The current study assesses whether the stylistic choices that Van Leeuwen & Van Haaften (2018) identified in the ‘Van Gelder’ case affect readers’ evaluations. This case revolves around summary... Show moreThe current study assesses whether the stylistic choices that Van Leeuwen & Van Haaften (2018) identified in the ‘Van Gelder’ case affect readers’ evaluations. This case revolves around summary proceedings that gymnast Yuri van Gelder brought against NOC*NSF, as NOC*NSF had removed him from the Olympic gymnastics final due to misbehaviour. Van Leeuwen & Van Haaften argue that Van Gelder’s lawyer’s stylistic choices minimise the severity of Van Gelder’s behaviour and paint him as a victim, while the NOC*NSF lawyer maximises the severity of the behaviour and frames Van Gelder as solely responsible for his situation.209 participants read either an original or a manipulated fragment of the pleas and evaluated the severity of Van Gelder’s behaviour, his responsibility and their agreement with the judge’s decision. Results suggest that whether participants had read the original or the manipulated plea did not affect their evaluations. The content of the plea did matter, however, as participants who read the plea by the NOC*NSF lawyer were more negative about Van Gelder than those who had read Van Gelder’s lawyer’s plea. While the content of a text thus does affect readers’ evaluations, our stylistic manipulations may have been too subtle to make a difference. Show less
