Abuse Is Abuse: The Influence of Type of Abuse,Victim Age,and Defendant Age on Juror Decision Making

Abstract

The purpose of the current study was to examine the role of victim age, defendant age, and type of abuse on mock juror decision making. Mock jurors (N = 556) read a trial transcript in which a soccer coach was accused of sexual abuse or physical abuse against a player. The victim’s age (child, adolescent, or young adult), the defendant’s age (young, middle age, or older adult), and the type of abuse (sexual or physical) were varied. Mock jurors provided a dichotomous and continuous verdict and rated their perceptions of the victim and the defendant. Although no differences on mock jurors’ dichotomous verdict were found due to victim age, defendant age, or type of abuse, mock jurors provided higher guilt ratings when the abuse was sexual and both the victim and defendant were described as young adults. Similarly, mock jurors rated the victim more positively when the victim was described as a young adult (vs. child) for both sexual and physical abuse cases, and rated the defendant more positively when the victim was described as a child compared with young adult in sexual abuse cases. These findings suggest that mock jurors were largely influenced by victim age, particularly when the victim was described as an adult compared with a child.

Keywords

sexual abuse physical abuse adolescent victims adult victims child abuse

Jurors are required to consider the facts of a case to render a verdict in criminal trials. The consideration of the facts of the case and whether there is proof that the defendant committed the crime should be the only information jurors use when asked to reach a verdict. However, substantial research examining juror decision making has found that jurors are often influenced by extralegal factors that are beyond the relevant facts of the case, such as characteristics associated with the victim, witness, or defendant (Gerbasi, Zuckerman, & Reis, 1977; Pozzulo, Dempsey, Maeder, & Allen, 2010). Research examining child sexual abuse specifically has found that jurors are often swayed by victim and defendant characteristics; for example, the age of the victim has been found to influence perceptions of credibility, responsibility, and believability of the witness (e.g., Rogers & Davies, 2007), as has the age of the defendant (e.g., Pozzulo et al., 2010). However, there are fewer empirical studies that examine how these extralegal influences impact decision making across other forms of abuse. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to examine the influence of the type of abuse described (e.g., sexual abuse vs. physical abuse) in combination with victim and defendant age on mock juror decision making.

Witness and Victim Age

There has been a significant amount of research that has examined the influence of victim age on mock jurors’ perceptions of credibility, as children are becoming more prevalent in the court system as either victims and/or witnesses to crime (Newcombe & Bransgrove, 2007); however, the findings are mixed. There has been some research that has found that younger children are perceived as being less credible than older children or adults when providing testimony either as a witness or victim to the crime (e.g., Goodman, Golding, Hegelson, Haith, & Michelli, 1987; Leippe, Manion, & Romanczyk, 1992; Leippe & Romanczyk, 1998, Experiment 2; Newcombe & Bransgrove, 2007; Pozzulo & Dempsey, 2009; Pozzulo, Lemieux, Wells, & McCuaig, 2006). For example, Goodman and colleagues (1987) conducted some of the first studies examining the role of witness age on mock juror decision making. Across three studies, Goodman and colleagues (1987) manipulated the age of the eyewitness (6, 10, or 30 years old) who testified regarding a vehicular homicide (Experiments 1 and 3) or a murder (Experiment 2). Across all three studies, child witnesses were perceived as less credible than adult eyewitnesses. Similarly, Leippe and colleagues (1992) found that children were rated as less believable and less accurate than adult witnesses when reporting an event, despite there being no differences in the accuracy of reports. Pozzulo and colleagues (2006) also found that mock jurors rated a child eyewitness (9-year-old) as less credible than an adult eyewitness (i.e., 42-year-old) in a vehicle theft case. However, all these cases involve a bystander witness.

Pozzulo and Dempsey (2009) conducted a study in which they varied whether the witness was a bystander or a victim to determine whether witness type interacted with witness age (i.e., child vs. adult). They found that child witnesses were perceived to be less credible than adult witnesses by mock jurors (M = 3.80 vs. M = 4.24). However, the differences in perceived credibility were qualified by whether the witness was described as a victim or a bystander to the crime, such that mock jurors perceived both child and adult victims as equally credible (M = 4.01 vs. M = 4.18, respectively), but viewed child bystander witnesses as less credible than adult bystander witnesses (M = 3.58 vs. M = 4.32, respectively). This study suggests that the tendency to judge adult witnesses as more credible than child witnesses may not be as robust when the witness is a victim of the crime.

In contrast to these findings, there are a large number of studies that have found that younger children are perceived as more credible and accurate in their testimony compared with older children or adults (e.g., Leippe & Romanczyk, 1989; Nightingale, 1993, Experiment 4; Ross, Dunning, Toglia, & Ceci, 1990, Experiment 1 & 2). For example, Ross and colleagues (1990, Experiments 1 & 2) examined the impact of witness age (8-, 21-, or 74-years-old) on mock juror perceptions in a drug possession case, finding that mock jurors rated the child witness as more credible, accurate, and honest, than both the young adult and elderly witness. Similarly, Nightingale (1993, Experiment 1) found that older children (i.e., 12-year-olds) were perceived my mock jurors as being more blameworthy when compared with younger children (i.e., 6- and 9-year-olds), across both civil and criminal cases (i.e., wrongful injury and sexual abuse cases, respectively). Moreover, in a survey examining jurors’ perceptions in child sexual abuse cases, Corder and Whiteside (1988) found that jurors believed older children (i.e., 7-, 8-, and 9-year-olds) were more capable of lying about sexual abuse than younger children (i.e., 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds).

