Lady Injustice: The Moderating Effect of Ambivalent Sexism in a Mock Case of Intimate Partner Homicide

Abstract

Extra-legal biases have an undue effect on legal proceedings, warranting explorations of gender bias in the courtroom to promote and maintain just verdicts. We used an experimentally manipulated mock court transcript of an intimate partner homicide, in which the defendant has been victimized by intimate partner violence. We explore whether hostile and benevolent sexism moderate the decisions of mock jurors. Men and women mock jurors (N = 220) responded to the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory before being randomly allocated to read a transcript of either a female or male defendant, and then responding to five sentence outcome variables. Hostile and benevolent sexism moderated several sentencing outcome variables, across a range of male and female juror and defendant gender combinations, suggesting these forms of sexism are consequential in driving forensic gender biases. This study also contributes to the literature suggesting that male victims of female-perpetrated intimate partner violence are systemically disadvantaged in courtroom processes.

Keywords

juror decision-making benevolent sexism hostile sexism intimate partner homicide intimate partner violence

Research has shown the gender of defendants to be pertinent in verdict and sentencing trends (e.g., Strub & McKimmie, 2016). The extant literature delineates a consistent trend where female defendants receive more lenient sentences than men for comparable offenses (Ahola et al., 2009). This leniency manifests in a number of ways: Women are more likely to have their charges reduced or dropped (Henning & Feder, 2005), avoid a criminal conviction (Ryon, 2013), receive shorter prison sentences, or even avoid incarceration altogether (Bontrager et al., 2013; Butcher et al., 2017). Furthermore, there is evidence that this gendered sentence leniency persists for a range of crimes, with female defendants receiving more lenient sentences when convicted of either violent (Embry & Lyons, 2012; Fridel, 2019) or nonviolent crimes (e.g., property-, drug-, and theft-related offenses; McKimmie & Masser, 2010; Ryon, 2013).

The gender of jurors has also been demonstrated as a key variable in sentencing outcomes for defendants. There has been considerable evidence to suggest that mock female jurors are more likely to deliver harsher sentences than their male counterparts in cases of sexual violence such as child molestation (McCauley & Parker, 2001; Pozzulo et al., 2010), and sexual assault and rape (Grubb & Harrower, 2008; Osborn et al., 2018). It is important to recognize that this gendered-sentencing pattern has been demonstrated for crimes stereotyped as male-perpetrated and female-victimized. This has been attributed to the gendered nature of such crimes, which elicits empathy within female jurors due to the jurors’ self-perceived likelihood of becoming victims of such crimes themselves (Maeder et al., 2012).

Given the gender-related trends in sexually violent crimes, gender is particularly influential in trials involving intimate partner violence (IPV). Although IPV constitutes any behavior by an intimate partner or ex-partner that causes physical, sexual, and/or psychological harm, IPV literature is predominantly focused on physical abuse. As women in heterosexual intimate relationships are more likely to be severely injured by physical IPV than their male counterparts (Hamel, 2018; Lawrence et al., 2012), IPV is overwhelmingly conceptualized as a male-perpetrated crime. It therefore follows that male defendants accused of perpetrating IPV are perceived to be more guilty and are sentenced more frequently and severely than female defendants accused of comparable offenses (Henning & Feder, 2005; Stanziani et al., 2018).

Past research has demonstrated the existence of an interaction between defendant and juror gender, through which female jurors tend to deliver harsher sentences for male (vs. female) defendants accused of committing IPV (Allen & Bradley, 2018; Maeder et al., 2012). However, when IPV victims commit intimate partner homicide (IPH) and kill their abuser, the defendant–juror gender interaction becomes more complex. Although women are more likely to be killed by an intimate partner than men (Iratzoqui & McCutcheon, 2018), IPV-victimized defendants accused of IPH are most often depicted as female, and the IPV perpetrator/IPH victim as male. In such cases of IPH, the expected gendered-sentencing pattern has also been found, with female defendants receiving the most lenient sentences in comparison with male defendants, with these sentences being delivered by female jurors more frequently than by male jurors (Hodell et al., 2014; Russell et al., 2009). In spite of this, some research has found no significant differences between male and female jurors’ sentences for IPH-accused female defendants (Braden-Maguire et al., 2005). In one study, male jurors were even found to assign more severe sentences for IPH than female jurors, regardless of defendant gender (Savage et al., 2017); thus, further research is necessary to determine the direction of a defendant–juror gender interaction in IPH cases. The limited exploration of cases involving male IPV-victimized IPH defendants also warrants additional exploration.

A Theoretical Explanation for Forensic Gender Bias: Ambivalent Sexism

Although investigating the incidence of gender bias in the court is paramount to maintaining the course of justice, mitigating the effect of such extra-legal factors also relies on understanding the theoretical underpinnings of such discrimination. Glick and Fiske’s (1996) theory of ambivalent sexism is one such framework through which forensic gender bias could be explored. The theory poses dual constructs of hostile sexism (HS) and benevolent sexism (BS), each comprising different emotional responses that drive attitudes toward women. HS is marked by its hatred for women and positions them as inferior to men, whereas BS is characterized by beliefs that all women are—or should be—nurturing, fragile, and in need of protection. The coexistence of HS and BS leads to the ambivalence to which Glick and Fiske (1996, 2001) refer. Importantly, each attitudinal construct results in the differential treatment of women on the basis of their gender and thus constitutes sexism.

Although hostile sexist attitudes toward women are typically met with social condemnation (Chisango et al., 2015), benevolent sexist attitudes are infrequently construed as negative or offensive to women. Studies have attributed this trend to the seemingly positive intentions behind benevolent attitudes toward women, which has led to BS not readily being recognized as a form of discrimination (Dardenne et al., 2007). Despite this, the mechanisms behind BS merely serve to undermine women (e.g., Glick et al., 2015). Women often face demonization when in violation of the prescriptive gender roles upheld by those who endorse both hostile and benevolent sexist beliefs. Women are offered conditional favor if they abide by the traditionally and strictly feminine roles demanded by HS, and the restrictive nurturing qualities BS expects them to embody (Glick & Fiske, 2001; Viki et al., 2003). However, as Glick and Fiske (1996) explicated, HS and BS are united in a mutual belief of female incompetence. The ambivalent coexistence of HS and BS is evident in the inconsistent sentences of varying lengths delivered to convicted female defendants. Although the sentencing-leniency effect appears to benefit female defendants, it is suggestive of BS processes in action. This creates an impression that women are incapable of committing malicious crimes and/or are incapable of withstanding the punishment warranted for such acts.

