The present study analyzed legal decision-making in a human immune-deficiency virus (HIV) civil trial. Male and female community members read a trial summary in which a female plaintiff (either sober or intoxicated at the time of sexual intercourse) alleged that a male defendant failed to disclose his HIV status prior to having sex. Participants provided judgements about the case (e.g. case decision, plaintiff and defendant credibility). The primary results indicated that: (a) participants provided more plaintiff case decisions overall, (b) participants decided in favor of a plaintiff more when she was sober during sexual intercourse compared to when she was intoxicated, given that the former plaintiff had taken more responsibility for her behavior (LaFree, 1989. Rape and criminal justice. Wadsworth), (c) pro-defendant/pro-plaintiff ratings indirectly influenced the relationship between intoxication condition and case decision (e.g. a sober plaintiff led to higher pro-plaintiff ratings and more plaintiff decisions), and (d) participants' reasons for their plaintiff decisions included a belief that the defendant had a responsibility to communicate his HIV status, and reasons for decisions in favor of the defendant focused on the belief that the plaintiff had a responsibility to protect herself from STD exposure.

Non-sexual workplace harassment (NSWH) is a prevalent issue, yet there is limited experimental research investigating how this harassment is perceived. In the present study, male and female participants (N = 242) read eight vignettes in which a supervisor insulted an employee. Participants then rated the extent to which each vignette involved harassment, as well as reactions to the employee (e.g. sympathy toward employee) and supervisor (e.g. anger toward supervisor). The supervisor's gender (man or woman), employee's gender (man or woman), and the type of verbal insult (regarding the employee's weight or intelligence) were varied. Results indicated higher ratings when vignettes involved (a) a supervisor and employee of different genders (vs same-gender dyads); (b) weight (vs intelligence) comments, especially made by a male supervisor; and (c) a female employee who received a weight comment (vs other employee gender, comment type combinations). In addition, female (vs male) participants returned higher ratings of reactions to the employee and supervisor, but not attributions of harassment. These findings indicated that not all contexts of NSWH are perceived as equally severe.

Rape is typically committed as a one-on-one crime. However, a relatively high number of rapes (2–27%) involve a single victim and multiple perpetrators. These cases are often referred to as “gang” rapes but are also termed Multiple Perpetrator Rape (MPR). Despite these data, there is a scarce amount of legal decision-making research on this issue. This study investigated legal decision making in an acquaintance rape case involving multiple perpetrators. This study was a 2(Defendant Number: one vs. three) × 2(Victim Intoxication: intoxicated vs. sober) × 2(Participant Gender: women vs. men) between-participants design. Online community members (N = 171) were randomly assigned to read a trial summary involving one of four conditions. The primary results showed that, when the case involved multiple (vs. one) perpetrators, mock jurors were more likely to vote guilty, perceived the victim to be more helpless, and reported less sympathy for the defendant and lower defendant credibility. Cognitive networks showed that jurors in the MPR condition emphasized the number of perpetrators as a primary reason for voting guilty. Finally, there was evidence of a serial indirect effect involving victim helplessness and defendant blame that explained the relation between the number of defendants and verdicts, as well as parallel indirect effects of defendant credibility, sympathy, and anger, and victim helplessness on verdicts. Implications for prosecuting MPR cases are discussed.

Child physical abuse is a significant problem in the U.S., and the debate surrounding the use of corporal punishment to discipline children is complex. Yet, there is a dearth of research examining legal decision making in cases of child physical abuse involving corporal punishment. This study examined mock juror decision making in a case involving child physical abuse where a father was accused of spanking or using a paddle to discipline his son and charged with first- or third-degree abuse. Online participants (N = 219) took the role of mock jurors judging a case of child physical abuse. Jurors rendered more pro-victim judgments when the abuse involved a paddle (vs. spanking), and the defendant was charged with third- (vs. first-) degree abuse. Moreover, negative perceptions of the defendant (e.g., how violent he was perceived) explained the relation between punishment type and verdicts such that when the defendant used a paddle (vs. spanking), participants perceived the defendant more negatively, and in turn were more likely to vote guilty. Cognitive networks showed that when a paddle was used, jurors’ guilty verdicts were driven by their perception that the use of a paddle constituted abuse, whereas this was not the case when the victim was spanked. Results have implications for how individuals conceptualize corporal punishment, offer insight for attorneys prosecuting child physical abuse cases, and contribute to the limited research examining child physical abuse in court.

