For this research, participants were wired up to fMRI machines to measure and record brain responses. In phase one of the experiment, participants were shown statements like the mundane “you are a tea drinker” to the more controversial “you are pro-life”. They were asked to choose if they agreed or disagreed with the statement.

In phase two, participants were offered up to $100 for signing a document stating the opposite of what they believed. For those statements they valued highly, they could opt out of the monetary reward. When a participant refused to sell out their values (aka ‘soul’), the researchers identified that statement as a personally sacred value for that individual. The researchers compared the fMRI’s for non-sacred and sacred values and found that different areas of the brain were activated when the individual considered whether they would sell the value statement. Thus, the researchers saw an entirely different decision-making process underway.

These findings are not particularly surprising to those who track the neuroscience literature. What is unknown is which values and attitudes are “personally sacred” to the individual. Or, as we think of it in constructing trial arguments, which statements correspond to firmly held or ‘core’ beliefs and values? The experiment was done as part of a series of experiments looking at cultural conflicts. What we see in our focus groups and mock trials is that there are idiosyncratic “sacred” ideas or perspectives for some jurors.

When we are doing corporate or contract work, we hear jurors who say “that just isn’t right” and other jurors who say “it’s just business and it happens all the time”.

When we are doing patent work, we hear jurors say “the inventor should get money for this idea for all time” and others who say “technology has moved on and this patent doesn’t have value”.

In personal injury death cases, we hear jurors agreeing that “No amount of money can compensate the family for the loss of a loved one”.  But the impact of that belief is that some jurors say that as a result the family should get little or nothing, while others feel that the moon is not high enough.

All of these positions represent sacred values to those engaged in the dispute. The key is to do one of three things:

Identify those whose core beliefs are at odds with your case, and strike as many of them as possible.

Reframe your trial story so that jurors won’t feel that the verdict is inconsistent with their core or soul-defining values.

Since strategies 1 and 2 above are often incomplete strategies, determine which jurors with problematic values you can still live with.  Identify those that will be open to your story and will surprise themselves by making a decision inconsistent with what they believe is a deeply held value. We’ve seen this happen. And when it does happen, it can be a beautiful thing.

Berns, G., Bell, E., Capra, C., Prietula, M., Moore, S., Anderson, B., Ginges, J., & Atran, S. (2012). The price of your soul: neural evidence for the non-utilitarian representation of sacred values Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367 (1589), 754-762 DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0262

Image 

Related posts:

1. “I can see it from both sides”
2. Derogating do-gooders [like vegetarians] is how I roll
3. Pretrial publicity & bias: Take a look at the age of your jurors!

Some wonder about the timing of this medical record disclosure–saying only a narcissist would leak his medical records at a time like this–shouldn’t we have heard about this when he was running for President? Our friend Charli Morris (a self-described “loyal Democrat”) tells us that the up-close view of this trial from her North Carolina home is not a pretty picture.

John Edwards took a short cut on the long slide from from “golden boy” to “most contemptible”.  Not unlike Newt Gingrich, he had an affair with a woman during his wife’s convalescence from cancer, and is now suffering the complications of having to deal with the stunningly insensitive abandonment. It’s  the ultimate challenge to pretrial publicity. While recent research would say that older jurors might be better for John Edwards, it’s hard to believe that jury selection will be that simple in his case. There are too many wrinkles and caveats and too many negative opinions.

While Gingrich prevailed among the Christian evangelical voters in the South Carolina Republican primary with claims that it was an error of the past brought on by excessive devotion to work(!), Edwards has much bigger problems.  Edwards’ betrayal was relatively recent, with a wife who has consistently been more popular than he is, who died after having been in recovery at the time that the scandal was made public.  While potential jurors may say they are able to be fair, it’s hard to see how most people can put the media information aside completely and offer a verdict based on facts alone.

It’s part of what makes voir dire such a constantly changing puzzle. Everyone tries to find an edge. Whether that edge is assessing social anxiety from Facebook profiles or some other strategy–we all look for clues in the arena of the not easily observed that will lead to a better jury selection. It’s our guess that the Edwards’ defense team is doing extensive pretrial research to identify trial themes, case narratives, and juror experiences that work for them and not against them.

Fernandez, K., Levinson, C., & Rodebaugh, T. (2012). Profiling: Predicting Social Anxiety From Facebook Profiles Social Psychological and Personality Science DOI: 10.1177/1948550611434967

Image

No related posts.

But according to some new research, we might want to think again! As it happens, asymmetry occurs in-utero as a result of stress. Scientists say higher symmetry is a sign of genetic fitness. When they see asymmetry between the right and left sides of the body, scientists say those fetuses were less able to develop symmetrically in the presence of those in-utero stressors. Poor babies!

Leadership researchers talk about transactional versus transformational leaders. Many of them prefer the transformational style of leadership but we’ve seen terrific examples of both among trial lawyers.

A transactional leader is very precise and linear. Communication styles are likely factual, detail oriented, chronological and thorough. They invite you to think and consider the evidence without telling you what you should conclude, and their style of persuasion is very subtle. You are drawn to the transactional leader because they are clear, straightforward, and trustworthy. One of our very successful long-term clients has this style and jurors love it.

A transformational leader is charismatic. Communication styles are more emotive even though they may also be factual and thorough. You are drawn to the transformational leader because of their intensity, passion, and commitment to their cause. The transformational leader is able to inspire followers to put aside self-interest for the good of the group. Another of our very successful long-term clients has this style and jurors love it.

In this study, researchers looked at stereotypes of symmetrical people and asymmetrical people. Symmetrical people are seen as better looking, healthier, more intelligent and more dominant. They are the classic alphas. The asymmetrical person “has to develop more positive social skills to compensate for these perceived shortcomings.”

Then, they measured leadership style via self-report questionnaires and actual small team leadership observation over the course of 22 weeks when groups were required to complete a computer simulation task. They also measured participant earlobes, wrist widths, and finger lengths and assigned scores for overall symmetry to each participant.

What they found is interesting.

Highly asymmetrical people saw themselves as having higher [self-reported] leadership abilities. They saw themselves as more able to intuit others’ feelings and needs and as more able to inspire others.

And this was confirmed as a reality via group performance. The more asymmetrical the leader, the better the team performed (about 20% better on average).

The researchers think that if you’re born with asymmetries you likely focus on developing more “people skills” to overcome perceptions that you are unattractive or not very intelligent. It’s an intriguing idea. Perhaps it is also that people with asymmetry are more interesting looking–and the longer eye gaze from others as they assess the asymmetry leads to development of skills to sustain others’ interest.

Regardless of the reason, it’s a good visual to look for as we select jurors. Crooked ears and signs of social intelligence sparkling in those too far apart eyes? Now there’s a jury leader! [If you’d like to check your own facial symmetry, [for scientific purposes] visit this website.

Senior, C., Martin, R., Thomas, G., Topakas, A., West, M., & M. Yeats, R. (2011). Developmental stability and leadership effectiveness The Leadership Quarterly DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.08.005

Senior C, Martin R, West M, & Yeats RM (2011). How earlobes can signify leadership potential. Harvard Business Review, 89 (11) PMID: 22111428

Image

Related posts:

1. This is what a good leader does not look like