Mock Jurors’ Perceptions of Sexual Assault on a University Campus

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine how defendant gender, victim gender, location of sexual assault (professor’s office vs. fraternity party), and whether the defendant was intoxicated influenced mock jurors’ decisions in a sexual assault case. Mock jurors (N = 503) read a mock trial transcript depicting an alleged sexual assault and were asked to render a dichotomous verdict, continuous guilt rating, and rate their perceptions of the victim and defendant. There was no influence on mock jurors’ dichotomous verdicts. However, the presence of intoxication did influence continuous guilt ratings; intoxicated defendants elicited higher guilt ratings compared to sober defendants. Whether the defendant was intoxicated and the location of the crime were found to impact mock jurors’ perceptions of the defendant (e.g., believability, credibility); whereas the gender of the defendant affected the perceived control the defendant had over the situation. Victim gender was found to impact mock jurors perceptions of the victim, such that female victims were perceived more favorably than male victims; this may support the idea that male victims of sexual assault are generally perceived more negatively than female victims. These results, and more, are discussed in terms of the current study and the larger implications.

Keywords

sexual assault alcohol and drugs male victims situational factors women offenders

Within the last few years, there have been many allegations against university professors where students are alleging sexual assault. Cantalupo and Kidder (2018) took a comprehensive approach to examine faculty sexual harassment cases and found that one in 10 female graduate students reported being sexually harassed by a faculty member. Females were not the only ones who reported sexual harassment; while females had a higher report rate, men also reported sexual harassment (Cantor et al., 2015). In addition, according to the Campus Sexual Assault Study, 19% of college women and roughly 6% of college men were victims of sexual assault while in college (Krebs, Lindquist, Warner, Fisher, & Martin, 2007).

The type of relationship shared between the victim and the perpetrator has been found to influence jurors’ judgments. For example, researchers have found that the victim is perceived more negatively when he/she knows his/her attacker (e.g., Frese, Moya, & Megias, 2004; Kingsnorth, MacIntosh, & Wentworth, 1999). The influence of victim alcohol intoxication has been shown to be detrimental to a victim’s perceived credibility (e.g., Horvath & Brown, 2006; Pica, Sheahan, & Pozzulo, 2020); however, the question remains as to whether the same is true for an intoxicated defendant and sober victim. Finally, there may be a combined influence of victim’s gender and defendant’s gender on jurors’ judgments such that perceptions vary when the defendant is a male and the victim is a female compared to when the defendant is a female and the victim is male; typically, male victims are viewed more negatively than female victims, perhaps due to commonly held rape myths (Burt, 1980). Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to examine mock jurors’ perceptions of a sexual assault case where defendant’s gender, victim’s gender, and the location of the assault were varied.

Victim–Perpetrator Relationship

Typically, research focuses on four different sexual assault scenarios: stranger, acquaintance, date, and marital. Researchers find that victims of acquaintance and date sexual assaults are perceived more negatively compared to when the assault is perpetuated by a stranger (e.g., Frese et al., 2004). A sexual assault perpetuated by a professor onto his or her student could be perceived as acquaintance rape; however, this type of assault presents its own idiosyncrasies. For example, the victim may not be blamed as much for the assault given that the perpetrator is in a position of power; instead, the defendant may be perceived more negatively due to the thought that he or she is abusing this power. However, previous research has found that more blame is attributed to the victim when the victim knows the assailant (Frese et al., 2004).

Hammock and Richardson (1997) examined the combined influence of relationship, intoxication, and juror’s gender. Participants read a scenario where a sexual assault occurred on a bike path outside of the victim’s house. Relationship shared between the victim and the defendant varied between stranger, moderately close, or very close. Results indicated that the victim was held more accountable for the assault when she shared a moderately close relationship compared to when the perpetrator was a stranger. When the perpetrator shared a close relationship with the victim, he was perceived as less responsible than the moderately close or stranger assault when the victim was sober; however, when the victim was described as being intoxicated, the close relationship elicited higher responsibility ratings for the defendant compared to when the victim was sober, thus suggesting that relationship and intoxication do have the potential to combine and influence jurors’ judgments in a sexual assault case.

Interestingly, prior relationship has been shown to also influence severity of sentencing decisions. Kingsnorth and colleagues (1999) examined 467 sexual assault cases to determine the influence of prior relationship and negative victim characteristics on case outcomes. After controlling for relevant legal factors and selection bias, Kingsnorth and colleagues found that when the perpetrator and victim shared a prior relationship, the sentence was reduced by roughly 35 months compared to when there was no prior relationship. While there was no influence on trial outcomes, the results of this study do suggest that jurors take into account the relationship shared between a perpetrator and sexual assault victim.

