In today’s world, misperceptions are the norm rather than the exception. When asked about the yearly rate of deaths from extreme weather over the last 100 years, only 10% of Americans answer correctly (i.e., the yearly death rate from extreme weather has drastically decreased over the last 100 years). Other misperceptions include the belief that the number of people in poverty is significantly increasing (actually it is decreasing) and that human overpopulation will be a major issue within the next 100 years (again, the data suggests the opposite).
One of the more famous misperceptions in marketing occurred in the 1980s, when A&W promoted a 1/3-pound burger as the superior alternative to their competitor’s popular 1/4-pound burger (i.e., the “Quarter Pounder”). Despite having a significantly larger beef patty, better taste (according to reviews), and sharing the exact same price point, A&W’s 1/3-pound burger struggled to put a dent in the 1/4-pound competitor’s market. Confused, A&W’s executives brought in a marketing research firm to determine what had gone wrong with what clearly should have been a winning strategy for their new product. Eventually, a focus group revealed a surprising truth: that a majority of consumers felt that the 1/3-pound burger represented poor value for their money. Specifically, they stated that they were reluctant to pay the same price for a smaller amount of beef. It turns out, the misperception of fractions was the downfall of the 1/3-pounder. The common belief among consumers was that since four is a larger number than three, it followed that a 1/4-pound burger must contain more meat than a 1/3-pound burger. Thus, in an ironic and cruel twist of fate, A&W’s new burger was widely perceived by consumers as being smaller and of lower value than its competitor’s burger, when in fact the opposite was true. This was a major element in the rebound of the menu item in 2021 and was reflected in their visuals (and an odd choice on the weight).
One would think the proliferation of information in our modern age would reduce or eliminate these kinds of false understandings, but misperceptions involving obvious facts are only too common in the general population, and this psychological tendency to misunderstand the facts spills over into the courtroom on a regular basis.
Luckily for us, there are ways to help correct and/or prevent these misperceptions from forming in the first place. Specifically, by providing a “picture” of exactly what you are trying to convey, or by including a graph or side-by-side visuals of the data you are presenting, you can greatly reduce or eliminate the risk of misperceptions within the courtroom.
A recent study out of the Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties finds that even powerful ideologically-driven misperceptions can usually be corrected simply by presenting the relevant information in a graph or pie chart (Nyhan & Reifler, 2019). These findings are supported in other areas, such as in the visual representation of mathematical formulas, where researchers found that depicting mathematical proofs in graph form significantly increased students’ comprehension and subsequent recall of the formula and its information (Thornton, 2001).
Additionally, studies in health care services show these types of visualization strategies significantly enhance the chain of communication between health professionals and their patients, allowing large amounts of complex information to be conveyed with greater clarity, which result in less of the information being lost than when health care workers use verbal or written discourse alone (Dansereau & Simpson, 2009).
Meanwhile, studies in the courtroom show that when data is visually represented, jurors reach a greater understanding of the material, the presented information is recalled more accurately and at a higher rate later in the trial, and it also tends to elicit an elevated emotional reaction from the jurors at the time of presentation (Feigenson, 2010).
While no method is foolproof in preventing all misperceptions, providing the members of the jury with a picture (or a graph) will go a long way in allowing them to visualize and remember the key information you wish to convey. This ultimately contributes to greater comprehension of your message in the short term and reduces the chance of any misperceptions down the road.
References
Dansereau, D. F., & Simpson, D. D. (2009). A picture is worth a thousand words: The case for graphic representations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40(1), 104.
Feigenson, N. (2010). Visual evidence. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 17, 149-154.
Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2019). The roles of information deficits and identity threat in the prevalence of misperceptions. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 29(2), 222–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2018.1465061
Thornton, S. (2001). A picture is worth a thousand words. In New ideas in mathematics education: Proceedings of the International Conference of the Mathematics Education into the 21st Century Project (pp. 251-256).