Finally, there are some studies that have reached different conclusions entirely. For example, Nunez, Kehn, and Wright (2011) found that perceptions of child honesty changed across age groups (i.e., range from 5 to 15 years old); however, changes in perceived honesty were not linear (i.e., increases in age were not always associated with increases in perceived honesty). These findings further highlight the inconsistencies that exist in the literature.

It is possible that differences in credibility ratings found across these studies can in part be attributed to the various additional factors that have been considered in combination with age or differences across studies. For example, whether the witness was a bystander or victim (e.g., Pozzulo & Dempsey, 2009), the type of crime (e.g., sexual assault case, physical assault, drug case, homicide case; e.g., Bornstein, Kaplan, & Perry, 2007; Goodman et al., 1987), whether there is corroborating evidence (e.g., Golding, Lynch, Wasarhaley, & Keller, 2015), and the communication style of the victim (e.g., Schmidt & Brigham, 1996) may all influence perceptions of credibility across different age groups. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the perceived credibility of witnesses is linked to stereotypes that jurors hold about children—specifically regarding children’s honesty and cognitive ability to accurately report events (i.e., the two-factor model of credibility; Goodman, Golding, & Haith, 1984; Goodman et al., 1987; Nunez et al., 2011; Pozzulo et al., 2006; Ross, Jurden, Lindsay, & Keeny, 2003). It is possible that perceptions of honesty and cognitive ability can help explain the differences found across the literature, such that older children may appear to have better cognitive ability to recount events (i.e., more reliable/accurate, less suggestible) but young children may appear to be more honest (i.e., older children or adults are more likely to lie; Nightingale, 1993; Pozzulo et al., 2006; Ross et al., 1990).

In fact, there have been a number of studies suggesting that younger children are viewed as more honest when compared with older children who are nearing or have entered adolescence. For example, Wright, Hanoteau, Parkinson, and Tatham (2010) found that perceptions of child witnesses’ honesty increased up to age 11, and then began to decrease from age 12 to 18 years old. Similarly, Nunez and colleagues (2011) found that preadolescent children (i.e., 12-year-olds and 14-year-olds) were rated as being significantly less trustworthy and significantly less honest than younger children (e.g., 8- and 10-year-olds), despite being rated as similarly cognitively competent. These studies suggest that witnesses are deemed to be less credible based largely on the fact that they are in adolescence.

Overall, it appears that the age of a victim or witness can influence mock juror decisions; however, other factors often play a role in combination with victim age (Rogers & Davies, 2007; Schmidt & Brigham, 1996). The purpose of this study was to examine the role of victim age across three ages. Particularly, we were interested in the perceptions of children entering or within adolescence (i.e., 12-year-olds and 16-year-olds) compared with young adults (20 years old), as these children appear to be viewed in the most negative light. Furthermore, research has suggested that preadolescent and adolescent children are the most likely age group to be victims of sexual abuse, whereas younger children are more likely to be victims of physical abuse (World Health Organization, 2002), and as such, victim age was considered in combination with two additional case factors: defendant age and the type of alleged abuse that occurred.

Defendant Age

Although there has been a significant amount of research examining the role of victim age on mock juror decision making, there has been substantially less that has examined the age of the defendant (Pica, Pettalia, & Pozzulo, 2016). Research that has considered defendant age usually tends to focus on younger defendants and how juvenile versus adult defendants may be perceived by the jury (e.g., Pica et al., 2016; Semple & Woody, 2011). For example, Semple and Woody (2011) utilized younger defendants in their study, such that the defendant was described as 13, 15, 17, or 21 years old in a second-degree murder case. They found that mock jurors were more likely to convict older defendants (i.e., 17- and 21-year-olds) than younger defendants (13- and 15-year-olds). Although the studies described above found differences in verdict based on age, there are some studies that did not find differences in verdict rating based on defendant age (e.g., Ghetti & Redlich, 2001; Pica et al., 2016; Walker & Woody, 2011; Warling, Peterson-Badali, 2003). For example, Pica and colleagues (2016) found no differences in verdict decisions when the defendant was described as 14- or 24-years-old. Similarly, Warling and Peterson-Badali (2003) compared a young defendant (i.e., 13-year-old) with a young adult (25-year-old) and found no difference in verdict across the two age groups. Despite similar verdict ratings, however, mock jurors were more likely to give harsher sentences to the older defendant. The tendency to give harsher sentences to older versus younger defendants has been mirrored in other studies (e.g., 14- vs. 24-years-old; Walker & Woody, 2011). Furthermore, research has found that older defendants are perceived by mock jurors to be more blameworthy and more accountable for their crimes when compared with younger defendants (e.g., 17-years-old vs. 11-years-old; Ghetti & Redlich, 2001).