Defendant and Victim Characteristics

Gender

Victim’s gender has been shown to be highly influential in jurors’ decision making, especially in cases involving assault. According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (2018), one of out every six women and one in 10 men have been a victim of rape. Early research concerning victim’s gender in assault cases has typically found that female victims are perceived to have been forced to engage in sexual acts compared to their male counterparts (Smith, Pine, & Hawley, 1988). In addition, male victims are perceived as more blameworthy and responsible for the assault (e.g., Davies, Rogers, & Whitelegg, 2009; Gerber, Cronin, & Steigman, 2004). Sommer, Reynolds, and Kehn (2016) also found that the victim was blamed more when he was a male and the perpetrator was female compared to the most common scenario in which the victim is a female and the perpetrator is a male. These results are unsettling, as the victim of a sexual assault should never be blamed, regardless of gender. Gender stereotypes may shed a light on why male victims are perceived less than favorably compared to female victims. Males are typically seen as assertive, aggressive, and able to defend themselves (e.g., Wiest & Duffy, 2013), as such, when they are a victim of an assault, jurors may believe that a male victim could overpower the perpetrator, especially when the perpetrator is female. Moreover, Davies et al. (2009) found that males are judged more harshly when the sexual assault is perpetuated by a stranger.

However, it must be noted that some studies have found no effect of victim gender on jurors’ guilt judgments. Although gender is influential, it is possible that gender may become less salient/important for decision making when other factors are considered (e.g., Pica et al., 2020). Even more so, the gender of the perpetrator also may combine with victim gender to influence jurors’ judgments.

Defendant Gender

Hannon, Hall, Nash, Formati, and Hopson (2000) examined the influence of victim and perpetrator gender on perceptions of a sexual aggression incident while the two were on a date. Interestingly, participants believed that the aggression constituted rape in all scenarios except for when the perpetrator was female and the victim was male. This may be due to the long-held stereotypes concerning men’s and women’s perceived differences in sexual drive. Specifically, potential jurors may be less likely to believe that a male can be a rape victim when the perpetrator is a female, especially given that men are typically stereotyped to be more sexually driven when compared to females (e.g., Hosoda & Stone, 2000; Smith, 2012); therefore, any sexual encounter where the male is labeled as a victim may not be perceived as seriously as it is perceived when the victim is female.

Russell and Oswald (2006) also examined how a perpetrator’s gender interacted with a victim’s gender to influence perceptions. Similar to Hannon and colleagues (2000), when the perpetrator was male, he was perceived more negatively than when the perpetrator was female. More specifically, the male perpetrator was seen as sexually aggressive whereas the female perpetrator was seen as promiscuous. Russell, Oswald, and Kraus (2011) furthered this research by including the sexual strategy used by the perpetrator (e.g., consensual, verbal coercion, physical aggression, or alcohol). In line with previous research, female perpetrators were rated as less guilty of the assault than males. Furthermore, mock jurors perceived consent differently, such that they were more likely to assume that consent was given to a female perpetrator compared to when the perpetrator was male. When examining sexual strategy, Russell and colleagues found that the physical aggression and alcohol conditions resulted in the highest guilt ratings for the defendant. In addition, the belief that consent was obtained was lowest in the alcohol and physical aggression cases. Given that alcohol is present is many sexual assault cases, the current study wanted to further the research on the influence of a defendant’s intoxication.

Alcohol Intoxication

Testa and Parks (1996) reported that roughly one-third to three fourths of sexual assault cases include an intoxicated victim. Moreover, early research examining the influence of alcohol intoxication found that male perpetrators are typically found less blameworthy when they are intoxicated compared to sober perpetrators (Richardson & Campbell, 1982). In addition, research usually finds a double-standard for male and female perpetrators such that intoxicated male perpetrators are less blameworthy and intoxicated female victims are more blameworthy than male victims (e.g., Norris & Cubbins, 1992; Schuller & Stewart, 2000).

Schuller and Wall (1998) also examined the influence of defendant and complainant intoxication on mock jurors’ judgments. The defendant and complainant reported drinking alcohol or cola prior to the sexual intercourse. Alcohol consumption was found to affect perceptions of the defendant negatively such that when he was portrayed as drinking alcohol as opposed to cola, he received significantly more guilty verdicts. However, the combination of what the defendant and complainant were drinking combined to influence jurors’ judgments. As mentioned above, the defendant was more likely to be found guilty when alcohol was consumed as opposed to cola; these results also were true when the complainant also was drinking alcohol. Interestingly, Schuller and Wall (1998) found that when the victim was reportedly drinking cola, what the defendant had been drinking had little impact on guilt decisions. When examining defendant’s credibility, the consumption of alcohol greatly reduced his perceived credibility compared to when he consumed cola. The same held true for the complainant such that when she consumed alcohol, she also was perceived as having less credibility compared to when she drank cola. While the current study did not vary the victim’s alcohol consumption, the results of this early study do show that the defendant’s and victim’s alcohol consumption do have the potential to influence jurors’ judgments.