We investigated perceptions and legal judgments regarding a case of alleged child sexual assault perpetrated by a priest. Community members serving as mock jurors (N = 153) read one of two trial summaries in which a priest or janitor was accused of sexually assaulting a 6-year-old boy. Participants rendered more guilty verdicts and made more pro-prosecution judgments (e.g. lower victim blame) when the defendant was a priest compared to a janitor, female mock jurors displayed higher pro-prosecution ratings and assigned more guilty verdicts than male mock jurors. In addition, negative perceptions of the defendant (e.g. anger toward the perpetrator) indirectly affected the relationship between condition (priest vs. janitor) and verdict. Finally, cognitive networks revealed the Catholic Church's history of sexual abuse was an underlying factor in participants' reasons for finding the priest guilty.

The present study investigated the impact of female victim sexual orientation and participant gender on legal decision-making in an adult rape case with a male defendant. Male and female community members (N = 159) read a summary of a sexual assault trial in which an adult female victim was raped by a male perpetrator. The victim either stated that she was heterosexual (had only dated men), bisexual (had dated both men and women), or lesbian (had only dated women). The results revealed that: (a) participants rendered more guilty verdicts and made higher pro-victim judgements (e.g. lower victim blame) when the victim was a lesbian; (b) lower pro-victim judgements resulted in fewer guilty verdicts; and (c) female participants made higher pro-victim judgements than male participants. These results suggest that a female rape victim's sexual orientation is an extra-legal factor that can influence both verdict decisions and perceptions of a victim.

We examined how college students perceived and discussed an intimate partner stalking case during mock jury deliberations. Specifically, undergraduates constituting 22 mixed-gender mock juries provided individual pre- and postdeliberation verdicts and deliberated in mixed-gender groups. We used Pathfinder analyses to derive semantic networks from their written pre- and postdeliberation verdict reasoning and the transcribed jury deliberations. During deliberations, women primarily made pro-alleged victim and antidefendant comments, considering the alleged victim’s fear and the defendant’s capability of harm. Men mainly made prodefendant comments, such as romanticizing his behavior. After deliberations, women became more prodefendant in their verdict reasons, while men remained similarly prodefendant and sometimes anti-alleged victim pre- and postdeliberations. Results provide evidence for gendered perceptions of criminal stalking, particularly pertaining to defendant threat and alleged victim fear. We consider implications for stalking legislation and education, and legal decision-making.

The prevalence of drug-facilitated sexual assault (DFSA) ranges from 33-35% of cases. Yet, there is a dearth of legal decision-making research on this issue. This study investigated the impact of a victim claiming to have been given the drug Rohypnol prior to a sexual assault. Online participants were randomly assigned to read a trial summary involving one of three Rohypnol conditions (positive-test, negative-test, no-test result). Positive evidence of Rohypnol led to greater pro-victim judgments (e.g. guilty verdicts) compared to negative - and no-test results, as did no-test (vs. negative) results. Women (vs. men) were also more likely to render pro-victim judgments. Indirect-association analyses revealed that jurors in the positive (vs. no and negative) condition were more likely to perceive the victim as credible and the defendant less credible, and in turn were more likely to convict. The same pattern emerged in the no-test (vs. negative) condition. Finally, jurors in the positive and negative conditions referred to this evidence as a primary reason for voting guilty or not guilty, respectively. Cognitive networks showed that jurors in the no-test condition varied in their reasoning as a function of their verdict. Implications regarding how best to prosecute cases of involuntary drugging are discussed.