Although most research examining defendant age has found it to influence mock juror decision making such that younger defendants may be less likely to be convicted, are sentenced with more leniency, and are held less accountable for their actions, the majority of mock juror research examines juvenile defendants in comparison with adult defendants. It is unclear whether this pattern of leniency for younger defendants would hold true when the “younger” defendant is a young adult and the “older” defendant is middle aged or older. Higgins, Heath, and Grannemann (2007) conducted one study that examined the influence of defendant age when the defendant was described as a younger or older adult (i.e., 22- vs. 65-years-old). They found no differences in verdict, sentencing, or jurors’ perceptions of credibility and responsibility due to defendant age. In contrast, Bergeron and McKelvie (2004) examined the influence of defendant age (i.e., 20-, 40-, or 60-years-old) on participant recommendations for sentencing and parole after reading a vignette in which the crime was either a murder or a theft. The authors found that middle-aged defendants (i.e., 40-year-olds) were given harsher punishments (e.g., longer sentences and parole recommendations) than both younger (20-year-old) and older defendants (60-year-old); however, this pattern was only found in the murder cases. Overall, research suggests that the age of the defendant can influence mock juror decision making. The current study, therefore, examined the role of defendant age when the defendant is described as an adult who is 25-years-old (i.e., younger adult), 45-years-old (i.e., middle-aged adult), or 65-years-old (i.e., older adult).

Type of Abuse

The type of crime that is presented to a mock juror also may influence his or her guilt ratings and his or her perceptions of a victim and/or a defendant. Logically, there are some types of crimes that are generally perceived as less serious (e.g., minor theft) or more serious (e.g., homicide). Some research has examined the role of type of crime on mock juror decision making and has found that more serious crimes generally lead to increases in guilty verdicts or longer sentences (e.g., Walker & Woody, 2011). For example, Walker and Woody (2011) found that mock jurors were more likely to render a guilty verdict and recommend longer sentences when the crime was described as an aggravated assault (i.e., crime against a person) compared with when the crime was described as a burglary (i.e., crime against property).

Although there are a number of studies examining the type of crime and its role on mock jurors’ decision making, there are few studies that examine the role of different types of abuse cases on mock juror decision making, beyond sexual abuse cases (Bornstein et al., 2007). There is good reason to consider the role of different types of abuse cases on mock juror decision making, however, as research has shown that the type of abuse can affect laypersons’ perceptions of the crime as well as their willingness to report a crime. For example, Dukes and Kean (1989) found that undergraduate students were more likely to rate physical abuse as more serious than other forms of abuse (i.e., neglect and psychological abuse); however, participants were more likely to agree that they would report cases of neglect when compared with cases of physical abuse. Similarly, Kean and Dukes (1991) examined the influence of type of abuse on both laypersons’ and child protection system (CPS; child protection personnel, police officers, and police juvenile detectives) persons’ perceptions. In their study, jury-eligible participants read crime vignettes in which the abuse was described as physical, psychological, or described as neglect. They found that CPS personnel and police rated physical abuse as the most serious abuse, whereas psychological abuse was rated as the least serious.

More recently, Bornstein and colleagues (2007) examined the effect of type of abuse (physical, mild sexual, or severe sexual), victim and perpetrator gender, and victim–perpetrator relationship (parent vs. babysitter) on layperson perceptions across a number of dimensions (e.g., severity, likelihood of occurrence, victim believability, and likelihood of repression). They found that overall, severe sexual abuse was rated as more traumatic and severe than physical abuse; however, they note that a significant interaction was found between the type of abuse and the nature of the victim–perpetrator relationship. Specifically, Bornstein and colleagues (2007) found that sexual abuse cases (mild and severe) were rated as more traumatic and severe when the perpetrator was described as the victims’ parent (compared with babysitter). However, there were no differences in ratings of trauma or severity due to victim–perpetrator relationship when the abuse was described as physical. The type of abuse also interacted with the gender of the perpetrator, such that sexual abuse (minor and severe) was rated as more severe when the perpetrator was a male, whereas there were no differences in severity ratings of physical abuse due to perpetrator gender. Finally, the type of abuse was found to influence participants’ perceptions of victim believability, such that participants were more likely to rate the victim as believable when the crime was described as physical abuse and the perpetrator was the victims’ parent (compared with babysitter); whereas no differences in victim believability were found due to victim–perpetrator relationship when the abuse was described as sexual. Taken together, these studies suggest that the type of abuse a victim experiences can influence perceptions of trauma, severity, and believability. Furthermore, these studies suggest that a variety of factors can interact with type of abuse to influence perceptions. The current study compared the role of two factors, victim age and defendant age, in relation to the type of abuse on mock juror decision making.

Type of Abuse and Victim Age

There has been some research that has examined the role of victim age and the type of crime (e.g., Nunez et al., 2011). Nightingale (1993, Experiment 1) found that older children were perceived to be more responsible for their victimization across both personal injury and sexual abuses cases, suggesting that older children are perceived more negatively than younger children in general, despite the type of crime experienced. Similarly, Nunez and colleagues (2011) examined participants’ evaluations of honesty and cognitive ability in the context of a child sexual abuse case compared with evaluations when no context was given. They found that children across all ages (ranging from 5- to 15-years-old) were rated as more trusting, more reliable, more honest, and had better memories when the child was presented in the context of a child sexual abuse case compared with when no context was given. Dukes and Kean (1989) also found that victim age can interact with the type of abuse and influence mock jurors’ perceptions of the seriousness of the crime. Specifically, they found that although physical abuse was viewed as comparably serious across victim age, neglect was viewed as more serious when the victim was described as a younger child (i.e., 3-years-old), whereas psychological abuse was rated as more serious when the victim was described as an older child (i.e., 10-years-old). Therefore, the current study sought to examine whether victim age and type of abuse, combined, would be influential.