Lynch, Wasarhaley, Golding, and Simcic (2013) examined the effects of victim intoxication and who bought the drinks in a rape trial. Supporting previous research, there were fewer guilty verdicts for the defendant when the victim was intoxicated; however, when the defendant was the one who bought the drinks, he was found guilty more often compared to when he did not buy the drinks. In addition, the victim was perceived as less credible, and the defendant as more credible, when the victim was intoxicated. Moreover, when the defendant bought the drinks for the victim, he was seen as less credible, and the victim more credible, compared to when the victim bought her own drinks; however, it is important to note that this is typically found when the defendant is male and the victim is female. The results of this study suggest that when the defendant is involved in the victim’s intoxication, he is perceived negatively compared to when he is not involved. While these studies do not examine the influence of a defendant’s intoxication, they do support the idea that intoxication does influence decisions. Moreover, just the fact that the defendant bought the victim her drinks was enough to influence decisions, as such, it is reasonable to speculate that when a defendant is intoxicated he or she will be perceived less credible and more negatively compared to when he or she is sober.

Rape Myth Acceptance

Burt (1980) defined rape myths as false beliefs about rape, rape victims, and rapists; these false beliefs then create a negative persona of rape victims. Common attitudes of people who endorse these rape myths are victim blaming and justifying the sexual assault (Frese et al., 2004). Unfortunately, these rape myths can influence how jurors perceive both the victim and the defendant (Gray, 2006). For example, jurors who perceive a male victim as less of a victim than a female victim may hold the rape myth that males cannot be sexually assaulted (e.g., Groth & Burgess, 1980). Another commonly held rape myth is that women who wear provocative clothing that shows their skin are asking to be raped (Burt, 1980). Given the research that has found these rape myths do, in fact, influence jurors’ decisions (e.g., Hammond, Berry, & Rodriguez, 2011; Newcombe, Van Den Eynde, Hafner, & Jolly, 2008), the current study sought to examine whether there was any relationship between the victim’s gender, defendant’s gender, and the defendant’s occupation and mock jurors’ personally held rape myths.

The Current Study

The purpose of the present study was to examine how the gender of the defendant, the gender of the victim, where the assault took place, and whether the defendant was intoxicated, influenced mock jurors’ decisions. Given the public outrage in response to the accusations of sexual misconduct from a university professor against a student, the defendant in the current study was a professor. We predicted that when the defendant was male, and the victim was female, the victim would be perceived as more blameworthy than when the victim was male. We also predicted higher guilt ratings and negative perceptions of the defendant when he or she was intoxicated compared to sober. One variable that has not received much attention is the location in which the assault took place and its influence on jurors’ judgments. While location has been found to be related to perceived safety (e.g., Culbertson, Vik, & Kooiman, 2001), it also is important to determine whether this also affects perceptions of victims and defendants. In the current study, location was portrayed as either the defendant’s office during office hours or at a fraternity party. Given that the fraternity party is a location where many people relate to “partying” and alcohol consumption, we had an exploratory hypothesis that the defendant would be perceived more negatively when the sexual assault occurred in the office.

Method

Participants

Undergraduate students (N = 503; 73% female) were recruited from a psychology participant pool from a university in Eastern Ontario, Canada. All participants were juror-eligible in Canada (i.e., a Canadian citizen and 18 years old or older). Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 50 years (M = 20.00, SD = 4.15). The majority of participants identified as White/Caucasian (70.8%) with smaller numbers of Black/African-Canadian (7.4%), Asian (14.2%), Latino/a (1.0%), Aboriginal-Canadian (1.0%), and mixed and/or other (4.8%). Participants received course credit for their participation.

Design

A 2 (defendant’s gender: male vs. female) × 2 (victim’s gender: male vs. female) × 2 (location: office vs. party) × 2 (defendant intoxicated: yes vs. no) between-subjects factorial design was used.

Materials

Trial transcript

Totally, 16 versions of a 7-page mock trial transcript were created that varied the gender of the defendant and victim, where the alleged sexual assault took place, and whether the defendant was intoxicated. All other details of the trial transcript were held constant. Each transcript begins with instructions from the judge, followed by excerpts from the trial. Six witnesses provided testimony (i.e., a police officer, the medical examiner, the victim, the defendant’s boss, the defendant, and one of the defendant’s colleagues). The victim claims that he or she could not attend the office hours provided by the professor, so the victim requested to schedule evening hours that took place at either the professor’s office or a fraternity party. The victim then claims that the defendant made unwanted sexual advances. The transcript ends with closing statements from the prosecution and defense counsel and some guidelines and instructions to the jury members.

Juror questionnaire

Participants were asked to rate the degree to which they felt that the defendant was guilty on a 100-point scale (0 = not guilty, 100 = guilty). Participants also were asked to place a check mark in one of two appropriate boxes to render a dichotomous verdict (not guilty or guilty). Participants then were asked to rate their perceptions of the victim and defendant in regard to the truthfulness, accuracy, credibility, and reliability of their testimony on 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much so) Likert-type-scales. Participants also were asked how much weight the victim and defendant’s testimony should be given, level of responsibility and control, how much abuse of authority was present (defendant), and how much sympathy was felt (victim).

Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale

Participants also were asked to complete the International Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (IRMA; Payne, Lonsway, & Fitzgerald, 1999) to measure their levels of endorsement for specific statements related to rape (e.g., “If a woman is raped while she is drunk, she is at least somewhat responsible for letting things get out of control.”).

Procedure

Data were collected with the online survey tool Qualtrics. Upon clicking the study URL, participants were asked to read an informed consent form. Those who agreed were randomly presented with one of the 16 trial transcripts and then answered the related questionnaires. Once they completed the questionnaires they were prompted to read the debriefing form and thanked for their time.

Results

Dichotomous Verdict

A sequential logistic regression was conducted to examine whether a defendant’s gender, victim’s gender, location, and presence of alcohol influenced mock jurors’ dichotomous verdicts (i.e., guilty vs. not guilty). Model 1 included only the main effects, Model 2 included the main effects and two-way interactions, Model 3 included the main effects, two-way interactions, and three-way interactions, Model 4 included the main effects, two-way and three-way interactions, and the four-way interaction. The first model was not significant, χ²(4) = 5.90, p = .21. Given that the first model was not significant, the remaining models could not have improved the overall model fit; therefore, we concluded that a defendant’s gender, victim’s gender, location, and the presence of alcohol did not influence mock jurors’ dichotomous verdicts.

Continuous Guilt

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to examine whether defendant’s gender, victim’s gender, location, and presence of alcohol influenced mock jurors’ continuous guilt ratings. There was a significant effect of the presence of alcohol, F(1, 483) = 5.26, p = .02, partial η² = .01. When the defendant was intoxicated, mock jurors were more likely to assign higher guilt ratings (M = 65.60, SD = 23.45) compared to when the defendant was not intoxicated (M = 59.82, SD = 26.85). There were no other significant effects.

Perceptions of the Defendant

Questions concerning the defendant’s perceived truthfulness, accuracy, credibility, and reliability, as well as how much weight his testimony should be given were significantly correlated (p < .01), as such, a composite scale was created (α = .92). An ANOVA was then conducted to examine whether defendant’s gender, victim’s gender, location, and presence of alcohol influenced mock jurors’ perceptions of the defendant. Only a significant interaction between whether the defendant was intoxicated and where the assault took place emerged, F(1, 481) = 7.81, p = .005, partial η² = .02. Follow-up analyses revealed that when the defendant was sober, and the assault took place in the defendant’s office, the defendant was perceived more favorably (M = 3.35, SD = 1.13) compared to when the defendant was sober and the assault happened at a fraternity party (M = 2.97, SD = 1.07), t(254) = 2.73, p = .007. There were no other significant effects.

Participants also were asked how much control the defendant had over the situation and whether he or she was the only one to blame for the assault. These questions were significantly correlated (r = .50, p < .01), therefore, a MANOVA was conducted with these two questions as the dependent variables. Using Wilks’ λ, there was a significant multivariate effect of intoxication, λ = .99, F(2, 485) = 3.36, p = .04, partial η² = .01. However, upon inspection of the univariate effects, neither of the dependent variables was influenced by defendant’s gender, victim’s gender, location, or presence of alcohol. There also was a significant interaction between defendant’s gender and victim’s gender, λ = .99, F(2, 485) = 3.38, p = .04, partial η² = .01. Upon examination of the univariate effects, the interaction was significant for how much perceived control the defendant had over the situation, F(1, 486) = 6.27, p = .01, partial η² = .01. Follow-up analyses revealed that when the defendant was female and the victim was male, the defendant was perceived to be in more control of the situation (M = 4.91, SD = 1.06) compared to when the defendant and victim were both female (M = 4.63, SD = 1.20), t(252) = 1.95, p = .05. There were no significant differences observed for male defendants.

There also was a significant multivariate interaction between the location where the assault the place and whether the defendant was intoxicated, λ = .98, F(2, 485) = 3.95, p = .02, partial η² = .02. Upon examination of the univariate effects, the interaction was significant for both defendant blame, F(1, 486) = 6.72, p = .01, partial η² = .01, as well as defendant control, F(1, 486) = 5.04, p = .03, partial η² = .01. Follow-up analyses revealed that when the defendant was intoxicated and the assault took place in his or office, he or she was perceived as the only one to blame (M = 3.94, SD = 1.59) compared to when he or she was not intoxicated (M = 3.27, SD = 1.77), t(264) = 3.24, p = .001. There were no significant differences observed for defendant control when the assault took place in the defendant’s office. When the assault took place at the fraternity party, and the defendant was not intoxicated, he or she was perceived as having more control over the situation (M = 4.87, SD = 1.09) compared to when he or she was intoxicated (M = 4.57, SD = 1.09), t(235) = −1.96, p = .05. There were no significant differences observed for defendant blame. The remaining multivariate effects were not significant.

