By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm:
I’ve been accused before of being in love with metaphors. From my debating days in school to my current authorship of this blog, I often find myself thinking, interpreting, explaining, and arguing through the use of parallel situations and analogies. It’s my bread and butter, you could say (sorry, couldn’t resist). Given that much of the social science research that I review in this blog is not written directly for a trial advocacy context, the act of understanding and applying the information to what a litigator finds useful is itself a metaphoric act. Heck, even the top banner image for the post is generally a metaphor for what I’m writing about. Drawing those connections seems pretty natural at this point (if it’s good for nothing else, a twice-weekly blog is a great recipe for practicing analytical and creative thinking).
But, as much as I prefer and rely on metaphors, I understand that it’s a romance that isn’t shared by everyone. Some like to be more literally-minded. Even among lawyers who go to trial, there are a fair number who vastly prefer the simple description over the metaphor. I even witnessed one consultant tell his clients, “Don’t use metaphors: They are too confusing to jurors and too easily turned around by counsel.” I think that is bad advice, that is probably impossible to follow as well. And it isn’t just my metaphor-love that makes me say that, it is the research: Metaphor plays a deep and likely an indispensable role in human understanding. At the same time, not everyone uses metaphors equally. Based on some intriguing new research (Fetterman et al., 2015), some people are metaphorically-minded and others aren’t. That’s now a difference that can be confirmed in the social science lab, and it carries some pretty big implications to how we understand and communicate. In this post, I will take a look at the study and draw some implications, metaphorically of course, for how this matters to trial persuasion.
The Research: Metaphor-Minded Versus Literal-Minded
The study (Fetterman et al., 2015) appears in the current edition of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and is also helpfully reviewed in a recent issue of Research Digest. The research provides the first standardized measure of the difference between people who are literally-minded and those who tend to think in and prefer metaphor. Over the course of five studies, the research team reports on the difference that it makes to be metaphorically minded.
In study 1, the team develops and validates the “Metaphor Usage Measure” (MUM), showing that people have measurable and consistent preferences for literal versus metaphorical language. In addition to self-reporting on which of two phrases they are more likely to say, think, or write (e.g., “She uses her head” versus “She makes rational decisions”), the team also asked participants to freely write before coding the essays for metaphor usage. The results show not only widely varying preferences, but also a link between metaphor use and a preference for mental imagery. Interestingly, they found no link between metaphor preference and intellectual performance, or the ability to create mental imagery, suggesting that they are measuring a mental style or preference, not a capability.
In studies 2 and 3, the team found that metaphor usage and preference (high MUM) predicts susceptibility to what is called the “Metaphor Transfer Effect,” which refers to the ways metaphors can affect our feelings. Drawing on the metaphor that dark is bad and light is good, it turns out that words printed in a dark font were evaluated more negatively than the same words in a light font (against the same gray background), but this effect occurs only for those with a greater use and affinity toward metaphor. The metaphorically-minded are also more likely to report other transfer effects, such as eating more sweets on days where they feel more agreeable (“Sweets for the sweet”).
In study 4, the team linked metaphor usage to higher levels of emotional understanding. That connection is hypothesized because metaphors are often viewed and used as more effective ways to convey the emotional component of speech. And sure enough, those with a greater affinity for metaphor are more likely to score higher on the “Situational Test of Emotional Understanding.”
In probably the most interesting manipulation, the group conducted a final study asking participants to spend five minutes a day writing down their negative emotions, with one group being asked to express themselves literally (“I felt anxious and confused”) and the other group being asked to use metaphors (“I felt like a leaf in the wind”). By the end of the week, a drop of negative emotions was experienced by the metaphoric group only. Either because the metaphors served as a better route to emotional expression, or because participants were forced to be a little more creative, they were happier in the end when they used metaphors.
The Implications: What Does This Mean for Metaphors in Trial?
It is one thing to understand metaphors as a human preference, and another to decide whether and how much to use metaphors when persuading. I think these studies carry three reminders for trial lawyers.
First, Don’t Forswear Metaphors
The study, particularly the finding that many are predisposed toward metaphorical thinking, gives a reason for litigators to continue to use analogies. It is a safe bet that at least one on your jury will be a metaphorical thinker. That means they will supply their own metaphor if you don’t suggest one, and why would you want to give up some control over that creative process? In addition, the fifth study, to some extent, shows the benefits of a “forced” use of metaphor: Even for those with a lower proclivity to use metaphors, a facilitated emphasis on metaphors still led to better understanding and a measurable cognitive effect at the end. That suggests that use of metaphors can be trained and can be beneficial once instilled.
Second, Don’t Call Attention
Because they are basic components to our thinking, metaphors don’t need to be rhetorically grand. We don’t need our verbal strategy to be met with the implicit reaction, “Oh look, you’re using a metaphor! How clever!” We don’t want to turn off the proportion that is literally- rather than metaphorically-minded. Instead, the metaphors we use should sound more or less like normal speech. For example, the article quotes research showing that in daily life, we tend to use metaphors every 25 words or so (Graesser, Mio, & Millis, 1989) — not in any grand stylistic way, but in the more down-to-earth (see that?) manner of figures of speech. The analogy doesn’t call attention to itself, but is instead built into the deeper structure of our understanding.
Third, Keep It Basic
That also suggests that the best metaphors are also the most basic metaphors. Drawing on research cited in the article, the simplest metaphors are drawn from perceptual experience, calling on contrasts that don’t need secondary explanation: higher/lower, darker/lighter, bigger/smaller (Tolaas, 1991). Saying that things are “looking up” or that we are “in the dark,” or that it is “no big deal” are widely understood because they tap into that direct perception. You don’t want any audience to have to work toward understanding: The MUM shows that some jurors will be disinclined to do that work.
For whatever reason, people seem driven by metaphor. As Research Digest notes, “Whether we prefer a crystal-clear monochrome take on the world, or to ladle on the technicolor, it’s clear that metaphor usage filters how we take in the world.” Persuaders in court cannot ignore that filter, but also need to keep their use of it simple and accessible.
______
Other Posts on Metaphor:
- Use Metaphors to Touch Your Fact Finders
- Fight Fire With Fire (And Fight Bad Analogies With Better Ones)
- Stop Searching for the Perfect Analogy (but Don’t Surrender a Communication Lifesaver)
______
Fetterman, A. K., Bair, J. L., Werth, M., Landkammer, F., & Robinson, M. D. (2015). The Scope and Consequences of Metaphoric Thinking: Using Individual Differences in Metaphor Usage to Understand How Metaphor Functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, URL: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2015-44640-001/
Image credit: 123rf.com, used under license