Overview of the Current Study

The purpose of the current study was to examine the role of three different factors on mock juror decision making: type of abuse (physical vs. sexual), victim age (12, 16, 20) and defendant age (25, 45, or 65). The director’s cut model (Devine, 2012) of juror decision making can provide a framework for understanding how jurors may use these specific legal and extralegal influences when evaluating guilt and credibility. According to this model, jurors construct a mental representation or narrative of what they believe occurred during the crime. The construction of this narrative is guided by any existing knowledge they have of the case, the opening statements, and any beliefs or assumptions that the juror may have (Devine, 2012). Jurors will use information they heard from trial (e.g., evidence) as well as any preexisting cognitive scripts or stereotypes to construct a narrative or representation of what happened, disregarding information that does not fit with their “script” or narrative for what occurred. When applied to this framework, it is possible that jurors in the current study would utilize both legal influences presented to them (e.g., the type of abuse) in combination with preexisting knowledge, beliefs, or stereotypes they have about the specific crime, as well as their beliefs and attitudes around extralegal influences (e.g., victim age and defendant age).

To our knowledge, this is the first empirical study that has examined the impact of the type of abuse in combination with defendant and victim age on mock jurors’ verdict and perceptions of the victim/defendant. We predicted that the defendant would be judged more harshly and the victim more positively when the victim was described as younger compared with older. We also hypothesized that the defendant would be rated more negatively when described as middle aged compared with a younger or older adult, based on past research utilizing similar age groups (e.g., Bergeron & McKelvie, 2004). Also, we predicted that the defendant would be perceived more negatively, and the victim more positively, when the abuse was described as sexual compared with physical as previous research suggests that sexual abuse is perceived more negatively compared with physical abuse (e.g., Bornstein et al., 2007).

Method

Participants

Participants (N = 556; 68% female) were undergraduate students recruited from a university in Eastern Ontario, Canada. All participants were juror eligible in Ontario (i.e., Canadian citizen and above the age of 18). Participants’ age ranged from 18 to 46 years (M = 20.35 years, SD = 4.17 years). Most participants (70%) identified themselves as White/Caucasian, with smaller numbers of Black/African Canadian (6%), a small number of East Asian (2%), South Asian (6%), Southeast Asian (2%), West Asian (6%), Latin American (1%), Aboriginal Canadians (2%), and those who identified themselves as either mixed or “Other” (5%). Participants received course credit for their participation in the study.

Design

A 2 (type of abuse: physical vs. sexual) × 3 (victim age: 12 years vs. 16 years. vs. 20 years) × 3 (defendant age: 25 years vs. 45 years vs. 65 years) between-subjects factorial design was used. Cell sizes ranged from 29 to 35 participants.

Materials

Trial transcript

Eighteen versions of an eight-page mock trial transcript were created that varied type of abuse, age of the victim, and the age of the defendant. All other details of the trial transcript were held constant. The alleged abuse took place in a locker room after soccer practice between an assistant soccer coach and one of the team’s players. Both the specific type of abuse and the events that transpired were detailed in the transcript. Each transcript begins with instructions from the judge, followed by excerpts from the trial. Six witnesses provide testimony (i.e., a police officer, the victim, a social worker, the defendant, a former team member of the defendant, and the defendant’s best friend). The transcript ends with closing statements from the lawyers and some guidelines and instructions to the jurors.

Verdict

Participants were asked to rate the degree to which they felt that the defendant was guilty on a 100-point rating scale (0 = not guilty, 100 = guilty). Participants were asked to rate their subjective guilt ratings to obtain a more sensitive measure of how they perceived the evidence; although it is not used in a court of law, it allows researchers to obtain a more sensitive measure to determine whether the variables are influential to mock jurors. Participants also were asked to render a dichotomous guilty verdict for the defendant (i.e., guilty or not guilty)

Perceptions of the victim

Participants were asked to rate the victim’s testimony in terms of the events that transpired across four questions regarding the reliability, truthfulness, accuracy, and credibility on 1 (not at all) to 6 (very much so) scales. In addition, participants were asked how much weight their testimony should be given on 1 (not at all) to 6 (very much so) scales, thus resulting in five questions.

Perception of the defendant

Participants were asked to rate the defendant’s testimony across four questions with regard to the reliability, truthfulness, accuracy, and credibility on 1 (not at all) to 6 (very much so) scales. In addition, participants were asked how much weight his testimony should be given on 1 (not at all) to 6 (very much so) scales, thus resulting in five questions.

