By Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm:
As your juror hears testimony from a banking executive, is she thinking that banks are secretly controlling society? As another juror hears from a medical expert, is he thinking that experts like that are the ones who caused the “covid hoax”? What might it mean for your case if the jury includes individuals who are prone to believe in conspiracy theories? According to a new article from NeimanLab, the effect can be significant. The article reports on a new working paper (Ognyanova et al., 2024) studying levels of belief at conspiracy theories over the recent assassination attempt on Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump — Yes, the one just a couple of months ago in Butler Pennsylvania — and whether individuals believed it was orchestrated by Democratic leaders, or whether they believe it was a set-up and staged by the Trump campaign itself. It bears noting, of course, that there isn’t evidence of either. But focusing on those theories from both ends of the spectrum, they report a few findings.
First, a not-insignificant number are willing to believe the claims without evidence. Fully 12 percent said it was “very likely” a Democratic plot, while 11 percent said it was “very likely” staged. Second, those beliefs fall in what would be the expected directions: Republicans think it was a Democratic plot, while Democrats think it was a Republican show. But the main finding is that in arriving at these beliefs, study participants were more likely to believe friends over general media and content. This points to one reason why social media is so influential: Because the “news” that supports some of these views doesn’t just come from the internet, but is also more believable because it is being shared by that guy you went to high school with. In effect, people are outsourcing some of their judgment to those who are considered friends.
I see a few implications for trial for handling the conspiracy thinkers who are discovered in voir dire, and in persuading generally in the current media age.
Proof is Social and Not Just Logical
The research provides a useful reminder to legal persuaders: As much as the law and the instructions tell jurors to logically assess the evidence, there is a strong pull to see “proof” as a collective judgment which comes, in part at least, from one’s tribe. That is at least part of the reason why the demeanor and credibility of a witness matters so much — not just because it logically bears on truthfulness, but more because a felt connection with a witness, or an ability to relate to a witness, makes that witness seem more like someone we know and therefore trust.
Defendants Should Be Especially Suspicious of the Conspiracy Thinkers
Some earlier research (e.g., see Polavin, 2023) points to what might be the surprising conclusion that conspiracy thinking can be a very effective predictor of pro-plaintiff jurors in some cases. Indeed, based on a case scenario involving a potentially carcinogenic drug, Nick Polavin’s research found that a susceptibility to conspiracy thinking proved to be the strongest predictor of pro-Plaintiff verdicts. “Holding a belief with little to no evidence makes people more likely to buy into additional beliefs with little to no evidence,” he explained. Though the plaintiffs in this case did share evidence, a propensity toward conspiracy-thinking ended up lowering the plaintiff’s implied burden of proof and building in some resistance to the defendant’s attacks on that evidence.
You Need to Address Both the Intuitive and the Analytical
Finally, the research on a preference for social proof when it comes to conspiracy theories reminds us that in trial, it is critical to address fact finders at two levels, speaking to both the analytical thinkers who are reviewing the evidence in order to come to conclusions, as well as the intuitive thinkers who feel an affinity for one side or the other and then look for evidence to support that feeling. One juror might work their way through the scientific research, while another juror starts with a belief that the defense is trying to suppress the science, and the regulators are in on it. Of course, you want to ask and instruct jurors to take the higher road in focusing on the evidence first. But it will help to use your themes, testimony, and persuasive appeals to address the intuitive short-cuts as well.
In today’s social media landscape, you will often have more information on potential jurors than you’ve had in the past. One thing about conspiracy thinkers is that they’ll often broadcast that in their public online profiles. As much as we might shake our heads at some of the narratives, it is important to pay attention to what people reveal about themselves and to carefully assess what it might mean for your case.
____________________
Other Posts on Conspiracy Thinking:
- Assessing Your Jurors’ Politics? Look for Conspiracy Thinking As Well
- See the Threads of Conspiracy Thinking
- Convert Your Conspiracy Theorists: Research Shows it Can Be Done
____________________
Image credit: Shutterstock, used under license