In the present study, male and female community members (N = 194) read a fictional civil or criminal trial summary describing an 80-year-old female victim of a lottery scam (losing $10,000 or $100,000). The results yielded a significant main effect of amount stolen: Higher (vs. lower) amounts stolen led to more plaintiff decisions/guilty verdicts and higher pro-victim rating scores. This was qualified by a three-way interaction between type of trial, amount of money, and participant gender. Follow-up analyses showed no differences between conditions for women, but a type of trial x amount stolen interaction for men. Men rendered the most plaintiff decisions/guilty verdicts and higher pro-victim rating scores in civil cases that involved a high amount of money. Analyses on the verdict/decision data revealed that reasons for pro-victim decisions/verdicts centered around a "scam" taking place. Reasons for a verdict/decision supporting the defendant focused on "not enough evidence."

This study investigated drink spiking among undergraduate students (N = 168) and online participants from Amazon Mechanical Turk (N = 195). Drink spiking, the non-consensual administration of drugs, was examined in relation to sexual assault, motivations, and prevention. Data collected in September 2023 via self-report surveys revealed higher suspected rates than prior studies: 14% of students and 38% of online participants suspected victimization. Online participants were more likely than students to report sexual assault following spiking and less likely to employ precautionary strategies. Findings highlight the persistence of drink spiking and the need for targeted prevention and awareness efforts.

This study investigated how jurors perceive victim intoxication in a civil case involving "stealthing," the nonconsensual removal of a condom during sexual intercourse. Participants read a trial summary and made case judgments. Results revealed: (a) more plaintiff decisions when the victim was sober compared to intoxicated; (b) the effect of victim intoxication on case decision was indirectly affected by pro-victim judgments; and (c) the victim's intoxication was a central reason for decisions in favor of the defendant, whereas a lack of consent was central to plaintiff decisions. The results are compared to past findings in the context of rape.

The present study examined the impact of victim gender, victim sexual orientation, and participant gender on judgments in a sexual assault case. Community members (N = 267) read a fictional trial summary in which a male perpetrator allegedly sodomized either (a) a straight man, (b) a gay man, (c) an ambiguous man (i.e., sexual orientation not stated), or (d) a straight woman. Overall, participants were more provictim (e.g., higher perceptions of victim credibility) when the victim was a woman versus a man and participants were more sympathetic toward the straight man victim compared to the nonstraight male victims (i.e., gay and ambiguous). Structural equation modeling revealed that beliefs that a male victim was attracted to men were associated with perceptions that the victim wanted sex, which led to lower victim credibility and lower ratings of defendant guilt. Notably, beliefs that the female victim was attracted to men did not have a direct effect on perceptions that the victim wanted sex, nor an indirect effect on verdict. These results indicate that when a male victim is perceived as being attracted to men, he is less likely to be believed that the sex was nonconsensual when sexually assaulted-regardless of his actual sexual orientation. Implications are discussed in terms of barriers to men who are victims of sexual assault and education of the public to reduce sexual assault myths in jurors.

Background The advent of generative-artificial intelligence (AI) applications introduces new challenges for colleges. Importantly, the growth of these applications requires faculty to adjust their pedagogy to account for the changing technological landscape. Objective As colleges wrestle with the implications of these applications, it is important to understand college students’ perceptions and use of generative-AI. Method Undergraduate college students’ (in psychology courses) were surveyed about their use and perception of these applications. The sample was from five U.S. universities; primarily made up of women, and included White, Hispanic, and Black participants. Results Most students were familiar with these applications, yet less than half had used them in college, primarily to receive help with assignments. Those not using these applications gave “getting caught” and “cheating” as responses for not using them. Finally, most students perceived using these applications as cheating. Conclusions Students were familiar with these applications and were most likely to use them in humanities courses. Furthermore, these applications were used most often in writing tasks. Teaching Implications The increased use of these applications has led to educators debating whether these applications should be incorporated into the college classroom. Do these applications have pedological value or are they just another means for cheating?

This study investigated the impact of victim crying and gender on perceptions of rape cases. Participants (N = 240, 51.5% male, 48.1% female) completed a 2 (victim crying) × 2 (victim gender) × 2 (participant gender) between-participants design with case judgments (e.g., verdict) as the DVs. Results found that a rape victim crying during testimony increased pro-victim judgments compared to when the victim did not cry, that female mock jurors were more pro-victim than males, but that victim gender was insignificant. Finally, the mediation model found that victim crying increased their credibility, increasing the likelihood of a guilty verdict.