Lenient sentences for female defendants reflect a two-dimensional depiction of women within the justice system. This argument is exemplified in cases of women defendants mounting a not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) plea. Women tend to have a greater chance than men of being successful in their NGRI plea and be ruled as legally insane (Yourstone et al., 2008). A perturbing finding is that of Kasian et al. (1993), who revealed that when IPV-victimized women commit IPH, they received more sympathetic jury verdicts when their crimes were attributed to mental illness rather than self-defense. More recently, Karlsson et al. (2018) demonstrated similar findings that, in comparison with male offenders, not only are female offenders perceived to be more frequently and intensely mentally ill, but that psychiatric treatment (vs. incarceration) was also endorsed more frequently for female-committed crimes. These findings are unsurprising in light of the perceived limited agency of women (Honey, 2015), leading to a trend in which men increasingly assume positions of agency on behalf of women (Fraser, 2015). Despite the impression that it pays to be a woman in the courtroom, this lenient sentencing trend is suggestive of an institution that believes women to be incapable and incompetent. Such sentiments about the inferiority of women echo loudly within both hostile and benevolent sexist beliefs; however, research has yet to explore whether there is an association between HS and/or BS and NGRI verdicts, much less if this relationship differs as a function of defendant and juror gender.

Ambivalent sexism has nevertheless made demonstrable contributions toward explaining forensic gender bias. The extant literature has primarily explored the role of ambivalent sexism in attitudes toward cases of sexual assault/rape. The high salience of ambivalent sexism in attitudes toward stereotypically gendered and sexualized crimes is reinforced by the finding that neither HS nor BS endorsement influenced juror decision-making in a nonsexual assault case (Cox & Kopkin, 2016). A positive association has consistently been found between the endorsement of both HS and BS attitudes and rape myth acceptance, which is typically expressed as victim-blaming and perpetrator-excusing (Abrams et al., 2003; Sakalli-Uğurlu et al., 2007; Viki & Abrams, 2002). Moreover, HS and/or BS endorsement have been found to have a moderating effect on both victim-blaming (Abrams et al., 2003; Yamawaki, 2007; Yamawaki et al., 2007) and perpetrator-excusing attitudes (Viki et al., 2004; Yamawaki, 2007).

The findings regarding BS attitudes are particularly compelling, as they reiterate just how conditional BSs protection of women is, to the extent that it is deemed appropriate to punish female victims of sexual assault—and by extension, excuse male perpetrators—as they are perceived to violate the benevolent ideals of purity and virtuousness (Abrams et al., 2003; Sakalli-Uğurlu et al., 2007). Similar findings are demonstrated in studies investigating the effect of HS and BS endorsement on perceptions of cases of IPV (Valor-Segura et al., 2011; Yamawaki et al., 2009) and IPH (Russell et al., 2009). However, additional research is necessary to ascertain whether there is a moderating effect of HS or BS on sentencing outcomes for IPH and whether this differs as a function of defendant and juror gender.

The Current Study

The literature has well established the role that defendant and juror gender plays in forensic bias; however, there is markedly less research relating to ambivalent sexism within the courtroom, particularly in cases of IPH. To date, there has only been one study investigating the role of ambivalent sexism in IPH sentencing (Russell et al., 2009), and this study did not explore whether ambivalent sexism variables moderate trial outcomes in cases of IPH. Considering previous studies evidence the moderating effect of HS and BS on key legal variables (e.g., Abrams et al., 2003; Yamawaki et al., 2007), this is an important gap to address in the literature. Furthermore, research has yet to explore whether the moderating effect of HS and BS emerge across a range of mock juror and defendant gender combinations. As such, in this study, we aimed to further elucidate how gender bias impacts mock jury decision-making processes by exploring whether there is evidence that jury sentencing decisions in a mock case of IPH (in which the defendant is a victim of IPV) are moderated by HS and BS. Moreover, we sought to examine whether an effect of moderation differs as a function of the combined juror and defendant gender conditions.

To investigate these aims, we used a mock court transcript of an IPH trial, in which the defendant’s gender was experimentally manipulated. Considering the exploratory nature of the study, no hypotheses were developed or used in this study.

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk^TM (MTurk), an online data sourcing platform commonly used in psychological research. Previous research has demonstrated that MTurk is a cost-effective way to validly recruit a diverse sample (Paolacci & Chandler, 2014). Participants were reimbursed US$1 for their time.

A key variable in this study was the perceived appropriateness of the death penalty as a punitive outcome. Considering the United States is the only Western nation where capital punishment is still practiced, only MTurk workers listed as U.S. residents were eligible to participate. To minimize confounding effects, mock jurors in this study were intentionally not death-qualified, given that death qualification processes prime juries to endorse guilty verdicts and harsher sentences more frequently (Yelderman et al., 2016). By using MTurk as a means of participant recruitment, we were able to establish a more heterogeneous sample in relation to age, a crucial demographic in mock jury samples (Bornstein, 1999). Capturing this heterogeneity allowed us to generate a sample comparable with the pool of eligible U.S. jurors.

While 362 participants commenced the survey, 136 responses (37.6%) were excluded from analyses as they did not respond to the dependent variables. There were three participants who failed all three manipulation checks, and one participant who did not consent for their data to be analyzed; an additional two participants were excluded as outliers (see “Results” section), leaving a total of 220 valid cases. The final sample comprised 121 females and 99 males (age range: 23–72 years; M = 40.93, SD = 11.24). Of these 220 participants, 110 (50%) described themselves as having a left-leaning political alignment, with 70 (31.8%) having a right-leaning political alignment, and the remaining 40 (18.2%) with neutral political views. In addition, 164 (74.5%) participants reside in a state where capital punishment is still legal, and only 54 (24.5%) had participated in jury duty before.

Measures and Materials

Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI)

This 22-item measure assesses the extent of an individual’s hostile and benevolent sexist attitudes (Glick & Fiske, 1996). The ASI comprised two 11-item subscales: HS (e.g., “women seek to gain power by getting control over men”) and BS (e.g., “women should be cherished and protected by men”). Items are measured on a 6-point scale (ranging from 0 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The ASI is well-validated and internally consistent (in the current sample, α_HS = .93, α_BS = .96). After reverse scoring relevant items, single-value measures for both HS and BS were calculated by summing the points for each item—higher scores indicate higher levels of sexist attitudes.

Mock Court Transcript

To reduce the likelihood of socially desirable ASI responses, participants were informed that the study only aimed to explore cognitive decision-making processes in mock juries. Participants were presented with an abbreviated mock court transcript of a homicide trial, in which the defendant was accused of murdering their spouse, who had been abusive over the course of their relationship. Although there were two transcript conditions, female defendant/male victim or male defendant/female victim, the transcripts were identical apart from manipulation of the gender (i.e., the names and pronouns) of the defendant and victim (the transcript is available at https://osf.io/s7pga/).

