Jargon, fluency, and judgment: how legal jargon shapes juror decision-making

Abstract

This study investigates whether the use of legal jargon impairs jurors’ information processing and systematically biases their judgments. In an experiment (N = 1,092), participants read a fictitious trial transcript containing either legal jargon or simplified language. As predicted, jargon reduced processing fluency, which, in turn, made people more likely to cast ‘guilty’ votes. Reduction in processing fluency was also associated with lower confidence in sentencing and verdict decisions, perceived self-efficacy, and confidence in the judicial system. Theoretically, these results extend feelings-as-information theory by demonstrating that processing difficulty can be misattributed not just to messages or sources but also to third parties (e.g. a defendant) and institutions. Practically, the findings indicate that when courtroom language is hard to process, jurors may judge more harshly, feel less confident, and trust the legal system less. This study shows that simplifying legal language would improve engagement and public trust in the justice system.