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 present study explored possible stereotypical beliefs, or myths, related to prejudice and discrimination toward transgender individuals in the US. In a 5 x 2 x 3 mixed factorial design, Amazon Mechanical Turk workers ( N = 1,450) read a description of a target depicted as a sexual predator, HIV-positive, having a mental illness, an ally of transgender people, or unfair to others. They then completed an intuitive judgment task regarding the target’s gender (male or female) and identity stigma detail (transgender, sexual minority, or no stigmatized detail), and provided feeling thermometer ratings for various groups. Results indicated that participants perceived mental illness as relatively representative of transgender people, but not HIV-status or sexual predation. Feeling thermometer ratings for transgender people were significantly lower than those for other gender/stigma categories and were negatively correlated with participant religiosity and conservatism. We discuss these findings in terms of gendered assumptions and present implications for gender-related stigma and the role of perceived mental illness in antitransgender prejudice.

We investigated the impact of a victim's belief in God on mock jurors' perceptions of the victim and verdict decisions in a mock rape trial. Four hundred eighteen community members (246 women, 172 men) read a rape trial summary involving an acquaintance rape in which the victim indirectly indicated that she was an atheist, Christian, or there was no mention of religious affiliation. In addition to rendering a verdict, participants rated the victim on her level of morality and rated other aspects of the trial (e.g., victim credibility). We found that the perceived morality of the victim mediated the relationship between the victim's religious belief and the participants' verdict, such that participants perceived the Christian victim as more moral than the atheist victim, which predicted a higher conviction rate. In addition, we found evidence for a sequential mediation pattern such that the effect of the victim's religious belief on participants' verdict was sequentially mediated by morality, sympathy, credibility, responsibility, and the strength of the prosecution's case. The results support prior research suggesting atheists are viewed as amoral and have implications for better understanding the role of victim characteristics on attributions in a rape trial.

The present experiment examined whether negative tattoo stereotypes would cause negative judgments about a rape victim. Mock jurors (N=174) read an acquaintance rape trial summary online and viewed a photo depicting the alleged victim with a feminine (flower), neutral (script), or no tattoo. They rendered verdicts and rated the victim on various attributes (e.g., credibility). Overall, participant gender was the strongest predictor of trial judgments and ratings of victim attributes. Additionally, participants blamed a victim with a flower tattoo less (vs. script), which increased guilty verdicts in this condition. Results are discussed with regard to the effect of extra-legal factors on rape judgments.

Despite the alarming problem of intimate partner rape (IPR), there is a dearth of empirical data investigating how jury-eligible individuals perceive IPR in a courtroom setting. In particular, very little research has addressed IPR beyond the scope of marital rape. Thus, we investigated how community members perceived intimate partner rape involving both a married and non-married couple in a mock trial context. In Experiment 1, 129 participants (78 women) read a trial summary describing an intimate partner rape that differed as to whether the victim and defendant were married or in a cohabiting, non-marital relationship. In Experiment 2, which involved the same methods as Experiment 1, we gave 153 participants (79 women) four verdict options: not guilty, guilty of Rape in the First-Degree, Intimate Partner Rape, or Sexual Misconduct. In both experiments, women were more likely to render guilty verdicts than men and yielded more pro-victim/anti-defendant judgments. Participants did not perceive the case differently between the marital status conditions. In Experiment 2, the presence of other guilty verdict choices influenced both men and women’s guilt decisions. The proportion of women who found the defendant not guilty of any crime decreased by over 50% in Experiment 2, while the proportion of men who found the defendant not guilty remained stable across experiments. The results suggest that few men and women are willing to convict the defendant of Rape in the First-Degree—especially when presented with other, lesser sexual crime options—and that the victim and defendant’s intimate relationship is a mitigating factor causing mock jurors to view IPR as a lesser, sexual crime different to felony rape.

The present study explored ageism in a civil court context. In two experiments, male and female undergraduates (Experiment 1; N = 215) and community members (Experiment 2; N = 203) read an institutional elder neglect trial summary in which a nursing home was sued for failure to provide the necessary care for an elderly female resident. The trial varied as to who provided witness testimony: the live victim, a recorded deposition from the victim, the victim's middle-aged niece (Experiments 1, 2), the victim's elderly floor-mate (Experiment 1), or no testimony was provided (Experiment 2). Across both experiments, higher ageism was negatively associated with pro-victim ratings (e.g. victim memory). Ageism indirectly decreased the likelihood of ruling for the plaintiff through ratings of sympathy for the victim and victim memory (Experiment 1), and defendant responsibility (Experiment 2). Trial ratings did not differ based on whether victim testimony was presented live or via recorded deposition (Experiments 1, 2). The results suggest that jurors' ageist attitudes may engender negative perceptions of an elderly victim, which can affect the outcome of neglect cases. We discuss the potential for these findings to inform legal proceedings and protection of elderly individuals.

