The impact of neuropsychological testimony: Malingering, cognitive impairment, and language complexity

This study explored the influence of neuropsychological testimony about mild traumatic brain injury on mock jurors' damage awards in a civil trial. The specific variables investigated were the presence or absence of cognitive impairment, malingering evidence, and language complexity of the testimony. Need for cognition was assessed to see if it interacted with the language complexity manipulation or influenced award decisions.;A multifactor general linear model was conducted. Results indicated that evidence of cognitive impairment significantly increased award decisions [ F (1, 225) = 17.99, p ≤ 0.01] and evidence of malingering had an adverse effect on damage awards, but not to the degree expected [F (1, 225) = 21.21, p ≤ 0.001]. Although awards were significantly less in the malingering conditions, participants awarded approximately 75% more than the plaintiff's actual damages. Language complexity did not influence award decisions [F (1, 225) = 0.73, p = 0.40], nor did the participants' need for cognition [F (1, 225) = 0.02, p = 0.89]. None of the interactions between the independent variables were significant. African American participants awarded significantly more compensation than Caucasians [F (2, 246) = 4.77, p ≤ 0.01]. The implications of these results for expert witnesses and attorneys were explored and directions for future research were suggested.;Mock jurors were recruited from a large Southeastern university (N = 251). Participants were randomly assigned to one of eight conditions in a 2x2x2 design: Cognitive Impairment evidence present or absent; Malingering evidence present or absent; and Language Complexity high or low. All participants read a case background with these essential facts of the case: (a) the plaintiff had sustained a mild traumatic brain injury in a motor vehicle accident; (b) the defendant was at fault for this injury; (c) the plaintiff reported persistent cognitive impairment; and (d) in addition to actual damages, the plaintiff was requesting compensation for a cognitive disability. Participants then viewed a recording of an actor testifying about the neuropsychological test results and providing an expert opinion. Following the testimony, participants rendered an award decision and completed the Need for Cognition-Short Form (Cacioppo, Petty, & Kao, 1984).