By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm:
When I was still a graduate student, I remember the Reverend Jesse Jackson delivering the 1988 Democratic Convention address in Atlanta: his famous “Common Ground” speech. In that wide-ranging address, he tied together diverse issues — expansion of the party, the arms race, voting rights, health care, student loans — and punctuated each with a chorus: common ground. He bound them together using a masterful analogy:
America is not a blanket woven from one thread, one color, one cloth. When I was a child growing up in Greenville, South Carolina and grandmamma could not afford a blanket, she didn’t complain and we did not freeze. Instead she took pieces of old cloth — patches, wool, silk, gabardine, crockersack — only patches, barely good enough to wipe off your shoes with. But they didn’t stay that way very long. With sturdy hands and a strong cord, she sewed them together into a quilt, a thing of beauty and power and culture. Now, Democrats, we must build such a quilt.
Today, it might strike us as a bit of overworked rhetoric, but the experience at the time was pretty electrifying. As Jackson addressed each issue and group, he acknowledged legitimate interests then added, “…but your patch is not big enough.” Addressing a deeply divided party, Jackson aimed to stitch them together into one cohesive whole.
Of course, this appeal to unity is a common persuasive strategy, and I’ve written before about the perspective on human communication that positions these common ground appeals as central to the ways that we influence and are influenced by others. An interesting new study demonstrates this effect. A group of Australian researchers (Greenaway et al., 2015) found that messages were more credible and more effective when they came from perceived in-group members. That part isn’t so surprising. Then, however, in a second experiment, they showed that merely reminding the participants of what the in-group and out-group members shared in common had the effect of not just mitigating, but erasing this in-group advantage. In other words, common ground not only works, but its effects can be harnessed just by reframing and emphasizing. The results are important for lawyers and other practical persuaders. In this post, I’ll cover this interesting study and also share a few key phrases and themes lawyers can use to build common ground in court.
The Study: The Salience of Common Ground
The research team led by Katherine Greenaway of the University of Queensland, looked at the basic psychological distinction between “us” and “them.” It has long been known that the more people believe that they are working in teams with a similarity or common social identity — teams of “us” — then the better they will communicate and perform. This occurs, researchers believe, because there is a greater motivation to engage with perceived in-group members. “Social identity,” the authors write, “provides people with a shared framework for understanding the world that increases the enthusiasm and ease with which they engage in communication.”
Interestingly, the effect occurs even when those “in-groups” are obvious creations of the experimental procedure. In the first study, for example, participants were told that they sorted based on the results of an alleged cognitive processing style test, but in reality, they were just randomly combined. Then each group received instructions on how to build a Leg0 model car, and were told those instructions came from either an in-group member or an out-group member, or someone alleged to have the same or different cognitive processing style. The instructions were the same, but those who believed that the anonymous instructor was “one of us” were able to communicate more effectively and were able to actually build a more accurate Lego car (measured by fewer pieces left over at the end).
That finding replicated other studies showing the same effect in a variety of settings. But then the more interesting part kicked in. To see if they could shift the notion of “common ground,” they increased the salience of a “superordinate identity,” which in this case meant a reminder that in-group and out-group members attended the same university, and that university would be compared to other universities. That simple reminder of an overarching common ground erased the effect, eliminating the advantage of in-group member instructions. The team concluded, “It is possible to influence the communication process by redefining the boundaries of shared social identity.”
This notion of shared social identity applies well to trial persuasion, and to a jury in particular.
A Litigator’s Phrase Book for Creating Common Ground in Court
There is no one-button appeal for creating common ground. Based on the research, however, it is not just the existence of actual common ground, but the salience of that common ground: how top-of-mind it is for an audience. That makes it subject to rhetorical construction. The more this perception of shared circumstance is available to jurors, the better. So here is a short list of some key words and phrases to employ wherever possible.
Common Beliefs
All of us know…
Reminding your audience of a shared belief binds them together. If everyone, for example, is reminded of the common sense belief that every individual carries a personal responsibility for their own safety, that serves as a unifying principle — or, more technically, an enthymeme.
Common Circumstances
As jurors…
Of course, your jurors know that they’re jurors. But reminding them of that common circumstance helps to invoke the “temporary identity” the label connotes. So “Joe, the juror” isn’t simply giving his personal reaction as “Joe,” but trying to give his more thorough, skeptical, and fair reaction as “the juror.”
Common Place
Here in this courtroom…
It is similarly obvious that we are all in that civil cathedral called a courtroom. But reminding jurors of that setting can, again, increase the salience or the availability of all the trappings — flags, seals, gavels, and robes –that not only highlight a certain kind of response, but also bind the group together in common purpose.
Common Experience
We all saw/heard…
As you summarize the evidence in closing argument, you should see yourself as reminding the jurors of everything they need in order to reach your preferred conclusion on their own. That means helping them reexperience what they all heard together. That isn’t just for the logical purpose of putting together the evidence, but also for the rhetorical purpose of invoking common experience.
Common Questions
You’re likely wondering…
Posing a rhetorical question is a good device. Not only does it increase the listener’s motivation (since we’re all naturally curious), but if the question speaks to something that is truly on your listeners’ minds, then the question serves as a great reminder of their shared mindset.
In any given case, there will be even more ways to, as the researchers say, “increase the salience of a superordinate identity,” or as the rest of us say, “build common ground.” Any words that unite and put us in the same boat will do it. In your particular case, the beliefs that all, or nearly all, will agree with are an effective foundation, and a mock trial can be a great way of discovering those unifying themes.
But apart from the specifics, the general communication principal at work is profound. Psychologically, it seems that what most unites us is a desire to be somehow united. And more practically, we listen, understand, trust, and agree based on a broad perception of commonality between persuader and audience.
______
Other Posts on Unifying Strategy:
- Humanize
- Don’t Underestimate the Power of a Unifying Vision: A Return to the Reptile
- Find the “Universal Morality” in Your Case Story
______
Greenaway, K. H., Wright, R. G., Willingham, J., Reynolds, K. J., & Haslam, S. A. (2015). Shared Identity Is Key to Effective Communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(2), 171-182.
Image Credit: 123rf.com, used under license