Table of Contents | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15
(4) Anchor Recalls Entire Experience
Anchoring is a technique for locking in a particular experience, event, theme or evidentiary points in the minds of jurors for the crucial retention and recall during the deliberative process. The neuropsychological principle underlying anchoring states that any element of an experience, when repeated, replays all elements of the experience. Any associational method which triggers events in the mind, triggers recall of the entire experience surrounding the events.
c. Neurolinguistic Programming – Pacing
(1) Pacing to Create Similarities – Interactional pacing or neurolinguistic programming is used as a tool of persuasion. The jurors, in order to be comfortable, are looking for similarity. Pacing or neurolinguistic programming is a process where one takes advantage of this search for similarity in the jury’s mind by creating similarities not only on the conscious level, but on the unconscious level. If jurors perceive us as similar, particularly on the unconscious level, we greatly increase the chance of jurors “liking us”. We know since the Sanito and Arnold’s study, that if they like us, we have a better chance of winning the case. This also ties in with the seminal principle: “All communication is based on perception.” What we are trying to create is perceived similarity. This perception takes place on the unconscious level and the jurors or opponent are not aware of it. Anything we can do to increase or intensify the feeling of similarity helps.
Pacing can be the most effective technique that a trial lawyer can use. It is something which occurs naturally with people who like each other. It is not fake and not false. But being aware of the technique will help you to focus on the person with whom you are communicating and will help you create a bond or a feeling of liking between you and that person. Pacing jurors can help because whether they like us on the conscious or unconscious level, it is still easier to influence them if there is “liking” on either level.
(2) Matching and Mismatching – Basically, we are talking about interactional pacing which includes two basic types of pacing, matching and mismatching. In a relationship between you and another person or you and a group of people, you can pace them to create a feeling of similarity and a feeling unconsciously that they like you. Interactional pacing occurs naturally. When a couple is in love and the romance is blooming, the couple matches one another. It is natural and occurs on the unconscious level. In an interactional situation we want to create this. That is, if we want the other party or parties to like us, we match them.
On the other hand, there are some situations where we want to create dissonance. We want the party or parties to feel they do not like someone. For example, in cross-examination, you may want the witness to feel uncomfortable. You may want the witness to be perceived to be squirming and out of step with everybody else. This is done by mismatching and thereby creating dissonance. The jurors, because the witness mismatches the lawyer, may on an unconscious level dislike him and not even know why.
(3) Pacing at all Levels – Interactional pacing takes place on all levels of communication. To pace a witness or a juror or a number of jurors, you must verbally match the juror’s language. One listens to their language pattern and uses a similar language pattern. We pick up on their words and use them. We listen for their key phrases and echo them. In essence, we adopt their vernacular.
Besides matching verbal cues, one should match vocal cues. That is, we should attempt to match their rate of speech, their pitch of voice, and even their pauses. This does not mean we mimic their speech pattern, but only match it in one or two aspects.
In addition to matching vocal and verbal cues, one needs to match the nonverbal cues. In doing this we match their gestures, not deliberately or obviously, but comfortably. We also match their facial expressions, their eye movements, their blink rates, and even their breathing patterns. All of these things form part of interactional pacing.
(4) Pacing in the Primary Representational System – Another key method to matching a person through interactional pacing is by matching the primary representational system the person is using at the time. That is, we match the way in which they are processing information. If they are processing visually, we deliberately use phraseology which signals the unconscious mind of the visual person. If they are using the visual channel, we want them to “see it our way.” If they are using the auditory channel to process information, we want them to “hear what we have to say.” If we have determined that the person we are trying to influence is processing his or her information kinesthetically, then we tell them “how we fell” about the situation and try and match their feelings with both words and gestures.
d. Embedded Commands – An embedded command is a technique for engaging the conscious mind while communicating to the unconscious mind. The skilled trial attorney will understand how to use the embedded command to identify a specific action message which he wants delivered to the unconscious mind. The unconscious mind is analogous to a computer in that it acts on commands. The commands upon which the unconscious mind acts are those which the conscious mind allow to come through to the unconscious mind requesting specific action. The purpose of the embedded command is to bypass the conscious mind penetrating the logical and rational decision making process and communicate a command directly to the unconscious mind of the juror.
