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.