Date of Award

August 2026

Document Type

Thesis

Degree Name

Master of Science (MS)

Department

Psychology

First Advisor

Cassandra Flick

Abstract

Jurors in civil trials make judgments regarding liability and damages, often relying on jury instructions that are legally challenging to understand. Prior research indicates jurors frequently misunderstand standard instructions, which can contribute to legally inappropriate decisions influenced by factors such as the reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct. The present study examined whether simplifying jury instructions would improve mock jurors’ comprehension and reduce the influence of defendant conduct on damage award decisions. Using a 2 × 2 between-subjects experimental design, participants received either standard or simplified jury instructions within the context of a mock civil negligence case involving either lower or higher reprehensibility defendant conduct. Participants then made liability judgments, awarded compensatory and punitive damages, and completed measures of instruction comprehension, instruction complexity, moral blameworthiness, and need for cognition. Results indicated participants in the high reprehensibility condition perceived the defendant as more morally blameworthy than those in the lower reprehensibility condition. However, simplified instructions did not significantly affect perceived instruction clarity or reduce the influence of defendant conduct on damage award decisions. Need for cognition emerged as a significant predictor of comprehension. Overall, the findings suggest that linguistic simplification alone may be insufficient to improve juror comprehension.

Download

Share

COinS