Great Sexpectations: The Impact of Participant Gender, Defendant Desirability, and Date Cost on Attributions of a Date Rape Victim and Defendant

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.

Mentally ill, HIV-positive, or sexual predator? Determining myths perceived as representative of transgender people

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.

The Impact of Gender Stereotypes on Legal Perceptions of Lesbian Intimate Partner Violence

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.

Impeaching Rape Victims in Criminal Court: Does Concurrent Civil Action Hurt Justice?

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.

Improving the Credibility of Child Sexual Assault Victims in Court: The Impact of a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner

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.

Who bought the drinks? Juror perceptions of intoxication in a rape trial

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.

Perceptions of institutional elder neglect in civil 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.

When a son steals money from his mother: courtroom perceptions of elder financial exploitation

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.

A Comparison of First Time and Repeat Rural DUI Offenders

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 which 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.

Mock juror perception of sexual assault nurse examiner testimony

The perception of a sexual assault nurse examiner's (SANE) testimony in a criminal rape trial was investigated. Men and women undergraduates (N = 138) read a fictional criminal trial summary of a rape case in which medical testimony from a SANE or a registered nurse (RN) was presented, or no medical testimony was presented. Results indicated that mock jurors were more likely to render guilty verdicts when a SANE testified than when an RN testified, and this relationship was fully mediated by perceived credibility of the nurse as well as provictim perceptions. Results are discussed in terms of the impact of SANE involvement in legal proceedings.