Famous trials not only generate immense popularity and intrigue, they also have the power to change history. Surprisingly, little research examines the use of complex language during these culturally-significant trial outcomes. In the present study, we helped fill in this gap by evaluating the relationship between attorneys’ use of integratively complex language and trial outcomes. Using the well-validated Automated Integrative Complexity scoring system, we analyzed the complexity of language in the opening and closing statements of famous trials. We found that higher levels of integrative complexity led to a significant increase in winning outcomes, but only for the prosecution. Further, this effect was driven by elaborative forms of complexity and not dialectical forms of complexity. Taken together, these results fill a large gap in our understanding of how language might influence the outcomes of culturally-significant legal proceedings.
AbeJ. A. A. (2011). Changes in Alan Greenspan’s language use across the economic cycle: A text analysis of his testimonies and speeches. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 30(2), 212–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0261927X10397152
2.
AbeJ. A. A. (2012). Cognitive–affective styles associated with position on war. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31(2), 212–222. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0261927x12438532
3.
AbramsD. S.YoonA. H. (2007). The luck of the draw: Using random case assignment to investigate attorney ability. The University of Chicago Law Review, 74(4), 1145–1177. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20141859
4.
AllenM. (1991). Meta-analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one-sided and two-sided messages. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55(4), 390–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570319109374395
5.
AndersonJ. M.HeatonP. (2011). How much difference does the lawyer make? The effect of defense counsel on murder case outcomes. The Yale Law Journal, 122(1), 154–217. https://doi.org/10.2139%2Fssrn.1884379
6.
Baker-BrownG.BallardE. J.BluckS.DeVriesB.SuedfeldP.TetlockP. E. (1992). The integrative complexity scoring manual. In SmithC. (Ed.), Handbook of thematic content analysis (pp. 605–611). Cambridge University Press.
7.
BakhshayS.HaneyC. (2018). The media’s impact on the right to a fair trial: A content analysis of pretrial publicity in capital cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(3), 326–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000174
BensonR. W.KesslerJ. B. (1987). Legalese v. plain English: An empirical study of persuasion and credibility in appellate brief writing. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 20(2), 301–321. https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol20/iss2/2
10.
BlackR. C.TreulS. A.JohnsonT. R.GoldmanJ. (2011). Emotions, oral arguments, and supreme court decision making. Journal of Politics, 73(2), 572–581. https://doi.org/10.1017%2Fs002238161100003x
11.
BrennerS.HeberligE. S. (2002). “In my opinion. . .”: Justices’ opinion writing in the U.S. supreme court, 1946–1997. Social Science Quarterly, 83(3), 762–774. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.00113
12.
BucoloD. O.CohnE. S. (2010). Playing the race card: Making race salient in defense opening and closing statements. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15(2), 293–303. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532508X400824
13.
CarlsonK.LivermoreM. A.RockmoreD. (2015). A quantitative analysis of writing style on the U.S. supreme court. Washington University Law Review, 93(6), 1461–1510. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2554516
14.
CarpenterC. J. (2015). A meta-analysis of the ELM’s argument quality × processing type predictions. Human Communication Research, 41(4), 501–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12054
ConleyJ. M.O’BarrW. M.LindE. A. (1978). The power of language: Presentational style in the courtroom. Duke Law Journal, 1978(6), 1375–1399. https://doi.org/10.2307/1372218
17.
ConwayL. G.III.ConwayK. R.GornickL. J.HouckS. C. (2014). Automated integrative complexity. Political Psychology, 35(5), 603–624. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12021
18.
ConwayL. G.III.ConwayK. R.HouckS. C. (2020). Validating automated integrative complexity: Natural language processing and the Donald Trump test. Journal of Social and Political Psychology. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.3359
19.
ConwayL. G.III.GornickL. J.BurfeindC.MandellaP.KuenzliA.HouckS. C.FullertonD. T. (2012). Does complex or simple rhetoric win elections? An integrative complexity analysis of U.S. presidential campaigns. Political Psychology, 33(5), 599–618. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23324177
20.
ConwayL. G.III.GornickL. J.HouckS.TowgoodK. H.ConwayK. R. (2011). The hidden implications of radical group rhetoric: Integrative complexity and terrorism. Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict, 4(2), 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/17467586.2011.627938
21.
ConwayL. G.III.HouckS. C.GornickL. J.RepkeM. A. (2016). Ideologically motivated perceptions of complexity. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 35(6), 708–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X16634370
22.
ConwayL. G.III.ThoemmesF.AllisonA. M.TowgoodK. H.WagnerM. J.DaveyK.SalcidoA.StovallA. N.DoddsD. P.BongardK.ConwayK. R. (2008). Two ways to be complex and why they matter: Implications for attitude strength and lying. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1029–1044. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013336
23.
ConwayL. G.III.ZubrodA. (2020). The integrative complexity of Donald Trump: Is Trump a unique outlier or an extension of a republican trend towards simplicity? (Manuscript submitted for publication). Department of Psychology, University of Montana.
24.