Manipulation Checks

To ensure participants had read the transcript and attended to the crime type, and the genders of the defendant and victim, three manipulation check questions were used. In these questions, participants were required to categorically select the crime of which the defendant was accused, and the defendant’s and victim’s genders.

Dependent Measures

There were five dependent variable measures used to explore the participants’ perceptions of which legal outcomes were most appropriate for the defendant. Two dependent variables related to the offense with which the defendant was charged: first-degree murder (FDM; the defendant is guilty of FDM) and self-defense (the defendant is not guilty of FDM because it was committed in self-defense/in defense of another person/s). Another two dependent variables related to punitive outcomes for the defendant: punishment (what punishment do you think is appropriate for the defendant?) and death penalty (the defendant should be eligible for the death penalty). The final dependent variable related to the perceived guilt of the defendant: NGRI (if the defendant had a history of schizophrenia, which was unmedicated and untreated at the time of the crime, how likely would you be to endorse an NGRI verdict?).

All dependent variables were measured on a 5-point scale (ranging from 1 = strongly disagree/not at all likely to 5 = strongly agree/definitely likely). The exception to these scale anchors was the punishment variable (for which 1 = no punishment, 2 = 5–10 years, 3 = 15–20 years, 4 = 25–30 years, and 5 = life imprisonment). The five punishment options were chosen to best reflect the variations in sentence lengths in cases similar to that presented in the transcript.

Procedure

Participants self-selected to become mock jurors by responding to an advertisement on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk^TM. They provided consent and responded to demographic questions and then the ASI measure (items randomized). Mock jurors were randomly allocated to either the female or male defendant condition and were then presented with the corresponding mock court transcript. After reading the transcript, mock jurors responded to the manipulation checks and the five dependent variables. Finally, they were debriefed and reimbursed for their participation.

Results

Data Preparation and Preliminary Analyses

During the data cleaning stage, a number of outliers were detected. There were six cases identified as excessive scores on the death penalty variable (zs = 3.48). As these cases were still part of the population of interest, their z scores were adjusted, using a technique suggested by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), to 3SDs above the mean to reduce the impact of these univariate outliers. There were two cases identified as multivariate outliers and these were deleted as their Mahalanobis distance values exceeded the critical value, χ²(5) = 20.52, p = .001. The data are available on the open science framework (https://osf.io/s7pga/).

Descriptive Findings and Bivariate Correlations

Descriptive data in the form of means and standard deviations, segmented by mock juror gender and the defendant condition to which they were randomly assigned, are presented in Table 1. This sample’s HS and BS scores as a whole were low-moderate—relative to 27.5, the midpoint of each scale: t_HS(219) = −7.48, p < .001, d = −0.50, and t_BS(219) = −3.82, p < .001, d = −0.26. In line with past research (e.g., Glick & Fiske, 2001), HS and BS scores in the current study were positively correlated: r(218) = .302, p < .001. Although both HS and BS scores were lower in female mock jurors than their male counterparts, only female mock juror HS scores were significantly lower than their male counterparts, t(218) = −3.76, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.51; there was no significant difference between female and male mock juror BS scores (p = .460).

Table 1:

Descriptive Statistics Segmented by Mock Juror Gender and Randomly Assigned Defendant Condition

	Female mock juror			Male mock juror			Total (N = 220)
	Female defendant (n = 54)	Male defendant (n = 67)	Total (N = 121)	Female defendant (n = 56)	Male defendant (n = 43)	Total (N = 99)	Total (N = 220)
	M (SD)Min.–Max.	M (SD)Min.–Max.	M (SD)Min.–Max.	M (SD)Min.–Max.	M (SD)Min.–Max.	M (SD)Min.–Max.	M (SD)Min.–Max.
Sexism score
Hostile sexism	16.61 (12.73) 0–55	17.27 (14.89) 0–55	16.98 (13.92) 0–55	22.25 (14.05) 0–51	26.60 (14.26) 0–55	24.14 (14.23) 0–55	20.20 (14.48) 0–55
Benevolent sexism	24.44 (13.24) 0–55	22.75 (13.08) 0–55	23.50 (13.12) 0–55	23.46 (13.77) 1–45	26.60 (12.64) 0–45	24.83 (13.32) 0–45	24.10 (13.20) 0–55
Sentence endorsement
First-degree murder	2.50 (1.19) 1–5	3.09 (1.31) 1–5	2.83 (1.29) 1–5	2.73 (1.18) 1–5	2.74 (1.36) 1–5	2.74 (1.26) 1–5	2.79 (1.27) 1–5
Self-defense	2.39 (1.25) 1–5	3.18 (1.27) 1–5	2.83 (1.32) 1–5	2.84 (1.17) 1–5	2.86 (1.27) 1–5	2.85 (1.21) 1–5	2.84 (1.26) 1–5
Punishment	1.59 (0.81) 1–5	2.66 (1.39) 1–5	2.18 (1.28) 1–5	2.32 (1.18) 1–5	2.28 (1.20) 1–5	2.30 (1.18) 1–5	2.24 (1.23) 1–5
Death penalty	1.20 (0.53) 1–3	1.76 (1.11) 1–4	1.51 (0.94) 1–4	1.70 (0.85) 1–4	1.78 (0.92) 1–4	1.74 (0.88) 1–4	1.61 (0.92) 1–4
NGRI	3.06 (1.46) 1–5	2.42 (1.18) 1–5	2.70 (1.35) 1–5	2.68 (1.32) 1–5	2.56 (1.40) 1–5	2.63 (1.35) 1–5	2.67 (1.35) 1–5

Note. Min. = lowest reported value; Max. = highest reported value; NGRI = not guilty by reason of insanity.

The juror and defendant gender variables were combined to create four dummy coded gender variables: female mock juror & female defendant (FJ/FD), female mock juror & male defendant (FJ/MD), male mock juror & female defendant (MJ/FD), and male mock juror & male defendant (MJ/MD). To determine whether it was appropriate to conduct moderation analyses with these data, bivariate correlations were conducted on the predictor and dependent variables; these are presented in Table 2. The significant correlations between three defendant and juror gender categories and HS, and between the gender variables and the dependent variables confirm that it was appropriate to proceed using these data to explore for effects of moderation.

