Citizens are often asked to sign a variety of legal documents such as contracts, monetary agreements, and consent forms, but the adequacy of how well informed average citizens become when they sign such documents is unclear. A recent survey indicated that respondents signed a variety of legal documents that they did not fully read or understand (Howe and Wogalter, 1994). Participants in that survey also identified characteristics of legal documents that hinder their understanding and offered suggestions for improving understandability. In the current study, these characteristics and suggestions were used to create two different consent forms: a conventional “legalistic” consent form and an improved consent form. These were compared with each other and with a third, one-line, consent form (a control). Understandability was assessed using an objective comprehension test and measures of participants' subjective perceptions of understandability. Consistent with the hypotheses, objective comprehension and participant's subjective understanding was significantly enhanced by the improved form relative to the conventional form. Comprehension in the control condition was significantly lower than either of the other two consent forms conditions. In addition, even though comprehension was poor with the conventional legalistic consent form, all but one person receiving that form signed it, agreeing to participate in an activity that was described as having some risk of explosion and burn injury (jump starting a dead battery with booster cables). There was also a tendency for more participants with the improved form than the conventional form to take advantage of a stated option of participating in a less risky activity (a card sorting task). The importance of understanding legal documents as well as the implications for additional work in this domain are discussed.