Public speaking in Zurich: do sophisticated words signal expertise?
In Zurich’s financial services, insurance and tech sectors, and at the European headquarters of international groups, presentations often need to persuade people from different professional backgrounds. The managerial question is specific: does replacing unnecessarily complex wording with everyday language weaken a speaker’s perceived expertise?
What the literature establishes
Daniel M. Oppenheimer (2006, Applied Cognitive Psychology) experimentally investigated how unnecessarily complex vocabulary affects judgments of a text author’s intelligence. In the situations studied, more complex wording did not deliver the expected advantage and could worsen those judgments. These findings challenge the assumption that using more sophisticated words is enough to appear more competent.
Processing ease becomes part of the judgment
In a literature review, Daniel M. Oppenheimer (2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences) describes the role of processing fluency: the ease experienced while processing information can influence judgments about it. Yet that subjective experience does not directly indicate the quality of the reasoning. For presentations, this mechanism suggests a testable hypothesis: difficult wording may affect the assessment of a speaker independently of the strength of the case.
The hasty conclusion
One might conclude that all specialist vocabulary should be removed. That would confuse unnecessary complexity with an essential technical distinction, for instance between two risk categories or two contractual commitments. The aim is not to speak less precisely, but to retain necessary terms and make their meaning accessible. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What these data do not demonstrate
Experiments using written texts do not directly establish what happens during an oral presentation to a Zurich committee. In speech, context, explanations and the opportunity to ask questions may alter the effect of vocabulary. Above all, a more favourable assessment of the speaker proves neither better understanding nor a sounder decision.
A practical check in Zurich
Within SHR’s “Public Speaking & impact” programme, a testable exercise would involve preparing two versions of a project presentation: identical data and recommendation, but unnecessarily complex wording replaced in only one version, while retaining essential technical terms. Randomly assigning colleagues from different functions to the versions, with the same speaker and comparable duration, would allow this adaptation to be tested at a Zurich bank, insurer, tech company or European headquarters. Before any discussion, each participant would restate the recommendation and its main condition of validity, then separately rate the speaker’s perceived expertise. The primary measure would be the proportion of correct restatements against a predefined scoring guide; the expertise rating would check whether any improvement in understanding comes at a credibility cost. 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