The Business Think Again Rethinking expert evidence

Welcome to the first instalment of Think Again, which aims to question the status quo and provoke new thinking in planning and urban design. I have to be honest and admit that I stole the title of the column from an Adam Grant book of the same name which is one of my favourite books from last year—highly recommended if you haven’t come across it yet.

Grant is an organisational psychologist. Part II of Think Again is about how to win debates and influence people. Reading it prompted me to rethink how I go about giving evidence, so I thought I’d share some of my discoveries with you.

Giving evidence requires a certain mindset. But it may not be the one you think.

As an expert witness, it is tempting to adopt what Grant refers to as the ‘preacher’ mode. This involves exuding a supreme level of confidence that says you should believe me because I am so convinced that I’m right. In part, this is a defence mechanism. If you haven’t separated your opinions from your identity, the adversarial nature of the cross-examination process can provoke the ‘preacher’ mode when your beliefs are attacked (or even as a pre-emptive strike). However, as Grant says, “The risk is that we become so wrapped up in preaching that we’re right … that we don’t bother to rethink our own views.”

At the other end of the confidence spectrum, ‘imposter syndrome’—where someone lacks confidence in their ability— can prevent an expert from effectively delivering their opinion.

Then there’s the scientist mode. Scientists have a healthy scepticism about their own arguments. They are aware of the limitations of their understanding and constantly test and rethink their ideas to develop a more robust evidence base. However, this doesn’t mean that they lack confidence: they are secure in their ability to contribute to the subject. But they don’t assume that this will automatically lead to the right answer.

So which mode is most persuasive? Well, first, it’s always good to remember the Dunning-Kruger effect, which says that the most confident people are probably the least competent. Grant refers to research which “shows that in courtrooms, expert witnesses and deliberating jurors are more credible and more persuasive when they express moderate confidence, rather than high or low confidence.” He calls this ‘confident humility’ and describes it as having faith in our capability while appreciating that we may not have the right solution …”.

Mark Sheppard, Principal, kinetica

Grant goes on to say that expressing doubt makes an expert more persuasive; “When someone knowledgeable admits uncertainty, it surprises people, and they end up paying more attention to the substance of the argument.” This suggests that we should acknowledge weaknesses in our arguments. Grant again: “An informed audience is going to spot the holes in our case anyway. We might as well get credit for having the humility to look for them, the foresight to spot them, and the integrity to acknowledge them.” Similarly, identifying caveats and contingencies associated with an opinion makes it more credible.

Expert witnesses know to acknowledge when the arguments of others have changed their view. What they may not fully appreciate is that giving credit where it’s due is not only the correct course of action, but it also reinforces their credibility by signalling that their motive is to assist the Tribunal or panel and demonstrating that their opinions are based on reason. Grant says, “Psychologists find that admitting we were wrong doesn’t make us look less competent. It’s a display of honesty and a willingness to learn.”

So, next time you find yourself giving evidence, have confidence in your ability (though not too much!) but don’t be afraid to acknowledge alternative opinions with merit, and to admit which of your views are based on weaker reasoning. It will enhance your credibility.

Fortunately, adopting a scientist frame of mind is not only more persuasive, it is also better for our health. Grant refers to a Harvard study which shows that people who see challenges to their opinions as an opportunity to develop and evolve their thinking don’t find cross examination stressful. They act as scientists, not prosecutors or preachers, which means that they detach their opinions from their identity. In fact, a good expert welcomes having their ideas examined.

(The views expressed in this column are those of the author, and do not purport to represent the position of VPELA.)

Mark Sheppard, Principal at kinetica, is an urban designer with 30 years’ consultancy experience. He specialises in leading large-scale master planning and urban renewal projects. In January 2022 he was elected President of VPELA, he brings to the role a passion to improve the liveability, sustainability and resilience of urban areas.