The unconscious mind is not selective in that when a command reaches the unconscious mind it responds impartially. There is no analysis process in the unconscious mind.
(1) Communicate a Command to the Unconscious Mind – The embedded command reaches the unconscious mind and commands the person to perform, think or feel in a particular way.
(2) Preface, Pause, Voice Change and Command – In order to accomplish this, two steps are required, first, there must be a “preface” which causes the conscious mind to drop its guard. Secondly, the embedded command must come after a pause, a voice change and a command beginning with the word “you”. The preface is delivered as a casual inquiry such as “I know you are wondering if”. The command part of the statement is delivered, after a distinct pause, in a stronger and lower voice tone, as customarily utilized in giving a command. The shifts in voice tone and the pause pattern serve to cue the unconscious mind that the following information is for it. The role of the unconscious mind is to discern nuances and behavioral changes which are the keys to this form of behavioral cuing.
The embedded command to the unconscious mind then follows the pause, such as “I was wondering if … you can feel the mental anguish involved in being a paraplegic?” This command, if delivered effectively to the unconscious mind, will cause the unconscious mind to perform by feeling the emotions which have been described by various witnesses during the trial that are inherent in being a paraplegic. This is a subtle but highly effective technique which can be used most effectively during summation in order to trigger emotional responses within the subconscious minds of the jurors.
Another type of embedded command deals with the establishment of evidence. This is accomplished using the phraseology, “I knew then what you know now”. The use of this particularly effective command works to recon-firm the evidence in the jurors’ minds.
e. The Zeigarnik Effect – When applied to litigation, the Zeigarnik effect is the psychological principle that jurors are more impressed with data which they discover for themselves over an extended period of time than with information which is spoon fed to them in bulk. The use of this principle in a personal injury case may be most effective with respect to proof of damages. Plaintiff’s counsel may consider that instead of disclosing the full nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries during voir dire examination and opening statement, it may be more effective to concentrate on proof of liability in the early portion of the trial and unpack the damages proof more slowly. In this manner, the nature and extent of the injury is continually increasing as more evidence is presented. Let each juror wonder as to the nature and extent of the injuries and they will watch carefully for additional evidence which answers the questions which are properly raised in their mind about “just how badly hurt is this plaintiff?”. As the information develops slowly over a longer period of time it will have a greater impact on the jury than if they are told everything in the inception and pay little attention to the details of the injury as they are discussed during the evidence. In some cases the extent of the injury is obvious immediately, however, the Zeigarnik Effect can be used to relate to the jury the effects of the injury on the injured party and on the spouse, children, occupation, recreation, etc.
f. Recency – The psychological principle of recency is to the effect that people remember longest that which they hear last. Thus, recency relates to ease of recall as distinguished from primacy which relates to formation of a belief. Clearly, both primacy and recency have been reflected in jury studies since jurors can recall with specificity the opening and closing portions of trial but have only vague, if any, recall of the events that occurred in the middle of the trial.
The skilled attorney will utilize the principle of recency by finishing big at every portion of the trial. In witness examination, whether direct or cross, always finish on a high note. Close every portion of the proof, whether on break for coffee, lunch, or at the end of the day with a significant piece of evidence. Wrap up every portion of the trilogy of persuasion, voir dire, opening statement or summation with a compelling point.
The principle of recency maintains that listeners will tend to remember longest what they hear last. It is imperative that closing arguments begin and end on issues of strength. The plaintiff’s counsel can effectively use knowledge of primacy and recency to insert specific issues into the argument in the most effective manner.