Table 2:

Bivariate Correlations Between Predictor and Dependent Variables

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. FJ/FD	—
2. FJ/MD	−.377	—
3. MJ/FD	−.333	−.387	—
4. MJ/MD	−.281	−.326	−.288	—
Sexism score
5. Hostile sexism	−.142	−.134	.083	.219	—
6. Benevolent sexism	.015	−.068	−.028	.094	.302	—
Sentence endorsement
7. First-degree murder	−.129	.158	−.025	−.016	.168	.195	—
8. Self-defense	.202	−.180	−.001	−.009	−.133	−.161	−.812	—
9. Punishment	−.298	.226	.040	.017	.230	.162	.738	−.753	—
10. Death penalty	−.254	.105	.059	.090	.232	.310	.527	−.449	.548	—
11. NGRI	.165	−.123	.005	−.040	−.343	−.116	−.217	.268	−.271	−.188

Note. FJ/FD = female mock juror & female defendant; FJ/MD = female mock juror & male defendant; MJ/FD = male mock juror & female defendant; MJ/MD = male mock juror & male defendant; NGRI = not guilty by reason of insanity.

Statistically significant correlation coefficients (p < .05) are presented in boldface.

Inferential Statistics

Hierarchical Regression Analyses

Hierarchical regression analyses were then conducted using the juror and defendant gender categories, and HS and BS scores as predictors; these analyses are presented in Tables 3 and 4 (those that used HS scores as predictors are presented in Table 3, and those that used BS scores as predictors are presented in Table 4). To control for confounding effects, all participant-related variables measured were entered in the first step of the regression; however, for the sake of succinctness, this step is not listed in either table. Four different regression models, in which predictors were entered in two steps, were analyzed for all five dependent variables: Model 1 examined the FJ/FD condition, Model 2 examined the FJ/MD condition, Model 3 examined the MJ/FD condition, and Model 4 examined the MJ/MD condition.

Table 3:

Hierarchical Regression Analyses Exploring the Predictive Capabilities of Juror and Defendant Gender, and HS Scores on Sentence Endorsements

	First-degree murder			Self-defense			Punishment			Death penalty			NGRI
	B	t	∆R²	β	t	∆R²	β	t	∆R²	β	t	∆R²	β	t	∆R²
Model 1: FJ/FD × HS
Step 1
FJ/FD	−.075	−1.084	.048	.184	2.658	.043	−.254	−3.792	.110	−.158	−2.465	.182	.100	1.516	.127
HS	.122	1.731	.048	−.106	−1.500	.043	.179	2.635	.110	.092	1.417	.182	−.288	−4.274	.127
Step 2
INT	.211	2.808	.078	−.177	−2.334	.063	.072	0.973	.110	−.013	−0.177	.178	−.097	−1.329	.131
Model 2: FJ/MD × HS
Step 1
FJ/MD	.172	2.591	.072	−.188	−2.789	.046	.259	3.993	.116	.143	2.286	.179	−.175	−2.751	.148
HS	.150	2.152	.072	−.145	−2.043	.046	.233	3.416	.116	.123	1.877	.179	−.318	−4.765	.148
Step 2
INT	.082	1.002	.072	.000	0.004	.042	−.057	−0.722	.114	.150	1.972	.190	.218	2.846	.176
Model 3: MJ/FD × HS
Step 1
MJ/FD	−.047	−0.692	.045	.007	0.101	.011	.012	0.174	.050	.001	0.017	.159	.044	0.688	.120
HS	.130	1.843	.045	−.120	−1.678	.011	.198	2.821	.050	.104	1.581	.159	−.297	−4.408	.120
Step 2
INT	−.086	−1.120	.046	.065	0.828	.010	.046	0.601	.047	.011	0.150	.155	−.094	−1.267	.122
Model 4: MJ/MD × HS
Step 1
MJ/MD	−.075	−1.089	.048	.022	0.316	.012	−.056	−0.810	.053	−.005	−0.076	.159	.054	0.811	.121
HS	.141	1.981	.048	−.124	−1.705	.012	.209	2.935	.053	.105	1.571	.159	−.305	−4.457	.121
Step 2
INT	−.179	−2.232	.066	.119	1.454	.017	−.064	−0.789	.051	−.190	−2.532	.180	−.075	−0.962	.120

Note. HS = hostile sexism; FJ/FD = female mock juror & female defendant; FJ/MD = female mock juror & male defendant; MJ/FD = male mock juror & female defendant; MJ/MD = male mock juror & male defendant; INT = interaction term; NGRI = not guilty by reason of insanity.

Statistically significant t and ∆R² values (p < .05) are presented in boldface.

Table 4:

Hierarchical Regression Analyses Exploring the Predictive Capabilities of Juror and Defendant Gender, and BS Scores on Sentence Endorsements

	First-degree murder			Self-defense			Punishment			Death penalty			NGRI
	β	t	∆R²	β	t	∆R²	β	t	∆R²	β	t	∆R²	β	t	∆R²
Model 1: FJ/FD × BS
Step 1
FJ/FD	−.091	−1.336	.065	.199	2.898	.059	−.273	−4.077	.103	−.176	−2.851	.240	.125	1.820	.059
BS	.177	2.630	.065	−.163	−2.411	.059	.152	2.300	.103	.260	4.287	.240	−.081	−1.203	.059
Step 2
INT	.088	1.148	.067	−.074	−0.959	.058	.030	0.398	.100	−.163	−2.394	.257	−.059	−0.772	.057
Model 2: FJ/MD × BS
Step 1
FJ/MD	.168	2.556	.086	−.183	−2.742	.055	.243	3.710	.092	.147	2.452	.233	−.143	−2.159	.065
BS	.186	2.788	.086	−.169	−2.485	.055	.159	2.388	.092	.264	4.323	.233	−.087	−1.289	.065
Step 2
INT	−.105	−1.349	.089	.109	1.379	.059	−.024	−0.308	.088	.107	1.500	.237	.091	1.158	.066
Model 3: MJ/FD × BS
Step 1
MJ/FD	−.035	−0.523	.059	−.004	−0.055	.021	.025	0.374	.033	.014	0.237	.211	.029	0.428	.045
BS	.172	2.548	.059	−.155	−2.248	.021	.141	2.065	.033	.254	4.101	.211	−.075	−1.104	.045
Step 2
INT	.002	0.027	.054	.005	0.057	.017	.003	0.035	.029	−.005	−0.066	.208	−.065	−0.837	.043
Model 4: MJ/MD × BS
Step 1
MJ/MD	−.066	−0.970	.062	.014	0.200	.022	−.032	−0.462	.034	−.008	−0.125	.211	.008	0.111	.044
BS	.179	2.643	.062	−.156	−2.257	.022	.143	2.085	.034	.254	4.091	.211	−.077	−1.125	.044
Step 2
INT	.041	0.551	.059	−.062	−0.825	.020	.014	0.185	.029	.072	1.065	.212	.025	0.339	.040

Note. BS = benevolent sexism; FJ/FD = female mock juror & female defendant; FJ/MD = female mock juror & male defendant; MJ/FD = male mock juror & female defendant; MJ/MD = male mock juror & male defendant; INT = interaction term; NGRI = not guilty by reason of insanity.

