In Credibility in the Courtroom: How Likeable Should an Expert Witness Be? (Brodsky, Cramer and Ziemke, 2009), we find an interesting definition of Likeability.

Authors identified the following list of verbal and nonverbal components associated with high likeability:

• a pleasant, smiling facial expression
• use of “we” or “us” when referring to groups
• demonstration of a less controlling attitude
• physical attractiveness
• use of deferential speech and considerate disagreement (as opposed to aggressive, defiant contradiction)
• low degree of arrogance exhibited in verbal responses (such as acknowledging potential for error)
• use of informal speech (such as referring to an individual by name and use of less technical jargon)
• direct eye contact
• truthfulness (suspicion of lying was negatively associated with likeability)

These are consistent with our research and writing for Axis of Influence, but help us better define what these verbal and non-verbal items look like.  For example, we talk a lot in the book about the qualities of likeability – things like trustworthiness, focus on the other person versus focus on self, humility, etc.

It’s interesting that those coaching expert witnesses have them focus not only on things like eye contact and smiling, but also on likeable language – heavy use of the terms “we” and”us”, lack of arrogance as exhibited by acknowledging limited certainty or potential for error.  A specific reference was made to the use of modest statements and conclusions (e.g. “we are relatively certain” or “we do not know everything”).

The concept of limited certainty would seem to go against what we believe to be most credible and illustrates the importance of the balance between likeability and credibility.  In order to be believable, in order to influence or persuade, you must be both likeable and credible.  An arrogant know-it-all may be credible, but without the likeable elements, he or she will not be effective.