Background American Psychological Association Guidelines for Undergraduate Education (2013) encourage workforce preparation among undergraduate students, and the field of psychology has implemented this recommendation in various ways. Objective The present study investigated what sources undergraduate psychology students use to find information about and experiences they seek in preparation for their future careers, and what characteristics are associated with this process. Method Undergraduate participants ( N = 354) described the number and type of sources from which they sought information and experiences on careers, and also provided demographic information (e.g., academic achievement). Results Participants primarily used the Internet, advice from friends/family, and a career orientation course to find information, with higher academic achievement predicting the use of more sources. They sought a variety of experiences to enhance career opportunities (e.g., volunteering), with academic achievement and class standing as positive predictors of seeking more of such experiences. Conclusion To maximize students’ success, psychology departments should show students everything that the department and university have to offer by way of career information and preparation. Implications Departments should encourage students to use resources within the psychology department, include career information in orientation courses, in addition to regularly encouraging familiarity with on campus career centers.

This study investigated how jurors use deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence in an adult rape trial with a female victim and a male stranger defendant. Community members read a trial summary and then made case judgments (e.g., verdict). Results showed: (a) DNA evidence led to more pro-victim judgments (e.g., more guilty verdicts) than those who did not receive DNA evidence; (b) women were more pro-victim than men; (c) pro-victim judgments indirectly affected the presence of DNA evidence and verdict; and (d) the reason for a guilty verdict when DNA evidence was present typically noted a focus on the victim and DNA evidence.

We examined the impact of perpetrator and victim gender on bystander helping choices and assault perceptions. Participants (32 females, 37 males) read about two simultaneously occurring sexual assaults, indicated which victim they would help, and gave their perceptions of the assaults. We used a within-participants design that fully manipulated the perpetrator and victim gender for both assaults. Results showed female victims of male perpetrators and male victims of female perpetrators were most and least likely to be chosen for help, respectively. Cognitive networks derived from open-ended responses provided insight into the rationale used by participants to make helping decisions in ways that differed by perpetrator and victim gender.

The present study aimed to investigate the effect of victim mental illness on legal decision-making in a rape trial using a 3 (victim mental health status: schizophrenia, depression, no illness) x 2 (participant gender: female, male) between-subjects design. Participants (N = 270) read a rape trial summary in which the victim's mental illness was manipulated. They were then asked to render a verdict and answer questions about their perceptions of the victim and defendant. The results indicated that participants were more pro-victim in the control and depression conditions compared to the schizophrenia condition. It was also found that victim mental health status indirectly affected verdict through perceptions of victim credibility, victim sympathy, and victim mental health severity. Female participants were also found to be more pro-victim than male participants. Lastly, the cognitive network models demonstrated that victim mental health status was a primary factor in participant decision-making in the schizophrenia condition for not-guilty verdicts. The results demonstrate that mock juror perceptions and decision-making were impacted more so by the type of victim mental illness, rather than the presence of a psychological disorder alone. Implications are discussed in terms of reducing stigmatizing attitudes towards those with mental illness in court.

The present study investigated the impact of defendant attire (suit vs. prison garb) and participant gender on legal decision-making involving an assault case with a male defendant. Male and female community members (N = 60) read a summary of an assault trial. The trial either included a picture of the defendant wearing a dress suit or an orange prison jumpsuit. The results revealed a main effect for attire following a pattern of pro-victim judgments (e.g., guilty verdict, defendant aggression): prison garb > dress suit. Additionally, higher pro-defendant judgments resulted in fewer guilty verdicts. Indirect effects indicate the defendant in the prison jumpsuit was found to be more aggressive compared to the defendant in the dress suit resulting in more guilty verdicts. Lastly, there was no significant main effect of participant gender. These results confirm legal practitioners’ (lawyers and judges) opinions that defendant attire influences legal decision-making.