Statistically significant t and ∆R² values (p < .05) are presented in boldface.

Analyses revealed seven statistically significant interaction terms: six including HS scores and one including BS scores. HS scores interacted significantly with the FJ/FD condition on both the FDM, β = .211, t(212) = 2.808, p = .005, and self-defense variables, β = −.177, t(212) = −2.334, p = .021. HS scores also interacted significantly with the FJ/MD condition on both the death penalty, β = .150, t(212) = 1.972, p = .050, and NGRI variables, β = .218, t(212) = 2.846, p = .005. In addition, HS scores interacted significant with the MJ/MD condition on both the FDM, β = −.179, t(212) = −2.232, p = .027, and death penalty variables, β = −.190, t(212) = −2.532, p = .012. BS scores interacted significantly with the FJ/FD condition on the death penalty variable, β = −.163, t(212) = −2.394, p = .018.

Simple Slopes Analyses

Simple slopes analyses were then conducted to establish at which HS and BS values moderation occurs for the seven significant interaction terms. A brief summary of these analyses is presented in Table 5.

Table 5:

Summary of Simple Slopes Analyses

Experimental condition	Trial outcome dependent variable	Moderator	Sexism scores when moderation is detected	Interpretation
FJ/FD	First-degree murder	HS	0–12.662	Less likely to endorse with low HS
FJ/FD	First-degree murder	HS	43.199–55	More likely to endorse with high HS
FJ/FD	Self-defense	HS	0–21.167	More likely to endorse with low–moderate HS
FJ/MD	Death penalty	HS	16.334–55	More likely to endorse with moderate–high HS
FJ/MD	NGRI	HS	0–22.509	More likely to endorse with low–moderate HS
MJ/MD	First-degree murder	HS	32.074–55	Less likely to endorse with high HS
MJ/MD	Death penalty	HS	0–5.792	More likely to endorse with extremely low HS
MJ/MD	Death penalty	HS	41.847–55	Less likely to endorse with high HS
FJ/FD	Death penalty	BS	19.572–55	Less likely to endorse with moderate–high BS

Hostile Sexism

FJ/FD

HS scores moderated the relationship between the FJ/FD condition and perceived appropriateness of an FDM charge for the defendant. The Johnson-Neyman method indicated this effect occurs when HS scores were between both 0 and 12.662, and 43.199 and 55. This result indicates that, in comparison with FJ/MD, MJ/FD, and MJ/MD, female mock jurors were significantly less likely to endorse an FDM charge for the female defendant when their HS scores were low, but significantly more likely to endorse an FDM charge for the female defendant when their HS scores were high.

HS scores also moderated the relationship between the FJ/FD condition and perceptions of whether the defendant acted in self-defense. The Johnson-Neyman method indicated this effect occurs when HS scores were between 0 and 21.167. This result indicates that, in comparison with FJ/MD, MJ/FD, and MJ/MD, female mock jurors were significantly more likely to perceive the female defendant to have acted in self-defense when their HS scores were low to moderate.

FJ/MD

HS scores moderated the relationship between the FJ/MD condition and perceptions of the defendant’s eligibility for the death penalty. The Johnson-Neyman method indicated this effect occurs when HS scores were between 16.334 and 55. This result indicates that, in comparison with FJ/FD, MJ/FD, and MJ/MD, female mock jurors were significantly more likely to perceive the male defendant to be eligible for the death penalty when their HS scores were moderate to high.

HS scores also moderated the relationship between the FJ/MD condition and endorsement of an NGRI verdict for the defendant. The Johnson-Neyman method indicated this effect occurs when HS scores were between both 0 and 22.509. This result indicates that, in comparison with FJ/FD, MJ/FD, and MJ/MD, female mock jurors were less likely to endorse an NGRI verdict for the male defendant when their HS scores were low to moderate.

MJ/MD

HS scores moderated the relationship between the MJ/MD condition and perceived appropriateness of an FDM charge for the defendant. The Johnson-Neyman method indicated this effect occurs when HS scores were between 32.074 and 55. This result indicates that, in comparison with FJ/FD, FJ/MD, and MJ/FD, male mock jurors were significantly less likely to endorse an FDM charge for the male defendant when their HS scores were high.

HS scores also moderated the relationship between the MJ/MD condition and perceptions of the defendant’s eligibility for the death penalty. The Johnson-Neyman method indicated this effect occurs when HS scores were between both 0 and 5.792, and 41.847 and 55. This result indicates that, in comparison with FJ/FD, FJ/MD, and MJ/FD, male mock jurors were significantly more likely to perceive the male defendant to be eligible for the death penalty when their HS scores were extremely low, but significantly less likely to perceive the male defendant as eligible for the death penalty when their HS scores were high.

Benevolent Sexism

BS scores moderated the relationship between the FJ/FD condition and perceptions of the defendant’s eligibility for the death penalty. The Johnson-Neyman method indicated this effect occurs when BS scores were between 19.572 and 55. This result indicates that, in comparison with FJ/MD, MJ/FD, and MJ/MD, female mock jurors were significantly less likely to perceive the female defendant to be eligible for the death penalty when their BS scores were moderate to high.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to explore whether HS and BS moderated jury decision-making processes in a mock case of IPH, in which the defendant was positioned as a victim of IPV. It also aimed to determine which combinations of juror and defendant gender categories the moderation effect emerged in. Based on the analyses conducted, there is evidence that HS and BS moderated a range of trial outcomes in three juror and defendant gender categories: FJ/FD, FJ/MD, and MJ/MD.

HS

The results of this study evidence that HS scores moderated the relationships between four of five trial outcome variables and three of four juror and defendant gender categories such that defendants received both more lenient and severe sentences indicating that HS plays a consequential role in forensic gender biases.