Procedure

Participants were recruited from introductory psychology courses at a Canadian University. They were compensated with course credit for their participation. All materials were distributed to participants and data were collected with the online survey tool Qualtrics. As a result, all participants completed the study online. Upon signing up for the study, participants were given a unique study URL. Each participant was then randomly assigned to one of the 18 conditions. To complete the entire study, participants were instructed to read through the mock trial transcript prior to filling out a series of questionnaires. Once all the dependent measures were completed, the study required that participants fill out a manipulation check. Completion of the manipulation check indicated the end of the study at which point participants were debriefed and thanked for their participation.

Results

Manipulation Check

Participants were asked to answer four multiple-choice questions pertaining to the independent variables (i.e., type of abuse, victim age, and defendant age). Those who did not attend to these manipulations were removed from further analyses. The final sample size was 556 participants after these cases were removed.

Dichotomous Verdict

Given that the outcome variable was categorical, and the dependent factors were categorical, a sequential binary logistic regression was conducted to examine whether type of abuse, victim age, and defendant age influenced mock jurors’ dichotomous verdicts (guilty was coded as 1 and not guilty was coded as 0). The first block contained all the main effects, χ²(5) = 0.576, p = .99; the main effects and the two-way interactions in Block 2, χ²(13) = 14.06, p = .37; and the main effects, two-way interaction, and three-way interaction in Block 3, χ²(17) = 18.71, p = .35. There were no significant effects found in Model 1, 2, or 3.

Continuous Guilt

Given that the outcome variable was continuous, and the dependent factors were categorical, an ANOVA was run to examine whether type of abuse, victim age, and defendant age influenced mock jurors’ continuous guilt ratings. There was no significant main effect of type of abuse, F(1, 532) = 1.304, p = .25; victim age, F(1, 532) = 0.32, p = .73; or defendant age, F(1, 532) = 0.40, p = .67. Similarly, there were no significant two-way interactions, between type of abuse and victim age, F(1, 532) = 2.71, p = .07; type of abuse and defendant age, F(1, 532) = 2.71, p = .07; or victim age and defendant, F(1, 532) = 2.26, p = .06. There was a significant three-way interaction, F(1, 532) = 2.51, p = .04, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .02. Follow-up analyses showed that when the abuse was sexual and the defendant was 25-years-old, mock jurors were more likely to assign higher guilt ratings when the victim was 20-years-old compared with 12 years old, t(60) = −4.42, p < .001, d = 1.13. Similarly, when the abuse was sexual and the defendant was 25-years-old, mock jurors were more likely to assign higher guilt ratings when the victim was 20-years-old compared with 16-years-old, t(58) = −2.30, p = .03, d = .60 (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics).¹

Table 1.

Mean Guilt Ratings (SD) for the Defendant by Type of Abuse, Defendant Age, and Victim Age.

	Physical Abuse	n	Sexual Abuse	n
25-year-old defendant
12-year-old victim	73.79 (19.76)	29	54.63 (25.61)	32
16-year-old victim	71.66 (22.83)	29	65.50 (30.85)	30
20-year-old victim	68.35 (22.56)	31	81.37 (21.70)	30
45-year-old defendant
12-year-old victim	58.24 (30.44)	29	70.20 (25.75)	30
16-year-old victim	70.56 (25.47)	34	68.93 (26.31)	30
20-year-old victim	65.00 (26.28)	27	69.60 (27.56)	30
65-year-old defendant
12-year-old victim	71.48 (22.62)	29	72.37 (25.45)	35
16-year-old victim	61.67 (27.20)	27	69.58 (24.69)	31
20-year-old victim	60.07 (27.78)	29	70.03 (23.60)	34

Perceptions of the Victim

Mock jurors were asked a series of questions pertaining to the victim, all of which were significantly correlated (p < .01), as such, a composite score was created (α = .94) that ranged from 1.00 to 6.00 with a mean of 4.14 (SD = 1.19). A one-way ANOVA was run to examine whether type of abuse, victim age, and defendant age influenced mock jurors’ perceptions of the victim. There was no significant main effect of type of abuse, F(1, 531) = 0.49, p = .48; victim age, F(2, 531) = 0.069, p = .93; or defendant age, F(2, 531) = 1.107, p = .33. There was, however, a significant two-way interaction between type of abuse and victim age, F(2, 531) = 5.45, p = .005, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .02. Follow-up analyses revealed that when the abuse is physical and the victim was 12-years-old, the victim was perceived slightly more positively than when the victim was 20-years-old, t(176) = 2.17, p = .03, d = .32. Furthermore, when the abuse was described as sexual and the victim was described as 12-years-old, the victim was perceived slightly less positively than when the victim was described as 20-years-old, t(189) = −2.47, p = .01, d = −.36 (see Table 2 for descriptive statistics). There was no significant two-way interaction between type of abuse and defendant age, F(2, 531) = 0.69, p = .50; victim age and defendant age, F(4, 531) = 1.94, p = 0.10; and no significant three-way interaction, F(4, 531) = 2.24, p = .06.

Table 2.

Mean Perception Ratings (SD) for the Victim by Type of Abuse and Victim Age.