Perceptions of the Victim

Questions concerning the victim’s perceived truthfulness, accuracy, credibility, and reliability, how much weight his or her testimony should be given, responsibility, control, and sympathy for the victim were significantly correlated (p < .01), as such, a composite scale was created (α = .91). An ANOVA was then conducted to examine whether defendant’s gender, victim’s gender, location, and presence of alcohol influenced mock jurors’ perceptions of the defendant. Only a main effect of victim gender emerged, mock jurors were more likely to perceive the victim more favorably when the victim was portrayed as a female compared to when the victim was a male, F(1, 477) = 5.39, p = .02, partial η² = .01. The remaining effects were not significant.

Rape Myth Acceptance Scale

The IRMA consists of 45 questions examining mock jurors’ endorsement of rape myths. Among these 45 questions are seven subscales (Payne et al., 1999). Overall reliability was .92. The first subscale is “She asked for it” (α = .83) and includes statements such as “A woman who teases men deserves anything that might happen.” The second subscale is, “It wasn’t really rape” (α = .77) and includes statements such as, “A rape probably didn’t happen if the woman has no bruises or marks.” The third subscale is, “He didn’t mean to” (α = .78) and includes statements such as, “When men rape, it is because of their strong desire for sex.” The fourth subscale is “She wanted it” (α = .83) and includes statements such as, “Although most women wouldn’t admit it, they generally find being physically forced into sex a real “turn-on.” The fifth subscale is “She lied” (α = .77) and includes statements such as, “Women who are caught having an illicit affair sometimes claim it was rape.” The sixth subscale is, “Rape is trivial” (α = .70) and includes statements such as, “If a woman is willing to ‘make out’ with a guy, then it’s no big deal if he goes a little further and has sex.” The last subscale is, “Rape is deviant” (α = .81) and includes statements such as, “Rape mainly occurs on the “bad” side of town. Higher scores indicate more agreement with the statements (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics).

Table 1.

Mock Jurors’ Range of Scores, Mean, and Standard Deviation on the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale.

	Range	M	SD
She asked for it	1-5.13	1.66	0.80
It wasn’t really rape	1-4.80	1.34	0.61
He didn’t mean to	1-5.80	2.71	1.19
She wanted it	1-5.00	1.95	0.97
She lied	1-5.60	2.54	0.98
Rape is trivial	1-4.80	1.42	0.65
Rape is deviant	1-4.57	1.59	0.71

We were interested in whether mock jurors’ scores on the different subscales predicted dichotomous guilt and continuous guilt ratings. The following subscales predicted both dichotomous guilt and continuous guilt rating: It wasn’t rape, She wanted it, She lied, Rape is trivial, and Rape is deviant (see Tables 2 and 3). Mock jurors who held higher endorsement of rape myths per these scales were more likely to vote not guilty and assign lower guilt ratings. In addition, we examined whether mock jurors’ scores predicted perceptions of the victim and defendant. Each subscale predicted whether mock jurors would perceive the victim and defendant positively or negatively (see Table 4). The more the mock jurors endorsed rape myths, the more negatively they viewed the victim; additionally, the more mock jurors endorsed rape myths, the more positively the defendant was viewed.

Table 2.

Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale Predictor Variables for Dichotomous Guilt.

	B	SE	Wald	df	p	Exp(B)	95% CI for Exp(B)
	B	SE	Wald	df	p	Exp(B)	Lower	Upper
Dichotmous guilt
She asked for it	0.62	0.12	24.93	1	<.001	1.86	1.46	2.37
It wasn’t rape	0.46	0.16	8.69	1	.003	1.59	1.17	2.16
She wanted it	0.39	0.10	16.16	1	<.001	1.48	1.22	1.79
She lied	0.55	0.10	30.03	1	<.001	1.74	1.43	2.12
Rape is trivial	0.74	0.16	22.28	1	<.001	2.10	1.54	2.85
Rape is deviant	0.48	0.13	13.56	1	<.001	1.62	1.25	2.09

Note. CI = confidence interval.

Table 3.

Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale Predictor Variables for Continuous Guilt.

	B	SE	B	t	p	95% CI for Exp(B)
	B	SE	B	t	p	Lower	Upper
Continuous guilt
She asked for it	−6.72	2.59	−0.21	−4.79	<.001	68.72	78.90
It wasn’t rape	−5.51	1.89	−0.13	−2.92	.004	−9.22	−1.81
She wanted it	−3.28	1.19	−0.12	−2.75	.006	−5.63	−0.94
She lied	−5.60	1.14	−0.22	−4.90	<.001	−7.84	−3.35
Rape is trivial	−7.95	1.73	−0.20	−4.59	<.001	−11.35	−4.55
Rape is deviant	−6.26	1.57	−0.18	−3.99	<.001	−9.34	−3.18

Note. CI = confidence interval.

Table 4.

Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale Predictor Variables for Victim and Defendant Perceptions.

