Simple Jury Persuasion: The “halo of scientific validity” effect

Originally published by Douglas Keene .

We’ve written about the lack of evidence for the much-feared “CSI Effect”. But here’s an interesting study about the simple “appearance of science” as opposed to the bells and whistles of high-tech “CSI”-like evidence. All it takes is the use of “scientese” (scientific sounding words)–not to be confused with “lawyerese” (which we wrote about here earlier). Or, if you don’t want to use those big and confusing words, try a simple graph like the one illustrating this post. Or presenting a formula like this: C₂₁H₂₉FO_5. Either approach, say today’s researchers, will result in more people being convinced. And get this–in a counter-intuitive twist, those who believe more in science will be more persuaded! Even when they can’t tell you what the “scientese” means.

It’s sobering but, say the authors, there is a reason scientific findings are often communicated with graphs and formulas and even “trivial statistics” to make the article or news release more persuasive. What is that reason, you might ask? Because it works, respond the authors.

Much as we want to believe that facts matter, we’ve all seen cases where they really don’t. Often, the extra-evidentiary fog rules the day and mock trial deliberations are frighteningly unfocused until the facilitators arrive and begin to unravel where things went so very, very wrong. While it is distressing to watch, it is also extremely useful since it shows us how to plug holes in the case narrative so that the facts can matter (or at least jurors who support your case will know what they are and can get others back on track).

Here is some of what you can find in this article:

Brain images are incomprehensible to nearly all of us. What we know though, is that brain scans are scientific. So, to some of us at least, the presence of the brain imagery could signal scientific support. (In other words, it isn’t the “pretty picture” of the brain as much as the association with scientific support that draws the observer in. When this happens, the brain image serves as a sort of signal that there is a scientific basis for the claims.)

On the other hand, the graphs used in this study were not at all like pretty pictures of brain scans. They were simple, almost crude. (The illustration for this post is an example of the level of simplistic graphs the researchers used. Their rationale was that while brain imagery may confuse–these simple graphs would be easy for the observer to understand and gather that they add nothing to the observer’s understanding.) But they did. Participants in one study read information about a new medication which enhances immune function and thus reduces the likelihood you will get the common cold. Half the participants were shown a graph (see below) and half were not.

The graph was powerfully persuasive. Participants who saw the graph said the medication was more effective and believed the medication would truly reduce illness. “In other words”, say the authors, “while only 2/3 of the people believed the medication would reduce illness without the graph, all but one participant in the graphs condition believed this.”

So the researchers went on to complete more research. They found that those participants who believed more strongly in science were more likely to be persuaded by the graphs. They also found that when they gave a chemical formula to participants (e.g., C₂₁H₂₉FO₅), they were also more persuaded. In other words, the more “sciencey” the data seems to be, the more persuasive it is.

The authors today make several salient points we would do well to keep in mind:

People who were given graphs or formulas along with a narrative explanation of the medication had a greater belief in the medication efficacy. (This was true in not only a campus population, but also in an on-line panel and a general population sample.)

Graphs seem to signal a scientific basis for the claims. The effects of graphs hold true even when the graph adds no new information and does not help in deepening understanding of the information or in comprehending the data. The more you believe in science, the more powerfully persuasive the graph.

Let’s make this perfectly clear: a simplistic looking graph with no bells or whistles and that adds nothing to observer comprehension has the power to persuade. Because it’s “sciencey”.

Tal, A., & Wansink, B. (2014). Blinded with science: Trivial graphs and formulas increase ad persuasiveness and belief in product efficacy Public Understanding of Science DOI: 10.1177/0963662514549688

Images from article above.

Related posts:

1. Simple Jury Persuasion: Educating jurors about science may have no effect


2. Simple Jury Persuasion: The Red Sneakers Effect


3. Simple Jury Persuasion: The ‘one at a time’ effect

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.

from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/1uSrfhI

via Abogado Aly Website