CrowleyA. E.HoyerW. D. (1994). An integrative framework for understanding two-sided persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 561–574. https://doi.org/10.1086/209370
25.
de VriesB.WalkerL. J. (1987). Conceptual/integrative complexity and attitudes toward capital punishment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13(4), 448–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167287134002
26.
EisendM. (2007). Understanding two-sided persuasion: An empirical assessment of theoretical approaches. Psychology & Marketing, 24(7), 615–640. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20176
27.
FeldmanA. (2016). Counting on quality: The effects of merits brief quality on supreme court decisions. Denver Law Review, 94(1), 43–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2622603
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (1981). On construct validity: A critique of Miniard and Cohen’s paper. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17(3), 340–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(81)90032-9
FreedmanJ. L.AdamE. K.DaveyS. A.KoeglC. J. (1996). The impact of a statement: More detail does not always help. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 1(1), 117–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.1996.tb00311.x
32.
GriffinR. M. (2016). Predictive value of pretrial attitudes and the influence of eyewitness credibility on juror decision making (Unpublished master’s thesis). California State University.
33.
GruenfeldD. H. (1995). Status, ideology, and integrative complexity on the US supreme court: Rethinking the politics of political decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.5
34.
GruenfeldD. H.PrestonJ. (2000). Upending the status quo: Cognitive complexity in U.S. supreme court justices who overturn legal precedent. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(8), 1013–1022. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F01461672002610010
35.
HahnP. W.ClaytonS. D. (1996). The effects of attorney presentation style, attorney gender, and juror gender on juror decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 20(5), 533–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499040
HansfordT. G.CoeC. (2019). Linguistic complexity, information processing, and public acceptance of supreme court decisions. Political Psychology, 40(2), 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12497
38.
HawesT.LinJ.ResnikP. (2009). Elements of a computational model for multi-party discourse: The turn-taking behavior of supreme court justices. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 60(8), 1607–1615. https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fasi.21087
39.
HazeltonM. L. W.HinkleR. K.SpriggsJ. F.II. (2019). The influence of unique information in briefs on supreme court opinion content. Justice System Journal, 40(2), 126–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2019.1613202
40.
HermannM. G. (1980). Explaining foreign policy behavior using the personal characteristics of political leaders. International Studies Quarterly, 24(1), 7–46. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2600126
HoekenH.HornikxJ.LindersY. (2019). The importance and use of normative criteria to manipulate argument quality. Journal of Advertising, 49(2), 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2019.1663317
43.
HouckS. C.ConwayL. G.III. (2019). Strategic communication and the integrative complexity-ideology relationship: Meta-analytic findings reveal differences between public politicians and private citizens in their use of simple rhetoric. Political Psychology, 40(5), 1119–1141. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12583
44.
HouckS. C.ConwayL. G.III.GornickL. J. (2014). Automated integrative complexity: Current challenges and future directions. Political Psychology, 35(5), 647–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12209
45.
HouckS. C.ConwayL. G.III.ParrowK.LuceA.SalvatiJ. M. (2018). An integrative complexity analysis of religious and irreligious thinking. SAGE Open, 8(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2158244018796302
46.
HouckS. C.RepkeM. A.ConwayL. G.III. (2017). Understanding what makes terrorist groups’ propaganda effective: An integrative complexity analysis of ISIL and Al Qaeda. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, 12(2), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1080%2F18335330.2017.1351032
JordanK. N.SterlingJ.PennebakerJ. W.BoydR. L. (2019). Examining long-term trends in politics and culture through language of political leaders and cultural institutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(9), 3476–3481. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1811987116
LawsonR. G. (1970). Relative effectiveness of one-sided and two-sided communications in courtroom persuasion. Journal of General Psychology, 82(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080%2F00221309.1970.9920613
51.
LeippeM. R.BergoldA. N.EisenstadtD. (2016). Prejudice and terror management at trial: Effects of defendant race/ethnicity and mortality salience on mock-jurors’ verdict judgments. The Journal of Social Psychology, 157(3), 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2016.1184128
52.
LevineT. R. (2011). Statistical conclusions validity basics: Probability and how type 1 and type 2 errors obscure the interpretation of findings in communication research literatures. Communication Research Reports, 28(1), 115–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2011.541369
LevineT. R.HullettC. R. (2002). Eta squared, partial squared, and misreporting of effect size in communication research. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 612–625. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00828.x
55.
LevineT. R.WeberR.ParkH. S.HullettC. R. (2008). A communication researchers’ guide to null hypothesis significance testing and alternatives. Human Communication Research, 34(2), 188–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00318.x
56.
LiuC.LeeH.HuangP.ChenH.SommersS. (2016). Do incompatible arguments cause extensive processing in the evaluation of arguments? The role of congruence between argument compatibility and argument quality. British Journal of Psychology, 107(1), 179–198. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12133
57.
LongL. N.ChristensenW. F. (2013). When justices (subconsciously) attack: The theory of argumentative threat and the supreme court. Oregon Law Review, 91(3), 933–955. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2268060
58.
LundriganS.DhamiM. K.Mueller-JohnsonK. (2013). Predicting verdicts using pre-trial attitudes and standard of proof. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 21(1), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12043
59.