We investigated the effect of the desirability of the defendant and the cost of a date on how participants assigned blame in a date rape context. Community participants (N= 211) read one of four date rape trial summaries that differed based on the two manipulated independent variables: the desirability of the defendant (i.e., high vs. low desirability) and the cost of the date (i.e., expensive [US$175] vs. inexpensive [US$30]). Participants then rated the victim and defendant on various attributes related to the trial (credibility, blame, and guilt) and post-date sexual behavior (expectations, want, and deservingness of sex). Overall, men viewed the victim more negatively and the defendant more positively than women. Participants in the high defendant desirability condition also viewed the victim as having higher want of sex following the date and rated the defendant as more credible. With regard to the cost of date manipulation, men viewed the defendant as more credible when a desirable defendant paid for an inexpensive date in comparison with an undesirable defendant. However, when the date was expensive, women viewed the desirable defendant as more credible than the undesirable defendant. Finally, we also found that participants' perceptions of the victim's expectations and want for sex and the defendant's deservingness for sex mediated the effects of participant gender and defendant desirability on victim and defendant blame.

The present study examined legal perceptions of lesbian intimate partner violence (IPV) in an experimental context. Undergraduate women and men from the Southeastern United States ( N = 217) read a trial summary in which the defendant was charged with physically assaulting her same-sex partner. The trial varied as to whether the victim and defendant were depicted via images as either feminine or masculine. Participants rendered verdicts and made judgments about the victim and defendant (e.g., credibility). Results indicated that the victim's and defendant's masculine or feminine appearance affected these judgments. Female participants viewed a masculine victim as more credible than a feminine victim when the defendant was masculine. When the victim was masculine, they viewed a masculine defendant as more responsible for the victim's injuries than a feminine defendant. Male participants had higher sympathy for a masculine versus feminine victim overall, but had more anger toward a masculine defendant versus a feminine defendant accused of assaulting a feminine victim. Finally, fewer participants mentioned the defendant's history of violence as a reason for a guilty of felony verdict for a feminine victim with a feminine defendant versus all other combinations of victim and defendant masculine/feminine appearance. Results are discussed in terms of gender stereotypes influencing legal decision-making in IPV cases among lesbian couples.

The present study investigated the impact of impeaching a rape victim with evidence of a simultaneous civil suit during a criminal trial. In three experiments, male and female undergraduates (Experiment 1) and community members (Experiments 2 and 3) read a rape trial summary in which the victim accused the defendant of raping her in a hotel. In the impeachment condition, the Defense mentioned that the victim simultaneously sued either the hotel (Experiments 1, 2, 3) or the alleged perpetrator (Experiment 3) for US$1 million. In the control condition, the Defense did not mention a civil suit. In all experiments, mock jurors were more likely to render not guilty verdicts and had higher pro-defendant ratings (e.g., defendant credibility) when the Defense impeached the victim than when the Defense did not impeach her. In addition, victim credibility (Experiments 1, 2, 3) and victim greed (Experiment 3) mediated the impact of impeachment on verdict. Results are discussed in terms of the prejudice rape victims may face in criminal court when they also seek justice in civil court.

The present research used a mock juror experiment (N = 360) to assess two primary goals: (1) to examine the direct and indirect effects of participant gender, stalking myth acceptance, and gender role stereotyping on guilt ratings in a stalking trial; and (2) to examine the role of perceived victim fear and distress, and defendant intended danger on perceptions of a stalking trial. Using structural equation modeling, we found an indirect effect of participant gender, and both direct and indirect effects of stalking myth acceptance and gender role stereotyping on guilt ratings. Men and participants who endorsed more traditional gender role stereotypes were associated with adherence to stalking myth acceptance beliefs. Endorsement of particular stalking myth acceptance beliefs offers a partial explanation for why women and men differed on perceptions of the defendant's intent to cause danger and the victim's perceived fear and distress. Results provide insight into the efficacy of current anti-stalking legislation that relies on a juror's capacity to evaluate an 'objective' interpretation (i.e., 'reasonable person') standard of fear for intimate partner stalking.

One hundred eighty-two undergraduates (96 women) read a summary of a child sexual assault (CSA) criminal trial involving a 6-year-old alleged victim. The trial summaries differed as to whether an eyewitness to the CSA other than the victim testified in court and the age of that eyewitness (6 or 36 years old). The results showed that the additional witness did not affect women's pro-victim judgments, but significantly increased men's pro-victim judgments. Furthermore, compared with women, men felt more anger toward the defendant when the additional witness testified. A follow-up experiment (43 women) included an additional witness who did not witness the CSA. The results of this follow-up showed that rather than the number of witnesses, it was the additional witness to the CSA that increased pro-victim judgments. The results are discussed in terms of how additional corroborating testimony in a CSA case affects men and women jurors.