Prior research delineates a trend in which female defendants are not only more likely to receive more lenient sentences when on trial for IPH, but also that these sentences are more likely to be delivered by female (mock) jurors (Hodell et al., 2014; Russell et al., 2009). This trend was mirrored in the relationship between the FJ/FD condition and both the FDM and self-defense variables, in which low- and moderate-hostile sexist female mock jurors were less likely to endorse these charges for the female defendant. However, contrary to this female gendered in-group bias, highly hostile sexist female mock jurors were more likely endorse an FDM charge for the female defendant. As such, the moderating influence of HS found in this study presents a worthwhile addition to current understandings of the conditions that give rise to gendered biases within courtroom processes. The female in-group sentencing-leniency bias in IPV and IPH cases has been attributed to a variety of mechanisms, one such example being that female jurors sympathize with female defendants and perceive them to be less culpable of their crimes (Russell et al., 2009); however, the significance of HS as a moderator in such processes suggests an alternative explanation.

It is plausible that more lenient sentences delivered by women toward women are not indicative of in-group favoritism, but instead reflect a decreased incidence of hostility toward women in women. Men endorse HS beliefs at a markedly higher rate than women (Glick & Fiske, 2001), a trend also reflected in the current study. Consequently, this interpretation is corroborated by the finding that, in the MJ/MD condition, a male in-group bias leniency effect on the FDM and death penalty variables was found to be moderated by HS scores for hostile sexist male mock jurors. This suggests that such sentences delivered by hostile sexist men toward men are not indicative of in-group favoritism; rather, they reflect an increased sense of hostility toward the female IPH victim, as manifested by greater leniency for the male defendant.

The findings of this study also contribute to the preexisting evidence that male victims of female-perpetrated IPV are systemically disadvantaged (Morgan & Wells, 2016; Savage et al., 2017). Given a stronger endorsement of death penalty eligibility in the FJ/MD and MJ/MD conditions was moderated by moderate-to-high-, and low-HS scores, respectively, the defendant’s plight as a victim of IPV appears to be less important in sentencing considerations for male victims in comparison with female victims. This is unsurprising when, as highlighted by Johnson (2006) and Dillon et al. (2013), the extant IPV literature relies heavily on samples of individuals who have had contact with legal agencies, health care facilities, and/or refuge services as a result of their IPV experiences—considering these institutions predominantly encounter male-to-female IPV, this is also the most common conceptualization of IPV in the wider population. However, with community and nonclinical samples exhibiting markedly higher rates of female-to-male IPV, the representativeness of the current gendered understanding of IPV has been called into question (Ehrensaft et al., 2004).

Although the current results corroborate past research demonstrating a lack of sympathy for and heightened incidence of victim-blaming of male victims of female-perpetrated IPV (Hodell et al., 2014; Savage et al., 2017), our study highlights a novel dimension of the barriers facing IPV victims by demonstrating the involvement of HS in mock juror biases for both female and male defendants.

BS

BS scores moderated the relationship between the FJ/FD condition and responses to the death penalty variable; thus, BS is also a worthwhile factor to consider in the study of forensic gender biases (albeit less so than HS). This moderation occurred when BS scores were moderate to high, such that the defendant was perceived as less eligible for the death penalty. Although this could be interpreted as further evidence of a female-gendered in-group leniency bias, the mechanisms behind BS (and, in turn, HS) underscore a more complex explanation. This result is in line with the theoretical underpinnings of BS, which conceptualize women as weak and vulnerable (Glick & Fiske, 1996), and therefore less deserving of more severe sentences. More crucially, the sentencing decisions within the FJ/MD, MJ/FD, or MJ/MD conditions did not as a function of BS score, thus reiterating the notion that, in some circumstances, women endorse BS to a greater extent than men (Glick & Fiske, 2001). Glick and Fiske (1996, 2001) have likened high levels of female BS endorsement to an adaptive mechanism to counter male endorsement of HS. Interestingly, with BS scores only moderating sentencing outcomes on the death penalty variable, the results of our study suggest that BS is most salient in grave situations, like one in which a woman would be sentenced to death.

Unlike past studies (e.g., Yamawaki et al., 2007, 2009), BS scores did not play a particularly notable role in moderating mock juror decision-making in our study, suggesting that the effects of BS are elicited through more context-specific signals such as the violation of female gender norms. Additional research is crucial in ascertaining the circumstances in which BS is detected within forensic biases.

Implications, Limitations, and Future Directions

The results of our study have notable implications for jury selection processes. In our study, we also draw attention to the cognitive influence of bias, something judges and attorneys attempt to address in the questioning of potential jurors that occurs during voir dire. However, this process is predicated on a sense of self-awareness of one’s attitudes and biases, which typically applies to explicit or overt prejudice. For less discernible or more internalized biases, like BS, people are often unaware of the extent to which they endorse such views. Consequently, introducing measures to screen for sexist beliefs into voir dire processes would assist with mitigating the detrimental effects of gender bias and sexism. The research of Becker and Swim (2012) illustrated the efficacy of this approach, who showed that by emphasizing the negative impacts of BS, participants were more likely to reject such views and attitudes. Similarly, de Lemus et al. (2014) demonstrated considerable success in mitigating the sexist attitudes and beliefs of their participants through the use of an intervention program. Ultimately, the onus of such bias awareness training falls to judges who are the chief legal actors in the courtroom. By directing and stimulating discussions about how jury verdicts can be moderated by prejudices, judges provide jurors with the tools to better self-detect their own biases toward certain social groups.

There are limitations of this study that warrant consideration. This study utilized a design that deviated from typical jury procedures in two main ways. First, real-life jurors do not directly deliver a punitive sentence for the defendant, unlike the mock jurors in this study. The punishment variable was valuable in its capacity to provide an assessment of the jurors’ beliefs about the extent of the defendant’s culpability while also contextualizing the magnitude of these beliefs in the form of a tangible punishment. Despite the successful manipulation of this variable, a level of caution must be exercised concerning its generalizability. Second, mock jurors were not able to collaboratively discuss and deliberate, a key part of real-life jury processes. Given group deliberation has been found to both attenuate and amplify biases in individual jurors in certain circumstances (Kerr et al., 1996; Salerno & Diamond, 2010), additional research is necessary to determine how group interaction affects the expression of gender bias. This study was also limited by its lack of examination of the role of racial bias in gendered-sentencing trends. Considering the growing body of evidence demonstrating forensic gender–race interactions (e.g., Kramer & Wang, 2019), this is an important consideration for this research area.

To support and expand knowledge of the impact of gender bias and ambivalent sexism in jury processes, future studies should seek to prioritize several key elements. Researchers should attempt to extend the results of this study, specifically by exploring whether HS and BS moderations still hold for homicide cases of a nondomestic nature. As female offenders are considered to be less dangerous to the wider public as their victims are typically relatives (Breheney et al., 2007), a sentencing-leniency effect may not hold when the defendant is accused of attacking a stranger.

