By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm:
It is a situation where the common sense advice is in conflict and the platitudes can go both ways: Don’t keep your light under a bushel, but pride goeth before the fall. Practically speaking, do you boast about your abilities, or to you keep it humble? For a witness in court, this might be a very real choice. Physicians, for example, defending themselves in a professional malpractice case may want to say, “I know what I’m doing…and I’m a good person.” But should they? According to a recent study looking at the effectiveness of “self-enhancement statements,” or bragging, the answer seems to be “Yes” on the first part, but “No” on the second.
The study (Heck & Kruger, 2016) looks at the effectiveness of bragging in a couple of contexts. Specifically, the Brown University researchers test the “humility paradox” in which those who boast are believed to be viewed as more competent but less moral. In an online experiment using 400 volunteers, the researchers assessed the credibility of targets who claimed to be above average or below average on either competence or morality. They also factored in additional external evidence indicating that the person either was or was not actually competent or moral. The result, as summarized in a release to ScienceDaily is that “when competence is the issue, it pays to advertise,” and those who were competent and claimed to be so, were viewed more credibly than those who were equally competent, but did not claim to be so. On morality, however, those who claimed to be worse than average were viewed as more moral than those who didn’t. These results point toward a useful rule of thumb for witnesses and other public presenters: Don’t be shy regarding your competence, but when it comes to the less tangible quality of your morality or character, let your audience reach their own conclusions. In this post, I will discuss some implications for witnesses, attorneys and anyone else facing the choice between asserting expertise and maintaining humility.
Share Your Competence
You might think that, for a witness, trained and experienced in an area of expertise, that advice wouldn’t be necessary. But add in the stress of litigation and the psychological force of accusation and doubt, and a false humility can set in. Consider the physician defendant, for example, who will say, “I don’t know how many of those procedures I’ve done,” instead of saying, “I’ve performed it at least a thousand times.” Jurisdictions differ on whether that doctor can legally be considered an “expert” or not, but one thing you can be sure of across jurisdictions is that jurors want to see that expertise in someone who wields the powers of health and life in their hands. And that need to see competence as a key building block to credibility applies to witnesses across the board. So when discussing competence, witnesses should be descriptive and should be factual. They shouldn’t be arrogant, but need to be clear about their abilities and qualifications.
As Long as You Actually Are Competent
As with all testimony, the cardinal rule is to keep it honest. Make sure your statements are truthful and don’t exaggerate. There should be factual and objective evidence to back up any claims of competence. There are both practical as well as ethical reasons for that. As the research indicates, there is a rebound effect that harms the credibility of anyone making a competence claim that doesn’t turn out to be accurate. “Participants reserved harsh judgment for individuals who bragged about their performance but were proven wrong by the evidence.” Lead author Patrick Heck continues, “In all cases, claiming to be better than average when the evidence shows otherwise is the worst strategic move you can make.” So owning and honestly describing your competence is good, but don’t stray beyond what the facts will support.
But Let Jurors Come to Their Own Conclusions on Character
Whether on the plaintiff or the defense side, the bottom line of what the party witnesses often want to say is, “I’m a good person — I’m honest, I’m fair, I’m reasonable, I have good character.” Every one of those conclusions is important, but they’re also conclusions that are best supplied by the jurors themselves. Expressly claiming a high character invokes a kind of ‘holier than thou’ perception that reduces perceived character and credibility. So don’t say you’re honest. Be honest. Don’t assert your own fairness. Show fairness in your own testimony, including the points you concede to the other side. Don’t claim to be reasonable. Show the reason in what you did.
So the answer to the humility paradox is a conditional one. “The answer depends on which aspect of your reputation you are concerned with,” Heck said. “If you are more concerned with your perceived morality — your likability, trustworthiness and ethics — the answer is simple: avoid self-enhancing claims, even if the evidence supports them. Here, humility is the best option. If you are more concerned with your perceived competence — your intelligence or capability to get the job done — things are more nuanced,” he said. “Here, you should only claim to be better than average if you are sure (or fairly certain) that (a) the evidence will support this claim, or (b) supporting evidence will never be revealed. If there is a possibility that the evidence will invalidate your self-enhancing claim, the best option is to simply remain humble.”
______
Other Posts on Credibility:
- Don’t Overthink Your Credibility Assessments
- Experts: Don’t Cross The Line Between Confidence and Arrogance
- Smile (For Credibility and Affect)
______
Heck, P.R Krueger, J.I. (2016). Social Perception of Self-Enhancement Bias and Error. Social Psychology, 2016; 1 DOI: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000287
Image credit: 123rf.com, used under license