The present study investigated the influence of a sexual assault nurse examiner's (SANE's) testimony on mock juror perceptions of a child or adolescent victim of child sexual assault. Community members (N = 252, 156 females) read a fictional criminal trial summary of a child sexual assault case in which the victim was 6 or 15 years old and the prosecution presented medical testimony from a SANE or a traditional registered nurse (RN), or did not present medical testimony. Mock jurors were more likely to render guilty verdicts when a SANE testified compared with the other two testimony conditions. In addition, pro-victim judgments (e.g., sympathy toward the victim) and negative defendant judgments (e.g., anger toward the defendant) mediated this relation. Finally, cognitive network representations of the case demonstrated that the RN and no-medical-testimony groups were similar and the SANE group was distinct from the other two conditions. We discuss these results in terms of the implications of SANE testimony in child sexual assault court cases.

Findings are reported from an experiment that examined mock jurors’ gender biases regarding intimate homicide case adjudications. Mock jurors were more likely to convict a man than a woman who had killed an abusive partner, which was partially mediated by sympathy toward both the victim and defendant. Analyses revealed an abuser height and abuser gender interaction such that conviction rates for women defendants were higher when her abuser was taller compared to when he was shorter than she; abuser height did not influence conviction rates for men. Findings also suggested that when given information about a child being present, mock jurors perceived the killing of the abusive partner as an act to protect that child. The results are discussed in relation to how extra-legal factors impact juror perceptions of domestic violence cases in the courtroom.

The purpose of the current study was to examine whether the differences found between first-time and repeat rural DUI offenders were the same as those found previously in urban samples. A total of 118 rural DUI offenders were interviewed, approximately half (51.7%) of whom were repeat offenders. Although demographic and mental health characteristics were similar across the two groups, repeat offenders reported more extensive substance use and criminal histories. Results suggest that the pattern of differences between rural first-time and repeat DUI offenders may be different from the pattern found in prior urban-based studies. Treatment implications are discussed.

One hundred and seventy five undergraduates (105 females) read a fictional criminal trial summary of a parricide case in which the juvenile defendant alleged sexual abuse or physical abuse or did not allege abuse. An allegation of either type of abuse led to a greater likelihood of a manslaughter conviction than a murder conviction and greater pro-child ratings (e.g., sympathy toward the defendant) compared to no abuse allegations. Specific evaluations of the defendant mediated the verdict results. In addition, there was no support for the claim that perceptions are more heinous for sexual abuse than physical abuse allegations and only limited support that perceptions for this type of case result in women being more pro-child defendant than men. The discussion focuses on how abuse allegations impact jurors' decision-making processes in parricide cases.

In this study, the perceptions of victim intoxication and the drinking context (i.e., who purchased the drinks) were investigated. Men and women mock jurors (N = 158) read a rape trial summary in which the victim was intoxicated or sober, and either the victim or the perpetrator purchased the drinks. Overall, participants who perceived a victim as intoxicated were less likely to render guilty verdicts and made lower ratings of victim credibility. In addition, when the perpetrator purchased the drinks, participants were more likely to render guilty verdicts and made more negative judgments about the defendant than when the victim bought the drinks. Mediation analyses explained the relationship between the independent variables and verdict. The results are discussed in terms of the factors that influence juror perceptions of rape cases in court.

Perception of institutional elder neglect (IEN) in civil court was investigated. Experiment 1 participants (N = 162) read an IEN trial summary in which alleged victim testimony was presented or not. Victim testimony increased the likelihood of ruling for the plaintiff, partially mediated by credibility of witnesses for each side. Experiment 2 (N = 68) included a condition with testimony from the victim's floor-mate. Likelihood of ruling for the victim: victim = floor-mate > no testimony, was mediated by perceived credibility of the plaintiff's case. Results are discussed in terms of the importance of alleged victim testimony in IEN cases.

The perception of elder financial exploitation was investigated using community members (N = 104) and undergraduates (N = 143). Participants read an exploitation trial summary; an 85-year-old victim accused her son of stealing her money. Primary results indicated that alleged victims described as healthy rendered more guilty verdicts than those described as having a cognitive deficit; pro-victim judgments were higher for women than men; and younger and older community members' rendered more guilty verdicts than middle-aged mock jurors. The results are discussed in terms of the factors that impact the perception of exploitation in court.