# Words Matter: How Attorney Language Abstraction and Emotional Valence Shape Juror Decision-Making

## TL;DR

This study shows that how attorneys use language in court can affect jurors' decisions, especially when using specific, emotionally charged words.

## Contribution

The study introduces a novel experimental approach to show how attorney language abstraction and emotional valence influence juror decision-making.

## Key findings

- Participants judged the defendant as more liable when exposed to negative–concrete language.
- The effect of emotional valence on liability judgments was not observed with abstract language.
- The findings suggest that the way information is conveyed in court can influence legal outcomes.

## Abstract

The language used by attorneys at trial could influence case outcomes, impacting fairness and wrongful convictions. At trial, attorneys choose their words to manage impressions the jury forms of the defendant, thereby influencing case outcomes. This study examines whether the abstraction and emotional valence of attorneys’ language at trial influence jurors’ decision-making. In this 2 × 2 factorial experiment, 273 online participants read an attorney’s closing statement regarding a civil case, with the emotional valence of the attorney’s descriptions being either positive or negative, and the abstraction concrete or abstract (e.g., a negative–concrete description being “the cost of removing these cancer-causing chemicals is millions of dollars” vs. the corresponding abstract description, “the cost of removing these health-hazardous chemicals is enormous”). The results revealed that attorney language abstraction and emotional valence influenced jurors’ perceptions of the case: Participants judged the defendant as more liable when exposed to negative–concrete language than positive–concrete language—a difference not present with abstract language. Findings suggest that attorneys might benefit from tailoring their language in closing arguments and that jurors’ decisions can be influenced by how information is conveyed—highlighting implications for courtroom communication and legal outcomes.