Public speaking in Zurich: can an interesting detail distract from the message?
In Zurich’s financial services, insurance, tech and European headquarters of international groups, technical presentations are often enriched with an anecdote or a surprising fact. The management question is specific: does this addition help the audience use the reasoning presented, or does it mainly give them something else to remember?
What the literature establishes
Shannon F. Harp and Richard E. Mayer (1998, Journal of Educational Psychology) studied the addition of interesting but irrelevant details to scientific explanations. In their experiments, these additions could impair retention of essential information and transfer, meaning the use of the explanation to solve new problems. The finding therefore concerns usable understanding, not merely how enjoyable the presentation is.
One mechanism: steering people towards the wrong explanation
These experiments support, in particular, a diversion mechanism: seductive details can lead readers to organise information around a framework other than the one underpinning the main explanation. Günter Daniel Rey (2012, Educational Research Review), in a review and meta-analysis, finds an overall detrimental effect of these details on learning while examining the conditions that moderate its size. Content can therefore attract attention without directing it towards what needs to be understood.
The premature conclusion
It would be excessive to conclude that every anecdote should be removed. The decisive criterion is not whether an element is vivid or narrative, but whether it contributes to the intended reasoning. An example that makes a causal relationship visible serves a different purpose from a memorable anecdote unrelated to the decision at hand. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence does not establish
These studies mainly concern learning situations, not executive presentations to committees in Zurich. They cannot quantify an anecdote’s effect on an investment decision or establish that every spoken digression is harmful. However, the common practice of asking whether a presentation was “engaging” leaves its cognitive usefulness untested.
A practical check in Zurich
Within SHR’s “Public Speaking & impact” programme, an exercise could involve preparing two versions of a business presentation: one with an interesting but peripheral detail and one without it, keeping the central reasoning unchanged. Randomly assigning comparable participants to the versions, with the same speaker and the same essential supporting materials, would enable an initial local comparison. The main measure would be the proportion of correct answers to a short, unfamiliar case requiring participants to apply the reasoning, scored against a predefined rubric without knowledge of which version they received. Collecting a separate interest rating would help establish whether the version considered more engaging also better prepares participants to act. To go further: explore the Public Speaking & Impact training in Zurich in the canton of Zurich, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Public Speaking & Impact in Zurich
- public speaking & impact
- Zurich
- research
- training zurich