Starosta Cassandra, Maeder Evelyn, Leth-Steenson Craig
Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Department of Law and Legal Studies, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
J Interpers Violence. 2025 Feb;40(3-4):696-725. doi: 10.1177/08862605241253025. Epub 2024 Jun 19.
We sought to test the effects of sexual assault form and complainant/defendant gender on jurors' perceptions of the prototypicality of a sexual assault case, complainant, and defendant. We examined whether these perceived prototypicality measures predict mock jurors' complainant/defendant blame and credibility assessments and if these assessments predict verdict decisions in a simulated sexual assault trial. We predicted that the female complainant-male defendant condition, vaginal intercourse condition, and their combination would be perceived as more prototypical than their counterparts, which would predict blame/credibility assessments, ultimately predicting verdict. Mock jurors ( = 437) recruited via Prolific Academic read a trial transcript involving an alleged sexual assault (oral or vaginal sex forced onto the complainant) with a female complainant-male defendant or a male complainant-female defendant. They provided a verdict and assessed the perceived prototypicality of the case/complainant/defendant, provided blame/credibility assessments for the complainant/defendant, and responded to rape myth questionnaires. Sexual assault form did not significantly affect any of our outcomes. Mock jurors perceived the male complainant-female defendant condition as less prototypical of a sexual assault case/complainant/defendant than the female complainant-male defendant condition, resulting in negative evaluations of the complainant, favorable evaluations of the defendant, and lowered probability of conviction. Simultaneously, for fixed levels of prototypicality, the female complainant received more negative evaluations, and the male defendant received more favorable evaluations, which lowered the probability of conviction; mock jurors' rape myth acceptance moderated this effect. Rape myths were predictive of decision-making in cases involving a female complainant, and male rape myths were predictive in cases involving a male complainant. Results demonstrate that prototypicality is a mechanism behind mock jurors' decisions in sexual assault trials and elucidate the distinctive role of prototypes and rape myths on juror decision-making, with practical implications for the field of psychology and the criminal legal system.
我们试图测试性侵犯形式以及原告/被告性别对陪审员对性侵犯案件、原告和被告原型的认知的影响。我们研究了这些感知到的原型性指标是否能预测模拟陪审员对原告/被告的指责和可信度评估，以及这些评估是否能预测模拟性侵犯审判中的裁决决定。我们预测，女性原告-男性被告的情况、阴道性交的情况以及它们的组合会比其他情况被认为更具原型性，这将预测指责/可信度评估，最终预测裁决。通过Prolific Academic招募的模拟陪审员（n = 437）阅读了一份审判记录，其中涉及一起指控的性侵犯（强迫原告进行口交或阴道性交），原告为女性-被告为男性或原告为男性-被告为女性。他们给出了裁决，并评估了案件/原告/被告的感知原型性，对原告/被告进行了指责/可信度评估，并回答了强奸谬见问卷。性侵犯形式对我们的任何结果都没有显著影响。模拟陪审员认为男性原告-女性被告的情况在性侵犯案件/原告/被告方面比女性原告-男性被告的情况更不具有原型性，导致对原告的负面评价、对被告的正面评价以及定罪概率降低。同时，在固定的原型性水平下，女性原告得到更多负面评价，男性被告得到更多正面评价，这降低了定罪概率；模拟陪审员对强奸谬见的接受程度调节了这种影响。强奸谬见在涉及女性原告的案件中可预测决策，而男性强奸谬见在涉及男性原告的案件中可预测决策。结果表明，原型性是模拟陪审员在性侵犯审判中决策背后的一种机制，并阐明了原型和强奸谬见在陪审员决策中的独特作用，对心理学领域和刑事法律系统具有实际意义。
