implausible anchor]. A control group was only given information on the prior salary.
The participants given the high implausible anchor ($100K) thought the person should have a higher salary. So the researchers designed another study to look at what would happen if the high implausible anchor was even more extreme.
In the second study, participants were given two anchors: $100K, and $1M. They were also informed of the prior salary being $29K. The ultimate salary offer in this condition showed that the control condition (where all they knew was that the prior salary was $29K) offered significantly lower salaries than either the high anchor or the implausibly high anchor. More importantly, there was no significant difference between the salaries offered with the high anchor or the implausibly high anchor.
The participants in this research did not punish the implausibly high anchor request with a lower salary. Both the high anchor and the implausible anchor seemed to elevate the eventual salary offer above the condition where the only information given was the prior salary (the relevant anchor). The researchers say it is recommended that you provide the high anchor in a joking manner so that the employer does not take offense.
This is initial research and should not be relied upon without follow-up study as there are possibilities that the strategy could backfire on you. But it’s good food for thought if you are poised to engage in salary negotiations.
Do some research to identify salary ranges for the position and then toss out a high anchor (within the range of salary). A high anchor could bring the ultimate salary offer up.
Thorsteinson, TJ (2011). Initiating salary discussions with an extreme request: Anchoring effects on initial salary offers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41 (7)
Recent Comments