Future studies should also examine the impact of the victim’s gender, a variable not explored within this study. There is a growing body of research suggesting that the defendant’s, victim’s, and juror’s genders do not influence sentencing effects in isolation, but rather it is their interaction that elicits gendered-sentencing-leniency effects (Stanziani et al., 2018). In conjunction with this defendant–victim–juror gender interaction, researchers should seek to understand the role the defendant’s and/or victim’s sexual orientation plays in influencing trial outcomes, particularly in cases of IPV and IPH. A number of studies have found evidence to suggest that heterosexual female defendants and victims receive more favorable outcomes than legal actors of any other sexual orientation and gender combination (Russell, 2018; Stanziani et al., 2018); additional research would contribute to a more nuanced understanding of gender bias within the courtroom.

This study contributes to a growing literature committed to revealing the injustices gender bias elicits in jury processes. Although further research is necessary to determine how such bias can be mitigated, educating the general public on the pitfalls of hostile and benevolent sexist constructions of women would not go amiss. Given a jury comprised one’s peers, community-wide bias awareness is a crucial step toward promoting the foundational principles of justice and equality upon which the legal system is based.

Supplemental Material

Online_supplement_-_juror_decisions_and_ambi_sexism – Supplemental material for Lady Injustice: The Moderating Effect of Ambivalent Sexism in a Mock Case of Intimate Partner Homicide

Supplemental material, Online_supplement_-_juror_decisions_and_ambi_sexism for Lady Injustice: The Moderating Effect of Ambivalent Sexism in a Mock Case of Intimate Partner Homicide by Laura Cutroni and Joel Anderson in Criminal Justice and Behavior

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Laura Cutroni

Joel Anderson

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Appendix is available in the online version of this article and at

Laura Cutroni is a PhD candidate at the Centre for Forensic Behavioural Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, whose research interests focus on forensic applications of social and cognitive psychology.

Joel Anderson is a lecturer in social psychology at Australian Catholic University and postdoctoral research fellow at the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society which is based at La Trobe University.

References

Abrams

Viki

G. T.

Masser

Bohner

(2003). Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 111–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.111

Ahola

A. S.

Christianson

S. Å.

Hellström

Å.

(2009). Justice needs a blindfold: Effects of gender and attractiveness on prison sentences and attributions of personal characteristics in a judicial process. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 16(S1), S90–S100. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218710802242011

Allen

Bradley

M. S.

(2018). Perceptions of harm, criminality, and law enforcement response: Comparing violence by men against women and violence by women against men. Victims & Offenders, 13(3), 373–389. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2017.1340383

Becker

J. C.

Swim

J. K.

(2012). Reducing endorsement of benevolent and modern sexist beliefs: Differential effects of addressing harm versus pervasiveness of benevolent sexism. Social Psychology, 43(3), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000091

Bontrager

Barrick

Stupi

(2013). Gender and sentencing: A meta-analysis of contemporary research. The Journal of Gender, Race, & Justice, 16, 349–372. https://xyonline.net/sites/xyonline.net/files/Bontrager%2C%20Gender%20and%20Sentencing%202013.pdf

Bornstein

B. H.

(1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022326807441

Braden-Maguire

Sigal

Perrino

C. S.

(2005). Battered women who kill: Variables affecting simulated jurors’ verdicts. Journal of Family Violence, 20(6), 403–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-005-7801-0

Breheney

Groscup

Galietta

(2007). Gender matters in the insanity defense. Law and Psychology Review, 31, 93–123. https://www.law.ua.edu/lawpsychology/

Butcher

K. F.

Park

K. H.

Piehl

A. M.

(2017). Comparing apples to oranges: Differences in women’s and men’s incarceration and sentencing outcomes. Journal of Labor Economics, 35(S1), S201–S234. https://doi.org/10.1086/691276

10.

Chisango

Mayekiso

Thomæ

(2015). The social nature of benevolent sexism and the antisocial nature of hostile sexism: Is benevolent sexism more likely to manifest in public contexts and hostile sexism in private contexts? International Journal of Psychology, 50(5), 363–371. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12106

11.

Cox

Kopkin

M. R.

(2016). Defendant and victim sex, sexism, and decision making in an ambiguous assault case. Women and Criminal Justice, 26(5), 381–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2016.1167153

12.

Dardenne

Dumont

Bollier

(2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women’s performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 764–779. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.764

13.

de Lemus

Navarro

Velásquez

M. J.

Ryan

Megías

J. L.

(2014). From sex to gender: A university intervention to reduce sexism in Argentina, Spain, and El Salvador. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 741–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12089

14.

Dillon

Hussain

Loxton

Rahman

(2013). Mental and physical health and intimate partner violence against women: A review of the literature. International Journal of Family Medicine, 2013, Article 313909. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/313909

15.

Ehrensaft

M. K.

Moffitt

T. E.

Caspi

(2004). Clinically abusive relationships in an unselected birth cohort: Menʼs and womenʼs participation and developmental antecedents. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(2), 258–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.113.2.258

16.

Embry

Lyons

P. M.

Jr. (2012). Sex-based sentencing: Sentencing discrepancies between male and female sex offenders. Feminist Criminology, 7(2), 146–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085111430214

17.

Fraser

(2015). From “ladies first” to “asking for it”: Benevolent sexism in the maintenance of rape culture. California Law Review, 103, 141–204. http://www.californialawreview.org

18.

Fridel

E. E.

(2019). Leniency for lethal ladies: Using the actor–partner interdependence model to examine gender-based sentencing disparities. Homicide Studies, 23(4), 319–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767919867420

19.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491

20.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109

21.

Glick

Wilkerson

Cuffe

(2015). Masculine identity, ambivalent sexism, and attitudes toward gender subtypes: Favoring masculine men and feminine women. Social Psychology, 46(4), 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000228

22.

Grubb

Harrower

(2008). Attribution of blame in cases of rape: An analysis of participant gender, type of rape and perceived similarity to the victim. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 396–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2008.06.006

23.

Hamel

(2018). Intimate partner violence: Gender issues and the adjudication of homicide and other cases. Journal of Criminological Research, Policy, and Practice, 4(4), 226–237. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-01-2018-0008

24.

Henning

Feder

(2005). Criminal prosecution of domestic violence offenses: An investigation of factors predictive of court outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32(6), 612–642. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854805279945

25.

Hodell

E. C.

Wasarhaley

N. E.

Lynch

K. R.

Golding

J. M.

(2014). Mock juror gender biases and perceptions of self-defense claims in intimate partner homicide. Journal of Family Violence, 29(5), 495–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-014-9609-2

26.

