Effects of physical attractiveness on evaluations of a male employee's allegation of sexual harassment by his female employer

College students (N = 324) served as mock jurors in a simulated civil case in which a male plaintiff accused a female defendant of sexual harassment. The authors experimentally manipulated the physical attractiveness of the litigants. The authors asked mock jurors to decide whether the defendant was guilty and to rate their certainty of belief in the defendant's guilt (or lack of guilt). Jurors were more certain of the guilt of the defendant when the plaintiff was attractive than when he was unattractive. Plaintiff attractiveness significantly affected female jurors' individual recommended verdicts when the defendant was unattractive but not when she was attractive. With male jurors, plaintiff attractiveness significantly affected their verdicts when the defendant was attractive but not when she was unattractive. Female jurors were more likely than male jurors to conclude that sexual harassment had taken place but only when the litigants were different in attractiveness.     

Racial bias in decisions made by mock jurors evaluating a case of sexual harassment

White (N = 161) and Black (N = 152) college students served as mock jurors in a simulated civil case in which a female plaintiff accused a male defendant of sexual harassment. The authors experimentally manipulated the race (Black or White) of the litigants and asked the mock jurors to decide whether the defendant was guilty; to rate the certainty of their belief in the defendant's guilt; and, when they judged the defendant guilty, to recommend an award to the plaintiff. Mock jurors of both races tended to favor litigants of their own race and their own gender. Racial bias was highest among White male jurors and lowest among White female jurors.     

Racial Bias in Decisions Made by Mock Jurors Evaluating a Case of Sexual Harassment

Abstract

White (N = 161) and Black (N = 152) college students served as mock jurors in a simulated civil case in which a female plaintiff accused a male defendant of sexual harassment. The authors experimentally manipulated the race (Black or White) of the litigants and asked the mock jurors to decide whether the defendant was guilty; to rate the certainty of their belief in the defendant's guilt; and, when they judged the defendant guilty, to recommend an award to the plaintiff. Mock jurors of both races tended to favor litigants of their own race and their own gender. Racial bias was highest among White male jurors and lowest among White female jurors.     

How the Defendant's Emotion Level Affects Mock Jurors' Decisions When Presentation Mode and Evidence Strength Are Varied1

Two experiments (N= 443) were conducted to investigate the effects of a defendant's emotion level during testimony on mock jurors' decisions. In Experiment 1, the defendant's level of emotion (low, moderate, high) and mode of presentation (audio, video) were varied. The defendant displaying a low level, as opposed to a higher level of emotion was perceived as more guilty and less credible. In Experiment 2, using only the video mode, emotion level and evidence strength (strong, weak) were varied. Defendant emotion level tended to affect jurors' decisions only when the evidence against the defendant was weak (i.e., a stronger display of emotion was associated with a lower proportion of guilty verdicts, shorter sentence assignments, and perceptions of a more honest defendant). Path analyses for both experiments indicate that the effects of emotion on perceived guilt level are mediated by perceptions of the defendant (e.g., the defendant's level of honesty). Implications of using defendant emotion level for determining guilt are discussed.     

Prior Allegations of Harassment Impact Mock Jurors’ Perceptions of Sexual Harassment in a Criminal Trial

The current study examined factors that may influence jurors’ judgments in a criminal sexual harassment case with Canadian undergraduate students. Undergraduate students (n?=?268) examined whether defendant’s gender, victim’s gender, and whether the victim had made similar accusations in the past were influential in mock jurors’ judgments. Participants read a case summary describing an alleged sexual harassment and answered questions concerning defendant’s guilt, defendant’s culpability, and perceptions of the victim. Additionally, attitudes concerning sexual harassment and sexism were measured. The presence of prior allegations was a driving force in mock juror decisions, with mock jurors providing more guilty verdicts, more favorable perceptions of the victim, and less favorable perceptions of the defendant when no prior allegations of harassment had been made by the victim. The results of the current study suggest that the presence of prior allegations have a large impact on mock jurors’ decisions, suggesting that prior allegations may need to be considered more closely in court before they can be used as evidence.

