ABSTRACT
This study investigated the vividness variable in legal decision-making. It was hypothesised that different verdicts regarding the same legal case can be obtained by simply varying the vividness of phrases, without changing any probative element. 53 participants read Original (26) or Vivid (27) versions of testimonies to a homicide case, then made a decision as to the defendant's guilt. Results support the hypothesis: participants' judgements significantly differ between the two conditions; that is, participants who read the Original version consider the homicide as unintentional while participants who read the Vivid one are not able to choose between intentional or unintentional homicide. Therefore we can infer that vividness influenced the process by which guilt is attributed.