Honey

P. L.

(2015). The element of surprise: Women of the dark triad. In Fisher

M. L.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of women and competition (pp. 147–165). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199376377.013.42

27.

Iratzoqui

McCutcheon

(2018). The influence of domestic violence in homicide cases. Homicide Studies, 22(2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767917751673

28.

Johnson

M. P.

(2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 12(11), 1003–1018. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801206293328

29.

Karlsson

L. C.

Malén

Kaakinen

J. K.

Antfolk

(2018). The effect of sex and perpetrator–victim relationship on perceptions of domestic homicide. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518775162

30.

Kasian

Spanos

N. P.

Terrance

C. A.

Peebles

(1993). Battered women who kill: Jury simulation and legal defenses. Law and Human Behavior, 17(3), 289–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044510

31.

Kerr

N. L.

Maccoun

R. J.

Kramer

G. P.

(1996). Bias in judgment: Comparing individuals and groups. Psychological Review, 103(4), 687–719. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.687

32.

Kramer

K. L.

Wang

(2019). Assessing cumulative disadvantage against minority female defendants in state courts. Justice Quarterly, 36(7), 1284–1313. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1685122

33.

Lawrence

Orengo-Aguayo

Langer

Brock

R. L.

(2012). The impact and consequences of partner abuse on partners. Partner Abuse, 3(4), 406–428. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.4.406

34.

Maeder

E. M.

Mossière

Cheung

(2012). Canadian mock juror attitudes and decisions in domestic violence cases involving Asian and white interracial and intraracial couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(4), 667–684. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512455871

35.

McCauley

M. R.

Parker

J. F.

(2001). When will a child be believed? The impact of the victim’s age and juror’s gender on children’s credibility and verdict in a sexual-abuse case. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25(4), 523–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(01)00224-1

36.

McKimmie

B. M.

Masser

B. M.

(2010). The effect of gender in the courtroom. In Adler

J. R.

Gray

J. M.

(Eds.), Forensic psychology: Concepts, debates and practice (2nd ed., pp. 95–122). Willan.

37.

Morgan

Wells

(2016). “It’s deemed unmanly”: Men’s experiences of intimate partner violence (IPV). The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 27(3), 404–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2015.1127986

38.

Osborn

Davis

J. P.

Button

Foster

(2018). Juror decision making in acquaintance and marital rape: The influence of clothing, alcohol, and preexisting stereotypical attitudes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518768566

39.

Paolacci

Chandler

(2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414531598

40.

Pozzulo

J. D.

Dempsey

Maeder

Allen

(2010). The effects of victim gender, defendant gender, and defendant age on juror decision making. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809344173

41.

Russell

(2018). Police perceptions in intimate partner violence cases: The influence of gender and sexual orientation. Journal of Crime and Justice, 41(2), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2017.1282378

42.

Russell

Ragatz

L. L.

Kraus

S. W.

(2009). Does ambivalent sexism influence verdicts for heterosexual and homosexual defendants in a self-defense case? Journal of Family Violence, 24(3), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-008-9210-7

43.

Ryon

S. B.

(2013). Gender as social threat: A study of offender sex, situational factors, gender dynamics and social control. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(6), 426–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.07.006

44.

Sakalli-Uğurlu

Sila Yalçin

Glick

(2007). Ambivalent sexism, belief in a just world, and empathy as predictors of Turkish students’ attitudes toward rape victims. Sex Roles, 57(11–12), 889–895. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9313-2

45.

Salerno

J. M.

Diamond

S. S.

(2010). The promise of a cognitive perspective on jury deliberation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(2), 174–179. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.2.174

46.

Savage

M. W.

Scarduzio

J. A.

Harris

K. L.

Carlyle

K. E.

Sheff

S. E.

(2017). News stories of intimate partner violence: An experimental examination of participant sex, perpetrator sex, and violence severity on seriousness, sympathy, and punishment preferences. Health Communication, 32(6), 768–776. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1217453

47.

Stanziani

Cox

Coffey

C. A.

(2018). Adding insult to injury: Sex, sexual orientation, and juror decision-making in a case of intimate partner violence. Journal of Homosexuality, 65(10), 1325–1350. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2017.1374066

48.

Strub

McKimmie

B. M.

(2016). Sugar and spice and all things nice: The role of gender stereotypes in jurors’ perceptions of criminal defendants. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 23(4), 487–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2015.1080151

49.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2007). Cleaning up your act: Screening data prior to analysis. In Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(Eds.), Using multivariate statistics (5th ed., pp. 60–116). Pearson.

50.

Valor-Segura

Expósito

Moya

(2011). Victim blaming and exoneration of the perpetrator in domestic violence: The role of beliefs in a just world and ambivalent sexism. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14(1), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_SJOP.2011.v14.n1.17

51.

Viki

G. T.

Abrams

(2002). But she was unfaithful: Benevolent sexism and reactions to rape victims who violate traditional gender role expectations. Sex Roles, 47(5/6), 289–293. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021342912248

52.

Viki

G. T.

Abrams

Hutchison

(2003). The “true” romantic: Benevolent sexism and paternalistic chivalry. Sex Roles, 49(9/10), 533–537. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025888824749

53.

Viki

G. T.

Abrams

Masser

(2004). Evaluating stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent sexism in perpetrator blame and recommended sentence length. Law and Human Behavior, 28(3), 295–303. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000029140.72880.69

54.

Yamawaki

(2007). Rape perception and the function of ambivalent sexism and gender-role traditionality. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(4), 406–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260506297210

55.

Yamawaki

Darby

Queiroz

(2007). The moderating role of ambivalent sexism: The influence of power status on perception of rape victim and rapist. Journal of Social Psychology, 147(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.147.1.41-56

56.

Yamawaki

Ostenson

Brown

C. R.

(2009). The functions of gender role traditionality, ambivalent sexism, injury, and frequency of assault on domestic violence perception: A study between Japanese and American college students. Violence Against Women, 15(9), 1126–1142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801209340758

57.

Yelderman

L. A.

Miller

M. K.

Peoples

C. D.

(2016). Capital-izing jurors: How death qualification relates to jury composition, jurors’ perceptions, and trial outcomes. In Miller

M. K.

Bornstein

B. H.

(Eds.), Advances in psychology and law (Vol. 2, pp. 27–54). Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43083-6_2

58.

Yourstone

Lindholm

Grann

Svenson

(2008). Evidence of gender bias in legal insanity evaluations: A case vignette study of clinicians, judges and students. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 62(4), 273–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/08039480801963135

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.11 MB