	Physical Abuse	n	Sexual Abuse	n
12-year-old victim	4.32 (0.99)	85	3.94 (1.25)	97
16-year-old victim	4.05 (1.30)	92	4.21 (1.20)	88
20-year-old victim	3.97 (1.19)	93	4.37 (1.11)	94

Perceptions of the Defendant

Mock jurors were asked a series of questions pertaining to the defendant, all of which were significantly correlated (p < .01), as such, a composite scale was created (α = .90) that ranged from 1.00 to 6.00 with a mean of 2.80 (SD = 0.98). A one-way ANOVA was run to examine whether type of abuse, victim age, and defendant age influenced mock jurors’ perceptions of the defendant. There was a significant main effect of type of abuse, F(1, 534) = 7.01, p = .008, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01; mock jurors viewed the defendant slightly more positively when the abuse was physical compared with sexual. There was no significant main effect of victim age, F(2, 534) = 1.02, p = .36; or defendant age, F(2, 534) = 0.71, p = .50. There was a significant two-way interaction between type of abuse and victim age, F(2, 534) = 3.15, p = .04, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .01. Follow-up analyses reveal that mock jurors perceived the defendant more positively when the abuse was described as sexual and the victim was 12-years-old compared with 20-years-old, t(187) = 2.58, p = .01, d = .38 (see Table 3 for descriptive statistics). There was no significant two-way interaction between type of abuse and defendant age, F(2, 534) = 1.17, p = .31; or victim age by defendant age, F(4, 534) = 0.84, p = .50. There was no significant three-way interaction, F(4, 534) = 1.53, p = .19.

Table 3.

Mean Perception Ratings (SD) for the Defendant by Type of Abuse and Victim Age.

	Physical Abuse	n	Sexual Abuse	n
12-year-old victim	2.87 (0.92)	87	2.87 (1.05)	97
16-year-old victim	2.87 (0.95)	93	2.70 (0.99)	90
20-year-old victim	2.98 (0.97)	93	2.50 (0.91)	90

Discussion

The goal of the present study was to examine the combined role of one legal influence, type of abuse, and two extralegal influences—victim age and defendant age—on mock jurors’ verdict and perceptions of the victim and defendant. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine these three factors simultaneously. Given that past research has consistently shown that jurors are influenced by extralegal factors when making decisions, it is important to understand how the age of the victim and defendant can affect verdict and credibility in both sexual and physical abuse cases.

Verdict and Victim Perceptions

Contrary to hypotheses, we found that neither the age of the victim and defendant nor the type of abuse influenced mock jurors’ dichotomous verdict. This is not particularly surprising, as the literature is mixed regarding the influence of these factors on overall verdict decisions. For example, when examining defendant age, some studies have found that older defendants are more likely to be convicted when compared with younger defendants (e.g., Semple & Woody, 2011), whereas other studies have found that the age of the defendant does not affect verdict (e.g., Pica et al., 2016; Warling & Peterson-Badali, 2003). Similarly, Bottoms and colleagues (2014) found that although mock jurors perceived differences in the responsibility of the victim for a sexual assault crime varied by age, they did not find any differences in verdict.

We did, however, find a three-way interaction when examining continuous verdict. Specifically, we found that when the abuse was sexual and the defendant was described as a young adult (i.e., 25-years-old), mock jurors provided higher guilt ratings when the victim was also a young adult (i.e., 20-year-old) compared with when the victim was described as a child (i.e., 12-year-old) or an adolescent (16-year-old). This finding suggests that mock jurors in this study perceived the defendant as more guilty in sexual abuse cases when both the defendant and the victim were described as young adults. This finding is surprising as younger witnesses are generally perceived as being more credible and truthful in cases involving sexual abuse cases when compared with adults, as they are perceived to lack the basic knowledge or understanding to fabricate abuse claims (Bottoms & Goodman, 1994). It is possible that the ages used for the children in this study were too old, such that mock jurors perceived them as being more capable of lying. For example, research has found that adolescent victims are often viewed as being less credible and more likely to lie when compared with younger children (e.g., Nunez et al., 2011; Wright et al., 2010). These findings support the idea that older children and adolescents also are viewed more negatively than younger adults, which may be affecting the perceived level of guilt of the defendant.

This pattern of responding also was mirrored in mock jurors’ perceptions of victim credibility. Specifically, we found that the victim was rated more positively overall when the abuse was physical and the victim was described as a child (12-year-old) compared with a young adult (20-year-old). However, when the abuse was sexual, we found that the victim was rated more positively when the victim was described as a young adult (20-year-old) compared with a child (12-year-old). This finding is consistent with past research that has shown adults are generally perceived to be more credible, capable witnesses than children (e.g., Goodman et al., 1987). However, it is inconsistent with research suggesting that adults and children are perceived comparably when they are victims of a crime (i.e., compared with bystanders; Pozzulo & Dempsey, 2009). Furthermore, when considering the sexual abuse crime, this finding is inconsistent with the notion that children may be less likely to fabricate events that are sexual in nature (Bottoms & Goodman, 1994). It is possible that the jurors in this case were less likely to believe the child victim compared with the adult victim, because the defendant was a member of the community compared with a family member. For example, research suggests that child sexual abuse is perceived to be more severe when the abuser is a family member (e.g., parent) compared with a nonfamily member (e.g., babysitter; Bornstein et al., 2007). Furthermore, the relationship between the victim and the defendant (i.e., soccer player/soccer coach) may have seemed to be less plausible to the mock jurors when the victim was described as a child. Considering that a large portion of child sexual abuse is, in fact, perpetrated by a family member (e.g., parent, sibling, step-parent; Burczycka & Conroy, 2017), mock jurors may have thought that the opportunity for a soccer coach to engage in this crime was limited.

