Persuasive Litigator

Show, Don't Just Tell: Part 5, Caution (Persuasion Strategies Visual Persuasion Study)

By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm -

 
As we get to the final post in this series, astute readers will have no doubt noticed one claim that we haven't made:  namely, that graphics will win your case.  By themselves, they won't.  That is what we found in our experiment focusing on the reactions of 1,375 mock jurors.  When we compared five different approaches to graphics (no graphics, flip charts, static graphics, animations, and continuous graphics use), and compared the reported case leaning, and verdicts on liability and causation, we found no one method presented a statistically significant advantage over the others. 

I'll admit, even for a dispassionate researcher, this was a  bit of a dissapointment.  As we designed and prepared the study, we had allowed ourselves to dream,  "Wouldn't it be great if, keeping the script constant, we could find the difference between winning and losing in graphics alone?"  Alas, not in this case.  Perhaps that is a necessary dose of reality.  The central caution we leave you with is you won't win your case because you use graphics.  Good visuals do provide a definite edge:  they improve comprehension, allow you to compare more favorably to the other side, and help to make the key points more memorable.  By themselves, good graphics won't turn the case in your direction.  In this final post, we take a sober look at this final caution and provide some parting advice on focusing your visual persuasion in litigation on what it does best.

Show, Don't Just Tell: Part 4, Centrality (Persuasion Strategies Visual Persuasion Study)

By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm -

 

"I know how to explain it, and I think I even know how to persuade jurors on it -- but how do I make it central for them?  How do I make this fact the first thing they remember about this case?"

That question, asked recently by an attorney on her way to trial, highlights the importance of, well, "importance" itself.  More than just importance, the need is for centrality, because everything can be important (as attorneys often tell us), but only a few things can be truly "central."

The ability to make a fact or issue central is the focus of this, our fourth post in a five-part series reporting the results of Persuasion Strategies' Visual Persuasion study.  Based on an experiment with 1,375 research participants playing the role of mock jurors, we found a big part of the solution for making something central is to make it visual.  And the best way to make it visual is to make it continuously visual.  While you might think the approach of making continuous use of graphics, discussed in previous posts, could prevent the key points from standing out, we found the opposite.  When our presenting defense attorney used visuals throughout every moment of the presentation, that approach served to reinforce the importance of key alternate causation arguments.

Show, Don't Just Tell: Part 3, Comparison (Persuasion Strategies Visual Persuasion Study)

By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm -

We sometimes meet attorneys who want a low-technology approach in trial.  I imagine they see themselves standing in front of the jury saying something like, "well...I'm just a country lawyer and I don't know much about all these new fangled gadgets - documents flying on the screen, Star Wars animation and whatnot.  But I do know one thing..."   The thought is that jurors will look at the party using all the technological bells and whistles on their side and think, "well, is deep pockets and manipulation!"  Then they'll look at the other side, with arguments clothed only in reason and the law, and think "well, that there must be the simple truth!" 

But does this David versus Goliath schtick actually work when jurors are comparing two parties with differing reliance on technology in the courtroom?  Based on our study, looking at the reactions of 1,375 mock jurors reacting to videorecorded plaintiff and defense arguments, under five different conditions of graphics use, we think that the answer is no.  Years ago, when technology was first coming onto the scene, there may have been suspicion of the higher-technology party.  But today's juries are much more used to sophisticated visual strategies because they're more likely to see them on the news, at school, and on the internet.   This post, the third of our five-part series reporting the results of our Visual Persuasion Study, takes a look at the research on juror comparisons between parties, and shares some recommendations on how you should plan to stack up against the other party.

Show, Don't Just Tell: Part 2, Comprehension (Persuasion Strategies Visual Persuasion Study)

By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm -

 
When we think of great attorneys, the skills that we most often cherish are persuasion and logic -- the power to get a judge or jury to think and to do what you want.  But what about the ability to inform, to explain, to simply make something clear?   An effective teacher can be more trusted, and ultimately more effective, than even an attorney with a full briefcase of rhetorical technique.  After all, if you can get your fact-finders to understand the critical point from your perspective, then you are more than half-way to persuading them. 

It is in that context that we focus on the second part of our series on visual persuasion, reporting the results of a large scale (1,375 mock jurors) study of the effectiveness of different forms of demonstrative exhibit use in litigation.  In this post, we focus specifically on the role of visuals in building comprehension.   The finding?  Good visuals help teach the case, but the best visual teacher lies not in the occasional use of graphics, but in an immersion approach, with an attorney or witness using a continuous graphic presentation (like a well-designed PowerPoint deck) to accompany their verbal explanations.

Show, Don't Just Tell: Part 1, Continuity (Persuasion Strategies Visual Persuasion Study)

By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm - 
We all remember "show and tell," and at least back then we understood intuitively that if we tried to just tell, without showing, we couldn't expect much attention from the class.  The same applies in litigation, and in a way you might not expect.  This post is the first in a five-part series, reporting for the first time on the results of our own large scale (1,375 mock jurors) original research study focusing on the effectiveness of visual persuasion in a litigation context.  These results have not been published anywhere, until now.  The conclusions I'll be sharing in the next five posts do not focus on the obvious point that it is helpful to use graphics when talking to juries (we all pretty much knew that already).  Instead, my focus is on the best ways to use graphics, contrasting five different approaches, as well as on the specific effects that these approaches have on comprehension and the credibility assigned to different arguments. 

An important part of the story is the path that we took in the research.  Midway through the project, we learned something very important:  the occasional use of graphics is not enough.  We added a fifth condition to the study and found that to get the full benefits of visual persuasion, attorneys should be using a continuous approach, giving the jury something to look at (other than you) at all times.  Instead of following the practice of most attorneys in only using the screen periodically to show a document or image when a particular need presents itself, effective attorneys use graphic immersion:  an approach relying on continuous imagery to reinforce all parts of your message.  This approach, reflected in the best uses of PowerPoint, turns out to be most effective of all the graphic modes we tested.