	B	SE	B	t	p	95% CI for Exp(B)
	B	SE	B	t	p	Lower	Upper
Victim
She asked for it	−0.41	0.06	−0.32	−7.29	< .001	−0.51	−0.30
It wasn’t rape	−0.40	0.08	−0.20	−4.58	< .001	−0.50	−0.20
He didn’t mean to	−0.17	0.04	−0.20	−4.43	< .001	−0.25	−0.10
She wanted it	−0.26	0.05	−0.24	−5.46	< .001	−0.35	−0.17
She lied	−0.40	0.05	−0.37	−8.86	< .001	−0.49	−0.31
Rape is trivial	−0.43	0.07	−0.27	−6.12	< .001	−0.57	−0.29
Rape is deviant	−0.40	0.06	−0.28	−6.40	< .001	−0.53	−0.28
Defendant
She asked for it	0.33	0.06	0.26	5.80	< .001	0.22	0.44
It wasn’t rape	0.32	0.08	0.19	4.27	< .001	0.18	0.47
He didn’t mean to	0.14	0.04	0.17	3.68	< .001	0.07	0.22
She wanted it	0.28	0.05	0.26	6.00	< .001	0.19	0.37
She lied	0.34	0.05	0.32	7.48	< .001	0.25	0.43
Rape is trivial	0.35	0.07	0.22	5.04	< .001	0.22	0.49
Rape is deviant	0.30	0.06	0.21	4.67	< .001	0.17	0.43

Note. CI = confidence interval.

Discussion

With the increasing rate of allegations against faculty members (e.g., Cantalupo & Kidder, 2018), it is important to understand how jurors are influenced by a defendant’s gender and victim’s gender, especially if these cases make it to trial. When people think of sexual assault, they may think of a female victim and male perpetrator as this is the most commonly reported combination of perpetrator–victim in assault allegations. However, this thinking also perpetuates commonly held rape myths such that males cannot be victims of sexual assault (Groth & Burgess, 1980). To understand how we can circumvent these biases, we first need to know how they influence jurors. Therefore, we examined how a defendant’s and victim’s gender, defendant’s intoxication, and location of the assault influenced jurors’ perceptions.

Victim and Defendant Gender

The gender of the victim and the defendant typically interact with each other to influence jurors’ judgments. The same was true for the current study. Interestingly, when the perpetrator was female, and the victim was male, the perpetrator was seen as being in more control of the situation compared to when both the defendant and victim were female. This may be due to the fact that men are typically perceived as being driven by their sexual impulses (Leiblum, 2002) whereas women are perceived to be better able to control them. This may be due to the commonly held belief that men are sexual in nature and typically enjoy sexual encounters (Smith, 2012). Because of this, mock jurors may have perceived the female perpetrator to be in control of the situation, as well as their sexual impulses, because they believed the male victim was enjoying it and she had the power to stop it. Previous research has found that male victims of female perpetrators are perceived as having less stress and more enjoyment (Smith et al., 1988). Another possible explanation may be the defense attribution hypothesis. This hypothesis (Shaver, 1970) posits that the level of victim blame is dependent on how similar an outsider, in this case, a juror, feels to the victim. Researchers examining the defensive attribution hypothesis have found support such that female psychology students assigned less blame to a victim to when they were similar to the victim (i.e., female students of similar age; Fulero & Delara, 1976) and male observers blamed the female victim more than female observers did, due to their lack of similarity shared (Davies et al., 2009). Female perpetrators with female victims are not typically thought of when thinking about sexual assault; despite the fact that research shows female on female sexual violence does occur (e.g., Stemple, Flores, & Meyer, 2017); therefore, this may account for why this combination of defendant–victim (female) gender had no influence. Moreover, mock jurors may have believed that women are more nurturing in nature, and perhaps the student misconstrued the advancement as sexual in nature when it was not (i.e., the professor wasn’t really making sexual advances).

Similar to previous research (e.g., Sommer et al., 2016), when the victim was female she was perceived more favorably compared to when the victim was male. Again, this may be due to the commonly held misconception that males cannot be rape victims (Burt, 1980), and that female perpetrated rape is uncommon (Stemple et al., 2017). Both rape myths and gender stereotypes may be an underlying mechanism as to why participants perceived the female victim more positively. For example, men are often perceived as being more sexual when compared to females, perpetuating a stereotype that men enjoy all sexual interaction—even if it is unwanted, (e.g., male victims would be less likely to be upset by unwanted sexual contact; Smith, 2012; Stemple & Meyer, 2014). Furthermore, sexual assault claims in which the perpetrator is female and the victim is male is largely ignored, minimized, or underreported (Stemple et al., 2017).