Perceptions of the Defendant

When examining perceptions of the defendant, we found that mock jurors had more positive ratings toward the defendant when the abuse was physical compared with sexual abuse. This finding is not surprising as past research has found that sexual abuse is largely regarded as more serious and more traumatic when compared with physical abuse (Bornstein et al., 2007). This finding is consistent with that research, such that defendants who are accused of sexual abuse are viewed more negatively by mock jurors.

Similar to the relation between age and type of abuse that was found for victim perceptions, we found a similar pattern of responding when examining mock jurors’ perceptions of the defendant. When the type of abuse was sexual, mock jurors rated the defendant more positively when the victim was a child (i.e., 12-years-old) compared with a young adult (i.e., 20-years-old). This relationship is again surprising, but consistent with the pattern that emerged when examining mock jurors’ perceptions of the victim. It appears as though mock jurors were more “convinced” by the testimony when it came from a young adult as opposed to a child, as reflected by their positive perceptions of the victim and negative perceptions of the defendant when the victim was described as a young adult.

It is unclear why mock jurors in this particular study appeared to be more influenced by the type of abuse when both the defendant and the victim were described as young adults. Given that the majority of the mock jurors in the current study are young adults themselves (M_age = 20.35 years), it is possible that they related more to the situation described in the transcript (e.g., they are young adults and may believe that they would not lie about being sexually abused). Moreover, given that the victims were young adults, mock jurors may have perceived the physical and sexual abuse as assault and sexual assault, respectively. This could be a potential explanation as to why mock jurors were more harsh in their judgments. When considering the director’s cut model of juror decision making, it is possible that mock jurors in the current study were influenced by their preconceived beliefs about young adults (e.g., “I wouldn’t lie”). Furthermore, undergraduate students are often exposed to material concerning sexual abuse or assault within university culture. It is possible that undergraduate students may have more exposure to issues with victim blaming, and, therefore, may be more inclined to believe the victim in this case.

Limitations and Future Directions

Although the current study provides a first step in examining the combined influence of victim and defendant age, and type of abuse on juror decision making, there are a number of limitations that should be considered. First, the current sample consisted of only undergraduate students, which may have affected the generalizability of the results, as some research suggests that student and community samples have different biases that can affect their decision making (e.g., Keller & Wiener, 2011). Future research should include a more representative, community sample to examine the impact of age and type of abuse on juror decision making.

The current study did not examine juror characteristics as this is the first empirical attempt to examine the combined influence of type of abuse, victim age, and defendant age on mock jurors’ decisions. Research has shown that juror demographics such as age, race, and gender can influence verdicts (e.g., Devine & Caughlin, 2014); therefore, future research should also examine juror characteristics to determine whether the results of the current study would change. Another limitation of this study was the inclusion of only “older” victims (i.e., preadolescent, adolescent, and young adult). Given that there is a large body of research focusing on the credibility of child witnesses—particularly with regard to sexual abuse allegations, future research may want to include younger and older children in combination with older witnesses. Similarly, the current study only included two types of abuse (i.e., physical and sexual abuse). Future research should also consider the role of other types of abuse, such as maltreatment, in combination with age on mock juror decision making.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Chelsea L. Sheahan, MA, is a PhD student in forensic psychology at Carleton University in Ontario, Canada. Her PhD focuses on the role of familiarity in eyewitness identification accuracy.

Emily Pica, PhD, is an instructor in the Psychology Department at Carleton University, Ontario, Canada. Her research focuses on ways to improve eyewitness identification accuracy. In addition, she examines ways in which extralegal factors influence mock jurors’ decision making.

Joanna D. Pozzulo, PhD, is a professor and chair of the Department of Psychology at Carleton University, Ontario, Canada. She studies eyewitness issues and juror decision making, along with the interaction of these two domains.

References

Bergeron

C. E.

McKelvie

S. J.

(2004). Effects of defendant age on severity of punishment for different crimes. Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 75-90.

Bornstein

B. H.

Kaplan

D. L.

Perry

A. R.

(2007). Child abuse in the eyes of the beholder: Lay perceptions of child sexual and physical abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31, 375-391. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.09.007

Bottoms

B. L.

Goodman

G. S.

(1994). Perceptions of children’s credibility in sexual assault cases. Journal of Applies Psychology, 24, 702-732.

Bottoms

B. L.

Peter-Hagene

L. C.

Stevenson

M. C.

Wiley

T. R. A.

Mitchell

T. S.

Goodman

G. S.

(2014). Explaining gender differences in jurors’ reactions to child sexual assault cases. Behavioural Sciences & the Law, 32, 789-812.

Burczycka

Conroy

(2017). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2015. (Juristat Vol. 37, no. 1, Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 85-002-X). Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/14698-eng.pdf

Corder

B. F.

Whiteside

(1988). A survey of jurors’ perception of issues related to child sexual abuse. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 5, 37-43.