MazziD. (2010). ‘This argument fails for two reasons. . .’: A linguistic analysis of judicial evaluation strategies in US supreme court judgments. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 23(4), 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-010-9162-0
60.
McCulloughH. (2018a). The diamonds and the dross: A quantitative exploration of integrative complexity in fanfiction. Psychology of Popular Media, 9(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fppm0000216
61.
McCulloughH. (2018b, February23). The new American dream: YouTube, movie review and integrative complexity. Paper presented at the 6th annual institutions & societies graduate conference, Albany, NY, United States.
62.
McCulloughH.ConwayL. G.III. (2018a). “And the Oscar goes to . . .”: Integrative complexity’s predictive power in the film industry. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(4), 392–398. https://doi.org/10.1037%2Faca0000149
63.
McCulloughH.ConwayL. G.III. (2018b). The cognitive complexity of Miss Piggy and Osama Bin Laden: Examining linguistic differences between fiction and reality. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 7(4), 518–532. https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fppm0000150
64.
McCulloughH.ConwayL. G.III. (2019, April20). The integrative complexity of over 200,000 tweets. Poster presented at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Graduate Research, Troy, NY, United States. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.31847.09121
65.
McGuireK. T.VanbergG.YanusA. B. (2007). Targeting the median justice: A content analysis of legal arguments and judicial opinions [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Political Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. http://mcguire.web.unc.edu/files/2014/01/targeting_median.pdf
66.
MooreC.TenbrunselA. E. (2014). “Just think about it”? Cognitive complexity and moralchoice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123(2), 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.10.006
NiederdeppeJ.KimH. K.LundellH.FaziliF.FrazierB. (2012). Beyond counterarguing: Simple elaboration, complex integration, and counterelaboration in response to variations in narrative focus and sidedness. Journal of Communication, 62(5), 758–777. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01671.x
69.
O’BarrW. M. (1982). Linguistic evidence: Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. Academic Press.
70.
O’KeefeD. J. (1999). How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages: A meta-analytic review of the effects of one-sided and two-sided messages. Communication Yearbook, 22(1), 209–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1999.11678963
71.
O’KeefeD. J. (2013). The relative persuasiveness of different message types does not vary as a function of the persuasive outcome assessed: Evidence from 29 meta-analyses of 2,062 effect sizes for 13 message variations. Annals of the International Communication Association, 37(1), 221–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2013.11679151
72.
OwensR. J.WedekingJ. P. (2011). Justices and legal clarity: Analyzing the complexity of US Supreme court opinions. Law & Society Review, 45(4), 1027–1061. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15405893.2011.00464.x
73.
Peter-HageneL. C.BottomsB. L. (2017). Attitudes, anger, and nullification instructions influence jurors’ verdicts in euthanasia cases. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23(10), 983–1009. https://doi.org/10.1080%2F1068316x.2017.1351967
74.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.847
75.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 123–205). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2
76.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T.GoldmanR. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(5), 847–855. https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.41.5.847
77.
PrinslooC. F. (2016). Investigating the influence of individual value systems and risk propensities on decision-making quality in value clashing circumstances (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Pretoria.
78.
PutraI. E.ErikhaF.ArimbiR. S.RufaedahA. (2018). Increasing integrative complexity on convicted terrorists in Indonesia. Social Psychology and Society, 9(2), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.17759%2Fsps.2018090203
79.
RepkeM. A.ConwayL. G.III.HouckS. C. (2018). The strategic manipulation of linguistic complexity: A test of two models of lying. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 37(1), 74–92. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0261927x17706943
80.
RodriguezL.AgtarapS.BoalsA.KearnsN. T.BedfordL. (2019). Making a biased jury decision: Using the Steven Avery murder case to investigate potential influences in jury decision-making. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 8(4), 429–436. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000192
SkinnerD.PludwinS. (2013). Unsought responsibility: The U.S. supreme court and the politics of passive writing. Polity, 45(4), 499–524. https://doi.org/10.1057/pol.2013.19
SuedfeldP.RankA. D. (1976). Revolutionary leaders: Long-term success as a function of changes in conceptual complexity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(2), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.34.2.169
TaylorJ.TarrantG. (2019). Trial by social media: How do you find the jury, guilty or not guilty?International Journal of Cyber Research and Education, 1(2), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.4018%2Fijcre.2019070105
91.
TetlockP. E. (1981). Pre- to postelection shifts in presidential rhetoric: Impression management or cognitive adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(2), 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.41.2.207
92.
TetlockP. E.BernzweigJ.GallantJ. L. (1985). Supreme court decision making: Cognitive style as a predictor of ideological consistency of voting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(5), 1227–1239. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.5.1227
VogelF.HamannH.GauerI. (2018). Computer-assisted legal linguistics: Corpus analysis as a new tool for legal studies. Law & Social Inquiry, 43(4), 1340–1363. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsi.12305
95.
WeinstockM. P.FlatonR. A. (2004). Evidence coverage and argument skills: Cognitive factors in a juror’s verdict choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17(3), 191–212. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.470
