Russell Brenda L, Oswald Debra L, Kraus Shane W
Pennsylvania State University-Berks, Reading, PA 19610, USA.
Violence Vict. 2011;26(6):799-815. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.26.6.799.
This study examines the extent to which verdict, guilt, and legal components associated with jury instructions of sexual assault differ as a function of aggressor gender, participant gender, and sexual strategy used (consensual, verbal coercion, alcohol, or physical aggression) to obtain sex. Participants (N = 423; 276 women and 147 men) read a vignette depicting either a couple having consensual sex (control), or a male or female aggressor who initiates sexual intercourse via verbal coercion, use of alcohol, or physical abuse. College students were provided with legal instructions of sexual assault then asked to provide a verdict, degree of guilt, and legal components. Female participants rated guilt and coercion higher than did male participants. Ratings of guilt were highest in the physical assault condition followed by the alcohol, verbal, and control conditions. Female aggressors were rated less guilty than male aggressors. Results are explained in relation to sexual scripts and legal decision making. Lack of significance in verdict decisions and interaction effects suggests male and female aggressors are evaluated similarly using coercive strategies; yet, consent for sex was assumed and attributions of guilt was lower when the aggressor was female. Implications for jury instructions and future research are discussed.
本研究考察了与性侵犯陪审团指示相关的裁决、有罪程度和法律要素在多大程度上因侵犯者性别、参与者性别以及为获得性行为所采用的性策略（自愿、言语胁迫、酒精或身体侵犯）而有所不同。参与者（N = 423；276名女性和147名男性）阅读了一个短文，描述的要么是一对自愿发生性行为的情侣（对照组），要么是一名通过言语胁迫、使用酒精或身体虐待来发起性行为的男性或女性侵犯者。大学生在得到性侵犯的法律指示后，被要求给出裁决、有罪程度和法律要素。女性参与者对有罪和胁迫的评分高于男性参与者。在身体侵犯条件下，有罪评分最高，其次是酒精、言语和对照条件。女性侵犯者的有罪评分低于男性侵犯者。研究结果结合性脚本和法律决策进行了解释。裁决决定和交互效应缺乏显著性表明，使用胁迫策略时，对男性和女性侵犯者的评估相似；然而，当侵犯者为女性时，假定性行为是自愿的，有罪归因较低。文中讨论了对陪审团指示和未来研究的启示。
