Research update: When the speaker is boring, listeners’ brains will fill in the “blanks”; The implications for the courtroom explained.

The world is not made of atoms, it is made of stories. Muriel Rukeyser

For those of us in the communication business, we know first-hand the power of stories.  Nothing can match the story for engaging the audience, and conveying a compelling, emotionally powerful message like a good story. Good stories always contain vivid detail, and they almost always contain dialogue.  Now some new brain research using fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) scanning has provided some new insights into the power of stories.

Scientists at the University of Glasgow’s Institute of Neuroscience and Psychology scanned the brains of study participants as they listened to audio clips of stories: one group of very short stories was read in a monotone and was “boring”, the other was read with more inflection and was “vivid”. While listening to the “boring” stories, the level of brain activity INCREASED in areas of the auditory cortex interested in human speech, and the participants reported that activity was the brain’s “internal dialogue” filling in the missing information in the boring story.  This was particularly evident in stories with no “direct speech quotations” which the researchers interpreted as the brain “talking over” the boring speech with its own internal speech to speed up information processing and to prepare a response.

Direct speech is more engaging because it triggers neural links to facial expressions, other voices, and gestures and therefore conveys more information. It is this same process that makes reading novels so powerful, as the brain supplies cortical activation in a network of brain centers to “fill in” a complete sensory-motor “picture” depicted in the words on the page.  This is the inherent power of a story: it engages the whole brain in creating an internal representation of the message, and keeps the brain engaged in processing that message.

As any seasoned observer knows, the audience in the courtroom, be it judge or jury, frequently faces the challenge of listening to “boring” speakers. It has long been known that when the audience is bored, they “tune out”, but this research highlights the real danger of “boring” courtroom argument or testimony: the audience not only tunes out, they actually SUBSTITUTE their own more interesting internally generated story to “make up” for the boring audio they are actually hearing!! This may help to explain why fact finders report hearing “evidence” that was not presented when they explain decisions which seem so disconnected from the testimony and the issues. Boring is not just a nuisance in court; it’s a danger! Bored brains are not your friends.

The bottom line: The brains of any audience can be both your friend and your enemy. When the message is a story that includes dialogue and is engaging, those brains will be your friend as they are completely involved in processing the information in multiple sensory and motor channels that are activated by a good story. 

On the other hand, when the message is boring, that is, monotonic, monotonous, and lacking in direct speech and dialogue, those bored brains will be busy “filling in” the processing time with a much more interesting but internally generated story which will probably be loosely connected to the message, at best.

Here’s the link to the research report: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-03-brain-speech-quotes.html

Research shows that witness training improves the accuracy of testimony

Traditionally, both judges and lawyers looked on witness "coaching" with considerable suspicion. Judges were concerned about lawyers subverting the judicial process by using their witnesses as a "mouthpiece" for the lawyer to improve their cases. Lawyers were suspicious of other lawyers for the same reason. No one considered the plight of the witness very much.

Fear of speaking in public is the single phobia endorsed by more than 2/3 of all respondents in surveys of the US public--no other fear comes close to these numbers. Testifying in court is not only "speaking in public", it is also accompanied by the very common fear that testifying falsely will lead to a jail sentence (I know of no research detailing the prevalence of this myth, but my guesstimate is that nearly 2 out of 3 witnesses believe it.) Lawyers who live their professional lives in the courtroom frequently don't appreciate how intimidating the setting and the jargon can be to someone experiencing it for the first time. And, when the witness believes that their children are on the line, the fear and pressure rise exponentially.

The research cited below nicely highlights the primary value of witness training: IMPROVED accuracy of the testimony! What Ellison and Wheatcroft found was that training witnesses about the rules and tactics of cross examination led to a REDUCTION in errors in responding accurately by more than 66% to complex questions on cross examination. Accuracy of answers to simple cross examination questions improved by 52%. Just as importantly, witnesses reported having the confidence to ask the cross examiner to clarify questions.

More than 25 years of teaching people how to testify effectively has convinced me that witness training, done right, not only helps the witness but significantly aids the administration of justice. This research confirms that belief. Of the hundreds of people whom I have trained, NOT ONE has ever said the training about how to testify effectively, especially how to handle cross examination, was a waste of time. Not one.

Now that the advantages of witness training to the system as a whole have been documented, there is no reason not spend the time to provide witnesses with the tools they need to testify accurately. Justice would seem to require it.


Ellison, L. & Wheatcroft, J. (2010). "Could you ask me that in a different way please?" Exploring the impact of courtroom questioning and witness familiarization on adult witness accuracy. Criminal Law Review, 11, pp. 823-839.

The Decline of Litigation and the Paradoxical Increase in the Need for Witness Preparation

Even before the economic climate turned stormy, family law litigation has been on a trend toward less litigation and more mediation and collaborative law. This trend is very beneficial for both children and divorcing families, and I expect the trend to continue. As with any significant change in the legal system, this one has consequences for lawyers and their clients that may not be obvious, because the cause and effect are so distant in time and challenging to discern.

In short, the fewer the number of hearings or deposition appearances by the parties, the more important each appearance becomes in determining the final outcome of the case. In the old days, lengthy litigation meant multiple hearings, sometimes repeated depositions, and then a final trial with a full day on the stand for each party. Generally, that meant a terrible performance by a party at a temporary hearing would be separated by a year or more from the final trial, giving the judge plenty of time to forget the first performance or to explain it away to "nervousness" or "stress". Those days are gone.

Today, a temporary hearing may be the only court appearance a party makes during a divorce or custody case. Depositions are unlikely to be seen by the judge or jury, leaving the temporary hearing performance of the parties of increasing importance for judicial decision-making or for negotiation leverage. Consequently, the importance of witness performance early in the case increases as the length of divorce litigation declines.

What hasn't changed though, is what makes witnesses effective.

1. Well prepared witnesses don't look coached, they look confident and calm.
2. Well prepared witnesses are responsive to questions because they understand the rules of evidence.
3. Well prepared witnesses give answers that are brief and clear.
4. Well prepared witnesses tell stories and give examples and avoid making judgments.
5. On cross examination, well prepared witnesses answer "yes" "no" or "I don't know" and do NOT try to explain.

These characteristics of effective courtroom communication have only increased in importance as the number of opportunities to testify decline. In courts where hearing times are increasingly limited, the need for intense preparation and crisp performance increase exponentially.

Due diligence requires that attorneys give clients the tools they need to compete effectively in the legal arena where most clients have NO experience and many unhelpful tendencies to unlearn. There is no substitute for effective, professional preparation, and the need is growing daily. Delay disadvantages both attorney and client.