What Cognitive Dissonance Tells Us About Tone in Persuasion

Abstract

One of the toughest questions that lawyers face is how hard to push in persuasion. We want to advocate strongly enough so that our passion for our client’s cause, and our belief in its rightness, is apparent to the court. There is nothing worse than lukewarm advocacy. But we do not want to push so far that we cross from zealous advocacy into obnoxiousness. The problem is that the line between persuasion and coercion is a fine one. This essay takes an initial step toward thinking about where good advocacy should draw the line between zeal and coercion by looking to cognitive science for guidance. In particular, the paper looks at cognitive dissonance and related psychological processes to determine how decision-makers might react to different advocacy styles.

The bottom line arrived at in the paper is that it may often be advisable for lawyers to present arguments in a tone that, while strong in pursuit of a favorable outcome, appears more gradual, objective and reasonable. In other words, in many cases, the most psychologically appealing advocacy approach is one that appears more balanced and reasonable rather than one that is aggressively pushy and one sided.

Keywords: persuasion, advocacy, law & psychology, cognitive bias

JEL Classification: K41