Where are Hidden Illiterates Found?

The problem of hidden illiteracy is pervasive and wide reaching. Consider the following: according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, two-thirds of American children are less than proficient readers, whether they know it or not. This becomes a problem that dramatically impacts not only their individual lives, but also their families and their work. It even reaches into the political, economic and social health of the nation.

“At a time when patients are expected to understand—even manage—more of their own health care, illiteracy is growing….”
American Medical Association online news

This number also points to the one persistent indicator of the hidden illiterate: they are educated, but they do not know that they do not know. A much-cited study, “Miscomprehension of Televised Communication,” conducted by the American Association of Advertising Agencies, presents a very clear picture of the scope of the problem.

The study found that over 19 percent of television viewers misunderstand one-quarter to one-third of what is contained on any television broadcast. The researchers found that miscomprehension seems to be widespread, occurring to the same degree among all age, income and education levels. They stated, “Perhaps the most fundamental implication is that once again, it is clear that the mere provision of information does not automatically translate into this information having any effect, much less the intended effect.” This study is particularly important when you consider that we live in an age of multimedia production where sounds, images and text are combined to present new information and ideas. For many, this means that they are constantly bombarded from all sides with information they do not understand and ideas they cannot comprehend.   

While the inability to understand may seem of minor importance when related to television content, it becomes obviously important and even potentially perilous when related, for example, to the world of medicine. The following is from an article, “Mistaking Medicine,” from the American Medical Association online news: “At a time when patients are expected to understand—even manage—more of their own health care, illiteracy is growing…. Health illiteracy, the inability of patients to read, comprehend and/or act appropriately on medical instructions, is a widespread problem, but one that many doctors are unaware of.”

Health illiteracy, however, is broader than the inability to read. People who can read may still have great difficulty understanding what they read.

Another ominous ramification of this problem is found in our legal system. A federally funded study, “Making Jury Instructions Understandable,” found the average juror may understand only about 50 percent of the instructions on the law presented by a judge prior to deliberation on a defendant’s guilt or innocence. A paper published in Social Indicators Research (May 2001) refers to other studies “which…have shown the surprising frequency with which even seemingly straightforward statements are understood differently by different people.”

What if a juror believed that the word negligence meant carefulness and not carelessness? How could this affect the result of his deliberation in a civil case?

“Making Jury Instructions Understandable” also calls for a sweeping overhaul of the traditional jury instructions, stressing the importance of rewriting them in simple, comprehensible English. The authors stress that there is a high probability that many verdicts reflect misunderstanding of the jurors’ role, their individual beliefs about the facts of the case and, in many instances, about what the law requires. The authors refer to these as “lawless verdicts.” What if a juror believed that the word negligence meant carefulness and not carelessness? How could this affect the result of his deliberation in a civil case?

Considering the widespread nature of the hidden illiteracy problem, how many of these “lawless verdicts” are due to hidden illiteracy on the part of a juror or juries? In his paper entitled “Civil Jury Nullification,” Lars Nor comments, “When a jury chooses to disregard laws adopted by legislatures or courts, it undemocratically usurps the lawmaking function lodged in those institutions.” What Lars Nor might not understand is that a jury is not necessarily choosing to disregard the law, but they simply do not correctly understand the language of the law. So, how much of our democracy is “usurped” by people thinking they understand, but they don’t?