How about a ‘Respect’ button instead?
Words matter. We are used to seeing ‘Like’ buttons or ‘Recommend’ buttons on social media sites. Many news media sites have adopted these buttons as well. New research from the Engaging News Project shows that if readers are given a ‘Respect’ button option, they are more likely to click it to share an opposing viewpoint.
Researchers say it is challenging for us to ‘like’ an opposing political viewpoint. It seems somehow wrong to ‘like’ a tragic event. When these researchers asked why site visitors would click on social media buttons on webpages, they got varied responses.
“People use social media buttons on news sites to share information with others (41%), to indicate high-quality information (41%), and to express their agreement (36%).”
They wondered if a ‘Like’ button encouraged people to think in terms of agreement or disagreement and whether an alternate button could encourage consideration of comment quality rather than simple agreement or disagreement. Given the level of political discord in this country, the researchers wanted to see if response patterns to comments would change when readers had the opportunity to ‘Respect’ rather than to ‘Like’ or ‘Recommend’.
They modified a website so that readers saw the same comments and stories, but had different buttons they could click in response to the comments. Some could only ‘Like’, others could only ‘Recommend’, and still others could only ‘Respect’. Data was collected from more than 700 people. The researchers were right: Site visitors were “more likely to click on comments endorsing different political views when they had a ‘respect’ button to use, compared to having a ‘like’ or ‘recommend’ button available.” The researchers urge newsrooms to consider the consequences of the the labels on social media buttons. They think the use of ‘Respect’ buttons could help citizens find common ground rather than reinforcing divisions.
We think it’s a good reminder for trial lawyers as well. Words matter. The words you use may be ‘hot buttons’ for various jurors. Once they hear that “code word”, they will see you as sharing their values or as being diametrically opposed to their values. We often hear about these sorts of associations from mock jurors during pretrial research. Sometimes they make sense and other times they are an idiosyncratic leap that leaves us scratching our heads.
“He kept saying ‘choice’ and I think he wants me to support his case because I am pro-choice.”
“I don’t like how she keeps saying, “it’s just business” when it is not that at all. This is all about treating people without respect and that isn’t how I want business to be done in my community.”
“I feel like he is speaking in code. As though somehow just because she is a single mother, we should think she is lacking in family values.”
“Why does he keep looking at me while he is talking? Does he think a white male is going to support his case more?”
What would it mean to your case if instead of advocating support or affirmation of a position, you spoke of “respect”? It seems to me that what you are asking for with respect is complex, integrating values, behavior, and the complexities of context surrounding a dispute. It is an intriguing idea, loaded with nuances. Stop back and visit The Jury Room again– this is one we will be watching.
Listen to your case presentation and see whether there are assumptions or biases or ‘hot button phrases’ included in it. It is ideal if you can present it in front of mock jurors to see if they hear anything you do not want to communicate. If you can’t do that, ask people you ‘respect’ to listen to your presentation. While you hopefully would not include a gaffe like this politician did on the House floor, words can be land mines.
Defuse your case narrative by removing phrases that could turn a listener against your client.