Damaging Evidence: The Effects of Brief versus Extensive Explanations and Need for Cognition on Juror Verdicts

Previous research has shown that if an attorney reveals evidence to his or her case before the opposing attorney reveals the evidence, it will result in more favorable verdicts for his or her client. This study tested the most effective way for attorneys to reveal damaging evidence about their clients in opening statements by varying the amount of explanation the plaintiff\u27s attorney gave of the damaging evidence. In addition, this study tested whether the participants\u27 Need for Cognition would affect which type of opening statement was more persuasive. The participants read one of four different versions of fictitious opening statements for civil trial that contained damaging evidence about the plaintiff. The different versions of opening statements consisted of 1) the plaintiff\u27s attorney giving an extensive explanation for the damaging evidence, 2) the plaintiff\u27s attorney a brief explanation for the damaging evidence, 3) the plaintiff\u27s attorney giving no explanation for the damaging evidence and 4) a control condition in which the damaging evidence was never mentioned by either attorney. In each condition, with the exception of the control condition, the defendant\u27s attorney brought up the damaging evidence in the same manner. After reading the opening statements, the participants read a set of jury instructions and chose a verdict. A significant effect of type of explanation revealed that the most favorable verdicts for the plaintiff were in the control condition, followed by the no explanation and extensive explanation conditions, followed by the brief explanation condition. However, the plaintiff\u27s attorney gained no advantage by revealing the damaging evidence in his case in the opening statements. Participants\u27 Need for Cognition did not affect their verdicts