Presence of Alcohol

As predicted, when the defendant was intoxicated, he or she received higher guilt ratings compared to when he or she was sober. Interestingly, when the defendant was sober and the assault happened at the fraternity party, the defendant was perceived more negatively compared to when the assault took place in the defendant’s office. These results suggest that the context in which the assault took place may have an impact on jurors’ judgments. For example, typically professors do not go to fraternity parties, and the professor being willing to meet a student at a fraternity party may have been viewed as predatory, preplanned behavior. A common stereotype of fraternity parties is that everyone is drinking alcohol (e.g., Bosari, Murphy, & Barnett, 2007). This may be an explanation as to why mock jurors also perceived the defendant to be more in control of this situation when at the fraternity party. When the assault took place in the defendant’s office, and the defendant was intoxicated, he or she was viewed more blameworthy than when the defendant was sober.

A professor’s office may be considered as a safe place where students can go and discuss their course related work in private. This may be why the defendant was viewed more blameworthy when he or she was intoxicated and the assault took place in the office. In this case, the defendant was breaking two “rules” of conduct: not only being intoxicated at the workplace, but also taking advantage of a student when in a place of assumed power. Given that the defendant was an authority figure, mock jurors may have believed that the defendant violated the victim’s rights, not only as a victim but also as a student in general. The sample used in the current study was a student population; they may have been able to relate more to the victim in this specific instance. The defensive attribution hypothesis also may explain these results. Given that location did not influence how the victim was perceived, it can be speculated that jurors felt that the victim was only doing his or her duties as a student, going to the professor’s office hours to discuss what was taught in the classroom, much like students in the current sample do.

Conclusion

The current study found that rape myths greatly influenced jurors’ decisions. These pervasive rape myths promote a society that encourages victim blaming and justification of the rape instead of focusing on the actual perpetrator. Six out of the seven subscales were found to predict both dichotomous guilt and continuous guilt ratings such that those who endorsed rape myths are likely to vote guilty and assign higher guilt ratings to a defendant, overall. These results are in support of Dinos, Burrowes, Hammond, and Cunliffe’s (2015) meta-analysis, which found that those with higher endorsement of rape myths were less likely to convict. These rape myths also influenced how the defendant and victim were perceived and followed trends from previous research (e.g., Mason, Riger, & Foley, 2004; Sleath & Bull, 2010). Specifically, when rape myths were endorsed, the victim was blamed more and the defendant was blamed less. The continuing support for the influence of rape myths suggests that we should be cautious of jurors that endorse these rape myths as they may be less likely to be unbiased when rendering a verdict. In addition, the results of the current study suggest that jurors may pay little attention to female perpetrated assault although research does suggest both men and women are victimized by females (Stemple et al., 2017). Long-held stereotypes concerning male and female sexuality still appear to be present in the courtroom and influence jurors’ judgments. More research and education is needed to ensure that mock jurors take female perpetrated crimes more seriously and to help combat these stereotypes, especially in the courtroom.

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.

Author Biographies

Emily Pica, PhD, is an assistant professor at Austin Peay State University. Her research focuses on ways to improve eyewitness identification accuracy and ways in which extralegal factors influence mock jurors’ decision making. In addition, she focuses on causes and perceptions of wrongful convictions.

Chelsea L. Sheahan, PhD, received her PhD from Carleton University in Ontario, Canada. Her researach focuses on factors that may influence eyewitness identification accuracy.

Joanna 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

Bosari

Murphy

Barnett

(2007). Predictors of alcohol use during the first year of college: Implications for prevention. Addictive Behaviors, 32, 2062-2086.

Burt

M. R.

(1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230.

Cantalupo

N. C.

Kidder

W. C.

(2018). A systematic look at a serial problem: Sexual harassment of students by university faculty. Utah Law Review, 2018, 671-786. Retrieved from https://atixa.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/A-Systematic-Look-at-a-Serial-Problem-Sexual-Harassment-of-Students-by-University-Faculty-Utah-Law-Review-Spring-2018.pdf

Cantor

Fisher

Chibnall

Bruce

Townsend

Thomas

Lee

(2015). Report on the AAU Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct. Washington, DC: Association of American Universities. Retrieved from: https://ias.virginia.edu/sites/ias.virginia.edu/files/University%20of%20Virginia_2015_climate_final_report.pdf

Culbertson

Vik

Kooiman

(2001). The impact of sexual assault, sexual assault perpetrator type, and location of sexual assault on ratings of perceived safety. Violence Against Women, 7, 858-875.

Davies

Rogers

Whitelegg

(2009). Effects of victim gender, victim sexual orientation, victim response and respondent gender on judgements of blame in a hypothetical adolescent rape. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, 331-338. doi:10.1348/978185408X386030

Dinos

Burrowes

Hammond

Cunliffe

(2015). A systematic review of juries’ assessment of rape victims: Do rape myths impact on juror decision-making? International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 43, 36-49. doi:10.1016/j.ijlcj.2014.07.001

Frese

Moya

Megias

(2004). Social perception of rape: How rape myth acceptance modulates the influence of situational factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 143-161. doi:10.1177/0886260503260245

Fulero

Delara

(1976). Rape victims and attributed responsibility: A defensive attribution approach. Victimology, 1, 551-563.

10.

Gerber

Cronin

Steigman

(2004). Attributions of blame in sexual assault to perpetrators and victims of both genders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2149-2165.

