By Dr. Ken Broda Bahm:
Here is an important technique. Experienced persuaders may already have it internalized, but it still helps to make it explicit and look at why it works. The technique is this: Begin ‘big’ with an abstract statement (This is a case about a betrayal of trust) and then get ‘small’ by filling in the details (So let’s look at exactly the steps in which that betrayal occurred…). That sequence contrasts with the rational legal model which might prefer stacking detail upon detail until it finally reaches a conclusion. In spoken communication, the idea of leading with the broad statement works for the same reason it works to have headings in your written communication. Longtime readers of this blog know that I like headings. In addition to framing and breaking up a post, they also help the “skimmers” who want to broadly understand the focus of a post before they commit to reading it.
This step of putting the big picture first and then filling it in with details is a broadly important communication technique. It has been addressed recently by psychology blogging superstar Jeremy Dean, as well as legal persuasion blogging superstar Mitch Jackson. In different ways (tellingly, one more abstract and one more concrete), these two commentators both reinforce the good advice for communicators to first go big (by grounding their messages in broad or abstract language) and then to get small (by adding in the concrete implications and details). To practice what I preach, the big picture for this post is that it’s about strategic sequence. The smaller details are that it is about Jeremy Dean’s and Mitch Jackson’s different takes on the technique and what that advice, plus my own take, has to say to litigators putting a message together.
One, Put the Big Picture First
We might tend to think of ‘abstraction’ as bad thing. And it is true that immediacy and concreteness can be achieved by moving down the ladder of abstraction into the realm of more specific meanings. But there are some benefits to abstraction as well. A recent post in Dr. Jeremy Dean’s Psyblog reports on research showing that those in power are more likely to rely on broad abstract expression rather than details. The study (Wakslak, Smith, & Han, 2014) reports on seven experiments in which research participants read quotations attributed to politicians. Some quotations were concrete and others abstract. For example, a speaker describing an earthquake might list the total deaths or injuries (concrete), or might speak about it as a national tragedy (abstract). “Use of abstract language that captured the gist or meaning of an event,” the researchers found, “led a speaker to be perceived as more powerful; relative to concrete language that focused on specific details and actions, regardless of whether the speaker was discussing a person, a societal issue, or a product; describing something negative or positive; or saying a few words or several sentences.”
Now that might go against intuition if we believe that concrete details are what convey the most information. But the reason for the abstract advantage, according to the authors, is that the broader statements convey judgment and powerful people are viewed as more likely to render judgment. “When people use abstract language,” the researchers explain, “they communicate that they are removed from the action and able to distill the gist or essence of the situation, instead of focusing on the concrete actions that would be most salient if they were ‘on the ground.'”
Two, Follow It With Details
There is one important difference, however, in how this works in trial: Litigators cannot simply stay at the abstract level in order to appear more ‘powerful.’ At some point, they need to move down into the details in order to prove or defend their case. But there is a way to do that, while at the same time gaining the advantages of the broader and more abstract expression. Orange County lawyer Mitch Jackson writes about a method in a blog post entitled “Make Your Point Using This Two-Step Approach.” Using a trial story of a case in which a patient died after releasing himself from soft restraints in an ambulance, Jackson notes that the first step is to “share the broad brush strokes,” in that case the ambulance company’s broad awareness and professed commitment to patient safety. Then the second step, he says, is to “elaborate to make your point,” which in that case involved sharing the specific warnings the company circulated regarding the soft restraints.
Jackson recommends this approach generally. “During almost any kind of presentation, structure your approach using broad brush strokes to paint the initial picture on one or more important issues,” he writes. “Once you’ve done that, elaborate upon each specific issue sharing more detail. Remember, you’re not repeating what was already discussed. Instead, you’re adding more color, flavor, feel and texture to the discussion for your audience to appreciate and digest.”
The strategy boils down to presenting a broad strokes heading first, and then filling in the details next. That second step can also be seen as an example of saving the best for last. Overall it is also parallel to the funnel technique in taking depositions. The approach applies in many other situations including witness order as well: Lead your case with those who can give jurors a broad-brush understanding, then fill in with the witnesses who can get into the details.
Three, How About a Sandwich?
Different approaches will make sense in different settings, but when the focus is on simply offering an explanation — as you might in opening or closing — then one additional thought makes sense. To add my own thoughts to what Dean and Jackson are sharing, I’d say that after starting big, then getting small, it makes sense to end back on the big. By sandwiching the details in a broad statement on either end, the trial lawyer is providing the necessary details while still maximizing the advantages of the broader and more abstract message.
In a products liability defense, it might look like this:
Big: A product that meets and exceeds the carefully-developed standards and regulations is not an unreasonable danger.
Small: There are industry standards, as well as federal regulations, on how well an automobile’s fuel tank can and should be protected in the event of a crash. And those were hard-won standards and regulations. Thirty years ago and earlier, tragedies involving fuel tank explosions were far more common than they should have been. Working through those tragedies, the courts, the industry, and the regulators all learned. In response, we developed designs to add much greater protection to the fuel tank and to make those explosions less and less common, even in the event of a very high speed or catastrophic collision. Not impossible — but much less common. The car at the center of this case meets all of those standards by complying with all of those hard-won design improvements, including many that are not even required.
Then Big Again: Because this car meets and exceeds all of these reasonable standards and regulations, it cannot be unreasonably dangerous.
______
Other Posts on Message Structure:
- Avoid the “And Another Thing…” Style in Rebuttal
- When You Think “Story” Think “Structure”
- But Wait, There’s More: Build Your Case Over Time, Instead of All at Once
______
Wakslak, C., Smith, P. K., & Han, A. (2013, January). Using abstract language signals power. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2013, No. 1, p. 14467). Academy of Management.
Photo Credit: 123RF.com, used under license