The Role of Complainant/Defendant Gender and Form of Sexual Assault on Jurors' Perceptions of Prototypicality and Verdicts.

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.