Often a difficult decision in opening statements is whether, and if so how, to volunteer weaknesses. This involves determining your weaknesses and predicting whether your opponent intends to use them at trial. There is obviously no point in volunteering a weakness that would never be raised at trial. Where, however, that weakness is apparent and known to the opponent, you should volunteer it. If you don't, your opponent will, with twice the impact. (Mauet, 1992, pp. 47–48)
Abstract
The effectiveness of a persuasion technique referred to asstealing thunder was assessed in two simulated jury trials. Stealing thunder is defined as revealing negative information about oneself (or, in a legal setting, one's client) before it is revealed or elicited by another person. In Study 1, 257 college students read or heard one of three versions of a criminal assault trial in which a damaging piece of evidence about the defendant was absent (no thunder), brought up by the prosecutor (thunder), or brought up by the defense attorney and repeated by the prosecutor (stolen thunder). In Study 2, 148 college students heard a civil negligence trial in which damaging evidence about the key plaintiff's witness was absent (no thunder), brought up by the defendant's attorney (thunder), or brought up by the witness himself (stolen thunder). In both studies, stealing thunder significantly reduced the impact of the negative information. A path analysis of the processes underlying the effect suggested that verdicts were affected because of enhanced credibility.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Archer, R. L., & Burleson, J. A. (1980). The effects of timing of self-disclosure on attraction and reciprocity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 120–130.
Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258–290.
Asch, S. E. (1948). The doctrine of suggestion, prestige, and imitation in social psychology.Psychological Review, 55, 250–276.
Bergman, P. (1979).Trial advocacy in a nutshell. St. Paul, MN: West.
Brock, T. C. (1968). Implications of commodity theory for value change. In A. Greenwald, T. Brock, & T. Ostrom (Eds.),Psychological foundations of attitudes. New York: Academic Press.
Brock, T. C., & Brannon, L. A. (1992). Liberalization of commodity theory.Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 135–144.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1979). Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 97–109.
Cialdini, R. B., & Petty, R. E. (1981). Anticipatory opinion effects. In R. Petty, T. Ostrom, & T. Brock (Eds.),Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 217–235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Craik, F. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Chaiken, S. (1978). Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 424–435.
Jones, E. E., & Gordon, E. M. (1972). Timing of self-disclosure and its effects on personal attraction.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 358–365.
Jörkeskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1989).Lisrel 7 user's reference guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
Kassin, S. M., Reddy, M. E., & Tulloch, W. F. (1990). Juror interpretation of ambiguous evidence: The need for cognition, Presentation order, and persuasion.Law and Human Behavior, 14, 43–56.
Keeton, R. (1973).Trial tactics and methods. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Kelman, H. C., & Hovland, C. I. (1953). “Reinstatement” of the communicator in delayed measurement of opinion change.Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 327–335.
Klonoff, R. H., & Colby, P. L. (1990).Sponsorship strategy: Evidentiary tactics for winning jury trials. Charlottesville, VA: Michie Press.
Kramer, G. P., Kerr, N. L., & Carroll, J. S. (1990). Pretrial publicity: Judicial remedies and jury bias.Law and Human Behavior, 14, 409–438.
Kruglanski, A. W., & Freund, T. (1983). The freezing and unfreezing of lay inferences: Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 448–468.
Lingle, J. H., & Ostrom, T. M. (1979). Retrieval selectivity in memory-based impression judgments.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 180–194.
Lorge, I. (1936). Prestige, suggestion, and attitudes.Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 386–402.
Mauet, T. A. (1992). Fundamentals of trial techniques (3rd. Ed.). Boston: Little, Brown.
McGuire, W. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion: Some contemporary approaches. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, (Vol. 1, pp. 191–229). New York: Academic Press.
Nelson, T. O. (1977). Repetition and depth of processing.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 16, 151–172.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986).Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Pyszczynski, T. A., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1981). The effects of opening statements on mock jurors' verdicts in a simulated criminal trial.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 301–313.
Rundus, D. (1971). Analysis of rehearsal processes in free recall.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 63–77.
Walster, E., Aronson, E., & Abrahams, D. (1966). On increasing the persuasiveness of a low prestige communicator.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 325–342.
Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 129–140.
Wyer, R. S. Jr., Srull, T. K., & Gordon, S. (1984). The effects of predicting a person's behavior on subsequent trait judgments.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 29–46.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
We would like to thank Michelle Cox, Gim Koay, Dana Koay, and Ralph Mueller for their helpful input. Thanks also to Irv Horowitz and Steve Karau for their comments on earlier drafts.
About this article
Cite this article
Williams, K.D., Bourgeois, M.J. & Croyle, R.T. The effects of stealing thunder in criminal and civil trials. Law Hum Behav 17, 597–609 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044684
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044684