11.

Gray

J. M.

(2006). Rape myth beliefs and prejudiced instructions: Effects on decisions of guilt in a case of date rape. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11, 75-80.

12.

Groth

A. N.

Burgess

A. W.

(1980). Male rape: Offenders and victims. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 137, 806-810. doi:10.1176/ajp.137.7.806

13.

Hammock

Richardson

(1997). Perceptions of rape: The influence of closeness of relationship, intoxication, and sex of participant. Violence and Victims, 12, 237-246.

14.

Hammond

Berry

Rodriguez

(2011). The influence of rape myth acceptance, sexual attitudes, and belief in a just world on attributions of responsibility in a date rape scenario. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 16, 242-252. doi:10.1348/135532510X499887

15.

Hannon

Hall

Nash

Formati

Hopson

(2000). Judgments regarding sexual aggression as a function of sex of aggressor and victim. Sex Roles, 43, 311-322.

16.

Horvath

Brown

(2006). The role of drugs in alcohol and rape. Medicine, Science, and the Law, 46, 219-228.

17.

Hosoda

Stone

(2000). Current gender stereotypes and their evaluative content. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90, 1283-1294.

18.

Kingsnorth

MacIntosh

Wentworth

(1999). Sexual assault: The role of prior relationship and victim characteristics on case processing. Justice Quarterly, 16, 275-302. doi:10.1080/07418829900094141

19.

Krebs

Lindquist

C. H.

Warner

T. D.

Fisher

B. S.

Martin

(2007). The Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) study (2004-WG-BX-0010). National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf

20.

Leiblum

(2002). Reconsidering gender differences in sexual desire: An update. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 17, 57-68.

21.

Lynch

Wasarhaley

Golding

Simcic

(2013). Who bought the drinks? Juror perceptions of intoxication in a rape trial. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 3205-3222.

22.

Mason

Riger

Foley

(2004). The impact of past sexual experiences on attributions of responsibility for rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1157-1171.

23.

Newcombe

Van Den Eynde

Hafner

Jolly

(2008). Attributions of responsibility for rape: Differences across familiarity of situation, gender, and acceptance of rape myths. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1736-1754.

24.

Norris

Cubbins

(1992). Dating, drinking, and rape: Effects of victim’s and assailant’s alcohol consumption on judgments of their behavior and traits. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 16, 179-191.

25.

Payne

D. L.

Lonsway

K. A.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 27-68. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1998.2238

26.

Pica

Sheahan

Pozzulo

(2020). “But he’s a star football player!”: How social status influences mock-jurors perceptions in a sexual assault case. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(19-20), 3963-3985.

27.

Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network. (2018). Victims of sexual violence: Statistics. Retrieved from https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence

28.

Richardson

Campbell

(1982). Alcohol and rape: The effect of alcohol on attributions of blame for rape. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 468-476.

29.

Russell

Oswald

(2006). Perceptions of sexual coercion in heterosexual dating relationships: The role of aggressor gender and tactics. The Journal of Sex Research, 43, 87-95.

30.

Russell

Oswald

Kraus

(2011). Evaluations of sexual assault: Perceptions of guilt and legal elements for male and female aggressors using various coercive strategies. Violence and Victims, 26, 799-815.

31.

Schuller

Stewart

(2000). Police responses to sexual assault complaints: The role of perpetrator/complainant intoxication. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 535-551. doi:10.1023/A:1005519028528

32.

Schuller

Wall

(1998). The effects of defendant and complainant intoxication on mock jurors’ judgments of sexual assault. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 555-573.

33.

Shaver

K. G.

(1970). Defensive attribution: Effects of severity and relevance on the responsibility assigned for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 101-113.

34.

Sleath

Bull

(2010). Male rape victim and perpetrator blaming. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 969-988.

35.

Smith

B. V.

(2012). Uncomfortable places, close spaces: Female correctional workers’ sexual interactions with men and boys in custody. UCLA Law Review, 59, 1690-1745.

36.

Smith

Pine

Hawley

(1988). Social cognitions about adult male victims of female sexual assault. The Journal of Sex Research, 24, 101-112. doi:10.1080/00224498809551401

37.

Sommer

Reynolds

Kehn

(2016). Mock juror perceptions of rape victims: Impact of case characteristics and individual differences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 2847-2866. doi:10.1177/0886260515581907

38.

Stemple

Flores

Meyer

I. H.

(2017). Sexual victimization perpetrated by women: Federal data revealed surprising evidence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 302-311.

39.

Stemple

Meyer

I. H.

(2014). The sexual victimization of men in America: New data challenge old assumptions. American Journal of Public Health, 104, e19-e26.

40.

Testa

Parks

(1996). The role of women’s alcohol consumption in sexual victimization. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1, 217-234.

41.

Wiest

J. B.

Duffy

(2013). The impact of gender roles on verdicts and sentences in cases of filicide. Criminal Justice Studies, 3, 347-365.