Many people are shocked and amazed when they find out that the juries are susceptible to lies of unscrupulous experts or witnesses. They often state with incredulity that the truth should come out in trial. Unfortunately, however, the truth doesn’t always come out. Recently, a study from Australia helped to give a better understanding why people — as voters in an election or voters on a jury — are susceptible to lies. The simple truth: Inherent Laziness.
“A study led by Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Western Australia explains part of what may happen. The researchers found that ‘Weighing the plausibility and the source of a message is cognitively more difficult than simply accepting that the message is true — it requires additional motivational and cognitiveresources.’
If the subject isn’t very important to you or you have other things on your mind, misinformation is more likely to take hold, according to the researchers. They point out that rejecting false information requires more cognitive effort than just taking it in. That is, weighing how plausible a message is, or assessing the reliability of its source, is more difficult, cognitively, than simply accepting that the message is true. In short, it takes more mental work. And if the topic isn’t very important to you or you have other things on your mind, the misinformation is more likely to take hold.” (Pyschology Today, Why You’re Likely to Believe Political Lies )
When a person does take the time and effort to question the lie, they only take limited mental resources to do so. They ask questions such as does this fit within my understanding of the world? Do others believe it? Is the source reliable? So in essence, they filter the information even when they are questioning it. As such, in order for the truth to come out, it must first overcome the mental laziness, and then must find its way through limited mental filters.
The problem with that filtration system is that only information that is consistent with your own beliefs will come through. So on many occassions, the filter creates a self fulfilling prophecy that the false information will be believed. In other words a lie is given, filtered, and then believed, which then reinforces your position or belief about issues related to the lie.
Moreover, when someone tries to demonstrate factually that the developed viewpoint is wrong, the entrenched parties often become even further entrenched citing the inaccuracy of the data. For example, “The GOP had emphasized their conviction that unemployment would remain above 8 percent — and benefit Romney’s campaign. However, following the report that unemployment dropped to 7.8 percent during September, several Republican spokesmen immediately claimed that the figures had been falsified. And despite factual corroboration that the numbers were accurately determined, some doubled-down on their allegation that a conspiracy to cook the numbers must have occurred. ” (pyschology today)
The consequences of this misinformation are dramatic for mediation and litigation. First, this demonstrates why people might believe the statements of experts. At first, the information seems to be plausible; second, it fits into the system of beliefs that the juror believes, and thus becomes even more plausible. Finally, in order for a person to really break down the lie, that juror must really care. Many jurors do care; but certainly others can’t be bothered. They don’t care enough to break down the intricate lie. Thus they decide to accept it. At least this way, they can go home earlier.
Second, in mediation the problem persists with the parties. Many times, regardless of what facts you might present to one side or the other, they simply won’t believe the facts. Instead, you must work to change their view within their belief system. In other words, you must find something that they believe and apply it to convince them that the position that they have taken is contrary to their beliefs. In order to do this you must understand the specific advocacy position as it relates to the negotiation, and then look to their interests and beliefs.
Well interestingly enough some research demonstrates that my anecodotal experience is not necessarily far from the truth.
First, according to a study in the journal of Social Pyschology, we are 30% more accurate at predicting performance for a third party than we are at predicting our own future performance. According to the research, we base predictions about others on hard facts, but brush aside our own failures or shortcomings as aberrations.
First, according to a study in the journal of Social Pyschology, we are 30% more accurate at predicting performance for a third party than we are at predicting our own future performance. According to the research, we base predictions about others on hard facts, but brush aside our own failures or shortcomings as aberrations.
Based on a 20 year study, Timothy Judge of Notre Dame concludes that the simple ability to “confidently choose one course of action while abandoning others” may be a key trait towards success. Most people lack the mental acuity and focus to close the door on projects that may detract from their goal.
The second study determined whether a participant would reduce the price of a $1,200 car based upon reading a story of a potential buyer as being a serious female or a socially acceptable flirtatious female. The result? Male sellers were willing to give the “playful Sue” more than $100 off the selling price whereas they weren’t as willing to negotiate with the “serious Sue.” Playful Sue’s behavior did not affect female car sellers.
The UN Guidance for Effective Mediation, presented in September 2012 at a high-level event on the sidelines of the 67th United Nations General Assembly, is the first broad UN guidance of this kind available to mediators. It reflects the experience of mediators over more than six decades and was developed in close cooperation with United Nations partners including member states, regional and subregional organizations.
According to new research from 
