By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm:
Most witnesses in trial or deposition would know enough not to testify with a big wad of chewing gum in their mouths. Only, these witnesses probably haven’t heard about a new study that purports to show that, when gum-chewers are compared to non-chewers, those chewing gum are viewed as more friendly, more popular, more approachable, and even sexier. The study involved several pairs of identical twins, identically dressed in various ways, and sitting in identical posture in front of the research participants. One twin was chewing gum while the other was told to simply sit there wearing a neutral expression. Participants were given two buttons to push and asked a series of questions like, “Which person has more friends?” or “Which businessman would be more likely to give you a raise?” or “Which police officer is the ‘bad cop’?” The twin winning the more favorable impression across these different scenarios ends up being the twin who is chewing gum. That favorable impression is enjoyed by a wide margin with 73 percent preferring the gum-chewer.
All of this was conducted at the Buenos Aires Museum of Contemporary Art, and is illustrated in a well-produced video (that I’ve embedded below). By all appearances, it must have been a fun and interesting project. The only problem is that it is one of the most transparently manipulative and self-interested studies you’ll ever come across. The biggest hint should be that it was all conducted by the Beldent chewing gum company, and was designed to rebut the belief that there is a social stigma attached to chewing gum. Despite that self-interest and a very clear slant in the method, the study nonetheless carries a very important lesson on nonverbal communication that applies not only to witnesses but to all communicators. That lesson isn’t to chew gum in order to look sexier. Instead, the lesson is to take some studies with a grain of salt, and also to understand the role that simple activity plays in building credibility.
The Study: See If You Can Spot the Problem
Let’s say a gum company realizes that gum-chewers are viewed as less professional, less intelligent, or lower class. So, in a burst of advertising credibility and viral aspiration, the gum company creates something like this:
(if the embed below doesn’t play, just go to this link in order to watch it on YouTube)
Beyond the Gum, Here Are the Lessons That Stick
The video reminds us of some reasons to be skeptical when dealing with studies, but also carries a very important and basic reminder that applies to witness testimony and other communication.
For Research, Look for the Slant
Obviously, it is sponsored by a chewing gum company. Beldent, more familiarly known as Trident in the United States, has an obvious interest in the results of the study. To be fair, it is framed more as an art installation than as a clinical study. But that hasn’t stopped the company and many other sources from representing these results as a definite refutation of the idea that there’s a stigma to chewing gum. So, we may as well ask: Does this exercise really show that chewing gum adds credibility?
No, it doesn’t. Looking at the video, it should be clear in every one of the examples that the non-chewing twin isn’t simply wearing a neutral expression, but instead looks angry, negative, and affectless. That twin may be trying to follow the instructions, but the problem is that there is really no such thing as a “neutral expression.” When asked to evaluate, we project.
Here’s a quick example. During my days teaching public speaking, I would conduct an exercise where I gave one student the secret instruction to try to communicate nothing while simply sitting in a chair in front of the class. Then I asked everyone else what that student was communicating. The answers were always “sad,” “mad,” or “confused.” The answer, “nothing” was never given. The lesson, double negative intended, is that “You can’t not communicate.” So, the result of the gum study says more about what people think of an artificial attempt to maintain flat affect, and less about what they think of gum chewers.
For Testimony, Remember That Dynamism Is Part of Credibility
The basic difference in the study is that the gum chewers were moving their faces. That’s it. Those watching the gum-chewing twin simply had more opportunities to see facial movement, and that led to a greater chance to believe that they saw personality, expression, and thought from that twin. As a result, the gum-chewing twin really did seem friendlier, nicer, and more interesting, but what the study really seems to be measuring is the effect of a moving face.
The lesson for communicators is a simple one: Move your face. And you don’t have to chew gum to do that. Because testimony, and most other speaking situations, can sometimes be tense, there is a risk for the communicator in “wearing” that tension on your face, making your expression artificially rigid or flat, like the non-chewing twins. As it has been measured over the years, the notion of “credibility” includes some recognizable components like “competence,” and “trustworthiness,” but it also includes the dimension of “dynamism,” or the ability to convey activity, movement, and change.
So, witnesses and attorneys, move your face. Take natural opportunities to smile or laugh. Use video in order to practice. And move the rest of your body. Feel free to move around, and to talk with your hands, within reason. And, most of all, relax and think about what you’re saying as you say it so that your own natural and subtle expressiveness is able to come out.
Looking back at the video, the lesson is clear: Don’t be the gum-chewer, but don’t be the other twin, either.
______
Other Posts on Witness Nonverbals:
______
Photo Credit: James Green, Flickr Creative Commons