Comprehension of legal contracts by non‐experts: Effectiveness of plain language redrafting

The primary motivation behind the advocated use of plain language in legal documents is to increase comprehension among non-experts. We report empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of three kinds of simplification of standard legal contracts for increasing comprehension among naive readers. A set of legal contracts was redrafted in three stages to produce three modified versions. In the first stage we removed or replaced archaic and redundant terms; in the next stage simplified words and sentence structure were introduced; in the final stage legal terms were defined or replaced with simpler terms. Comprehension, as measured by paraphrasing and question-answering tasks, was reliably enhanced by the use of simplified words and sentence structure, but absolute levels of comprehension were still very low. An examination of erroneous responses suggested that, quite apart from the constraints of language, non-experts have difficulty understanding complex legal concepts that sometimes conflict with prior knowledge and beliefs.

[1]  Rudolf Franz Flesch,et al.  The Art of Plain Talk , 1946 .

[2]  R. Flesch.  A new readability yardstick. , 1948, The Journal of applied psychology.

[3]  Rudolf Franz Flesch,et al.  The art of clear thinking , 1951 .

[4]  R. Dick.  Plain English in Legal Drafting , 1969 .

[5]  R. Flesch.  Say what you mean , 1972 .

[6]  H. H. Clark.  The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. , 1973 .

[7]  W. Kintsch,et al.  The representation of meaning in memory , 1974 .

[8]  M. L. Stein,et al.  How to write plain English , 1975 .

[9]  Jeffrey Davis.  Protecting Consumers from Overdisclosure and Gobbledygook: An Empirical Look at the Simplification of Consumer-Credit Contracts , 1977 .

[10]  Walter Kintsch,et al.  Toward a model of text comprehension and production. , 1978 .

[11]  Richard C. Wydick.  Plain English for Lawyers , 1979 .

[12]  D. Shields,et al.  The dictionary of Canadian quotations and phrases , 1979 .

[13]  M A Just,et al.  A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension. , 1980, Psychological review.

[14]  B. Black.  A Model Plain Language Law , 1981 .

[15]  Michael E. J. Masson,et al.  Cognitive Processes in Skimming Stories , 1982 .

[16]  D. S. Cohen.  Comment on the Plain English Movement , 1982 .

[17]  E. Loftus,et al.  Improving the Ability of Jurors to Comprehend and Apply Criminal Jury Instructions , 1982 .

[18]  E. Loftus,et al.  Toward criminal jury instructions that jurors can understand. , 1984 .

[19]  Deborah Tannen,et al.  Medical professionals and parents: A linguistic analysis of communication across contexts , 1986, Language in Society.

[20]  M. Daneman,et al.  Individual differences in comprehending and producing words in context , 1986 .

[21]  Charles R. Fletcher,et al.  Strategies for the allocation of short-term memory during comprehension , 1986 .

[22]  Deborah Tannen,et al.  Interactive Frames and Knowledge Schemas in Interaction: Examples from a Medical Examination/Interview , 1987 .

[23]  S. Fish,et al.  Doing What Comes Naturally: Change, Rhetoric and the Practice of Theory in Literary and Legal Studies , 1989 .

[24]  Geoffrey P. Kramer,et al.  Do Jurors Understand Criminal Jury Instructions? Analyzing the Results of the Michigan Juror Comprehension Project , 1990 .

[25]  M. Just,et al.  From the SelectedWorks of Marcel Adam Just 1992 A capacity theory of comprehension : Individual differences in working memory , 2017 .

[26]  S. Diamond.  Instructing on death: Psychologists, juries, and judges. , 1993 .