Category Archives: Uncategorized

The Sunday New York Times published an interview with David Rock by reporter Adam Bryant. Rock is the director of the Neuroleadership Institute. http://www.neuroleadership.org/index.shtml  Rock has developed an acronym SCARF to better explain people’s behavior. It stands for: status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness and fairness.

Rock says that it is a summary of what motivates us, the things we feel passionately about and that are driving behavior. He says that the brain divides everything into one of two categories: threat or reward. He says “We are driven unconsciously to stay away from threat, and to go toward reward. This decision about threat or reward happens five times every second. It is very subtle.”  This is consistent with what we know about people, that they are driven by reward and punishment – the carrot or the stick. This is why we present our case as not being merely about our client, but about the protection and welfare of the juror, their family and the community.

He explains the acronym. The word “status” is your perception of where you are in the pecking order – a feeling of being better or worse than others. We want the jury to know that our cases have importance outside  the individual client and that they are empowered, as a group or team, with extraordinary power to do the right thing which will benefit them and others. We tell them in summation that they will be very proud of their verdict for the plaintiff  in future months and years.  That they will have played an important role in the community.

“Certainty” is a constant drive for the brain. He says “the more we can predict the future, the more rewarded we feel. Unless we can predict, the more threatened we feel. As soon as any ambiguity arises in even a simple activity, we get a threat response. We are driven to create certainty.” This is why rules are so important. Survival depends upon certainty about things we encounter in life. We need to know what  is safe and what is a danger. This need for certainty also is the reason jurors will always create a story that makes  sense  to  them about the facts.

“Autonomy” refers to a sense of control and is similar to certainty. Certainty is the knowledge about the future events but autonomy is about control.   It’s important for us to feel a sense of control, so much so that a small stress where you have no control generally is, in fact, a very big stress.” We know that lack of control means a threat to survival and activates a very basic  part of our reptile brain. We need to be in control and that means having rules of conduct that are enforced as well as control over our safety. This is consistent with our trial communication to the jury.

“Relatedness” refers to our interactions with others. The decision we make about everyone is: “are you in my group or out of my group.” Rock says that at an unconscious level we evaluate the other person by asking ourselves: “is this person similar to me? Are they on my team? Do we have shared goals or are they in an out group?” It becomes an issue of trust. This is a very important idea to us as trial lawyers. We must be part of  their (the juror) group. We must join their tribe starting in jury selection, where it is allowed, by never arguing or rejecting what jurors  tell us. We  need to project their shared values and ideas, to join  their tribe, before we can even consider suggesting there may be exceptions which apply to your case or your client. 

The final is “fairness” and is a fundamental factor. Rock says that a fair exchange of anything is intrinsically rewarding. An unfair exchange of anything is intrinsically threatening. Fairness is essential to the relationship and attitude of an individual. We know that one of the primary drives  of  the jury is to “do the right thing.” A trial is really a morality contest. The jurors apply a test of right and wrong. Is this consistent with my values? Is it fair? Is it basically right? Those are the unconscious filters through which the jurors weigh the evidence at trial.

While Rock was talking about leadership in a business, it seemed to me that what he had to say had  application to us as trial lawyers.

I recently read a review about this book which is written in an attempt to focus on persuasion as a science. Much of this material we know from other research but here are a few example from the book.

1) Social Proof – People look outside themselves to justify their actions. You can persuade individuals by highlighting what a majority of people do about something or believe about a matter.

2) For those acting in a socially desirable way, there needs to be praise or positive reinforcement of the good behavior. This is why you should praise the jury in antcipation they will do what you suggest and the enjoyment as well as the satisifaction they will get in doing it.

3) Too many choices overwhelm people unless people are already clear about their options. Avoid overly complex language in messages. This is the most widely violated rule by lawyers. Simplicity and brievity are the single most important aspects of any effective communication.

4) When multiple products are offered, the middle item is often selected as the compromise approach.

5) There is a strong social obligation to return favors. Reciprocation is a social norm and can be used effectively to persuade. For example, sticky notes with a handwritten note add a personal touch and encourage people to respond due to reciprocity. The more personalized the request, the more likely you’ll get a response. We already know about the principle of reciptrocity  and why we need  to be first in sharing information about ourselves before asking the jury to do so in jury selection.

6) After people have publicly stated their intention to do something, they are motivated to act consistent with their commitment. Active commitments are more likely to be followed through on. This is why you want people to affirmatively and publically agree in jury selection because once they have done so in the presence of the panel they feel obligated to be consistent in the jury room.

7) Arguing against your self interests makes you seem more trustworthy and honest in the eyes of others. This is why good waiters will sometimes  tell you what not to order or recommend something less expensive on the menu.  This is why good lawyers should be truthful and honest with the jury about the warts and blemishes in their case.

8)  We’re most likely to relate to others when we share similarities – even subtle ones. People are attracted to professions with names like their own. People like products that match their own name. We like people who are like us. Common interests, appearances and beliefs bond people.

9) Matching verbalizations and mirroring elicits a generous response. It leads to enhance trust. I’ve written about NLP mirroring of others as a means of creating rapport.

10) Authenticity in smiling helps encourage others to have more positive experiences. This is why you should have your client give the jury panel a genuine smile when you introduce your client.

11) People show a greater desire when an item is scarce or unique. This is why we tell jurors that our cases are uniquely important and a rare opportunity to make a difference  or change a behavior.

12)  If you make a request, include the word ‘because’ and a strong rationale. The research about the use of  “because” after a request is amazing in demonstrating simply giving a reason, even a weak one, increases the chance of agreement substantially.

13)  Rhyming phrases are viewed as more accurate and pleasing.

14) Miscommunication is more likely in email due to lack of inflection and tone as part of the message.

15) Social influence differs by culture. In individualistic societies focus on the benefit to the self. In collectivistic societies, focus on the benefit to the group members. Individualistic societies are motivated by prior commitment. Collectivistic societies are motivated by what peers do.If dealing from someone from a collectivistic culture, remember that communication is viewed as part of building the relationship.