Devine

D. J.

(2012). Jury decision making: The state of the science. New York: New York University Press.

Devine

D. J.

Caughlin

D. E.

(2014). Do they matter? A meta-analytic investigation of individual characteristics and guilt judgments. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20, 109-134.

Dukes

R. L.

Kean

R. B.

(1989). An experimental study of gender and situation in the perception and reportage of child abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 13, 351-360.

10.

Gerbasi

K. C.

Zuckerman

Reis

H. T.

(1977). Justice needs a new blindfold: A review of mock jury research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 323-345.

11.

Ghetti

Redlich

A. D.

(2001). Reactions to youth crime: Perceptions of accountability and competency. Behavioural Sciences & the Law, 19, 33-52.

12.

Golding

J. M.

Lynch

K. R.

Wasarhaley

N. E.

Keller

P. S.

(2015). Perceptions of child sexual assault: The impact of an eyewitness. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 763-781. doi:10.1177/0093854814568552

13.

Goodman

G. S.

Golding

J. M.

Haith

M. M.

(1984). Jurors reactions to child witnesses. Journal of Social Issues, 40, 139-156.

14.

Goodman

G. S.

Golding

J. M.

Helgeson

V. S.

Haith

M. M.

Michelli

(1987). When a child takes the stand: Jurors’ perceptions of children’s eyewitness testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 27-40.

15.

Higgins

P. L.

Heath

W. P.

Grannemann

B. D.

(2007). How type of excuse defense, mock juror age, and defendant age affect mock jurors’ decisions. Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 371-392.

16.

Kean

R. B.

Dukes

R. L.

(1991). Effects of witness characteristics on the perception and reportage of child abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 15, 423-435.

17.

Keller

S. R.

Wiener

R. L.

(2011). What are we studying? Student jurors, community jurors, and construct validity. Behavioural Sciences & the Law, 29, 376-394. doi:10.1002/bsl.971

18.

Leippe

M. R.

Manion

A. P.

Romanczyk

(1992). Eyewitness persuasion: How and how well do fact finders judge the accuracy of adults’ and children’s memory reports? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 181-197.

19.

Leippe

M. R.

Romanczyk

(1989). Reactions to child (versus adult) eyewitnesses: The influence of jurors’ preconceptions and witness behaviour. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 103-132.

20.

Newcombe

P. A.

Bransgrove

(2007). Perceptions of witness credibility: Variation across age. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 318-331. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2007.04.003

21.

Nightingale

N. N.

(1993). Juror reactions to child victim witnesses: Factors affecting trial outcome. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 679-694.

22.

Nunez

Kehn

Wright

D. B.

(2011). When children are witnesses: The effects of context, age, and gender on adults’ perceptions of cognitive ability and honesty. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 460-468. doi:10.1002/acp.1713

23.

Pica

Pettalia

Pozzulo

(2016). The influence of a defendant’s chronological age, developmental age, and race on mock juror decision making. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 32, 66-76. doi:10.1007/s11896-016-9201-1

24.

Pozzulo

J. D.

Dempsey

J. L.

(2009). Witness factors and their influence on jurors’ perceptions and verdicts. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 923-934. doi:10.1177/0093854809338450

25.

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, 47-63. doi:10.1177/0093854809344173

26.

Pozzulo

J. D.

Lemieux

J. M. T.

Wells

McCuaig

H. J.

(2006). The influence of eyewitness identification decisions and age of witness on jurors’ verdicts and perceptions of reliability. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 12, 641-652. doi:10.1080/10683160500415539

27.

Rogers

Davies

(2007). Perceptions of victims and perpetrators in a depicted child sexual abuse case: Gender and age factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 566-584. doi:10.1177/0886260506298827

28.

Ross

D. F.

Dunning

Toglia

M. P.

Ceci

S. J.

(1990). The child in the eyes of the jury: Assessing mock jurors’ perceptions of the child witness. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 5-23.

29.

Ross

D. F.

Jurden

F. R.

Lindsay

R. C. L.

Keeny

J. M.

(2003). Replications and limitations of a two-factor model of child witness credibility. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 418-431.

30.

Schmidt

C. W.

Brigham

J. C.

(1996). Jurors’ perceptions of child victim-witnesses in a simulated sexual abuse trial. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 581-606.

31.

Semple

J. K.

Woody

W. D.

(2011). Juveniles tried as adults: The age of the juvenile matters. Psychological Reports, 109, 301-308. doi:10.2466/07.17.PR0.109.4.301-308

32.

Walker

C. M.

Woody

W. D.

(2011). Juror decision making for juveniles tried as adults: The effects of defendant age, crime type, and crime outcome. Psychology, Crime & Law, 17, 659-675. doi:10.1080/10683160903493471

33.

Warling

Peterson-Badali

(2003). The verdict on jury trials for juveniles: The effects of defendant’s age on trial outcomes. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21, 63-82. doi:10.1002/bsl.517

34.

World Health Organization. (2002). Child abuse and neglect. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/factsheets/en/childabusefacts.pdf

35.

Wright

D. B.

Hanoteau

Parkinson

Tatham

(2010). Perceptions about memory reliability and honesty for children of 3 to 18 years old. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 15, 195-207. doi:10.1348.135532508X400347