     

How jurors use and misuse character evidence

The Federal Rules of Evidence allow defendants to offer testimony about their good character, but that testimony can be impeached with cross-examination or a rebuttal witness. It is assumed that jurors use the defense's character evidence (CE) to form guilt and conviction judgments but use impeachment evidence only to assess the character witness's credibility. Two experiments tested these assumptions by presenting mock jurors with various forms of CE and impeachment. Participants made trait ratings for the character witness and defendant and guilt and conviction judgments. Positive CE did not affect guilt or conviction judgments, but cross-examination caused a backlash in which judgments were harsher than when no CE was given. Using path analysis, the authors tested a model of the process by which CE and impeachment affect defendant and witness impressions and guilt and conviction judgments. Implications for juror decision making are discussed.     

Will jurors correct for evidence interdependence in their verdicts? It depends

Throughout an investigation, pieces of evidence are likely to contaminate one another, yet at trial jurors are expected to treat pieces of evidence as if they are independent. Are jurors able to understand potential evidence contamination? The present study showed mock jurors a videotaped trial simulation. Participants were randomly assigned to hear testimony regarding one piece of evidence, two pieces of independent evidence, or two pieces of interdependent evidence. The study tested the hypothesis that jurors who hear evidence that is interdependent will be just as likely to find the defendant guilty as jurors who hear about two pieces of independent evidence. When an eyewitness's identification was the uncontaminated piece of evidence, our hypothesis was supported. However, when the confession was the uncontaminated piece of evidence, jurors seemed to understand that one piece of evidence had been influenced by another and adjusted their beliefs about the defendant's guilt accordingly. This study supports the conclusion that jurors can sometimes identify and correct for evidence contamination in their perceptions of a defendant's guilt. Implications for reform support are discussed.     

The Impact of the Guilty but Mentally III Verdict on Juror Decisions: An Empirical Analysis

The present study attempted to determine the impact of alternative verdict choices on the decisions of mock jurors. Subjects used in this study as mock jurors were all college undergraduates. They were shown one of two versions of a videotaped simulated murder trial. Both films presented a defendant who appeared to be suffering emotional difficulties, but in one film the defendant had clearly committed the act while in the other film the defendant's actions were less certain. Subjects than gave their individual verdicts and, after deliberation with other subjects, a total jury verdict. The verdicts available to the subjects varied across three conditions such that the subjects in one condition were only allowed to find the defendant to be innocent or guilty. In another condition the subjects could find the defendant innocent, guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). In the third condition the subjects were allowed to choose between innocent, guilty, NGRI, and guilty but mentally ill (GBMI). The results indicated that the addition of the "mental health" verdicts had a significant impact on the decisions of the jurors. In particular, it appears that only defendants who would otherwise have been found innocent were likely to be found NGRI. This study also indicated that the GBMI verdict is very attractive to mock jurors. Indeed, even innocent defendants were found to be GBMI, a form of guilt, when this alternative was made available. These findings raise potentially important constitutional and practical issues for the trial of emotionally disturbed criminal defendants.     

Mock Jurors’ Perception of Stalking: The Impact of Gender and Expressed Fear

Two experiments investigated mock-juror perceptions of intimate stalking using Kentucky’s (United States) anti-stalking legislation. Experiment 1 used a mock-juror methodology in which 177 undergraduates (87 men and 90 women) from a large southeastern US university read a stalking trial summary and rendered individual judgments as mock jurors. The main research question of Experiment 1 was how participant gender impacted trial judgments (e.g., verdict) when the gender of both the defendant and victim were manipulated. Overall, the results showed that men rendered significantly fewer guilty verdicts than women, particularly in conditions that included the prototypical type of intimate stalking (female victim/male defendant). In Experiment 2, also using a mock-juror methodology, 129 undergraduates (51 men and 78 women) from a large southeastern U.S. university read a stalking trial summary (involving a female victim and male defendant) and rendered individual judgments as mock jurors. The main research question of Experiment 2 focused on whether victim fear (high or low) impacted trial judgments (e.g., verdict). The results yielded an interaction of participant gender and victim fear. Specifically, whereas different levels of fear did not impact women, men yielded fewer guilty verdicts in the low victim fear condition compared to the high victim fear condition. The results of the present experiments are discussed in terms of the implications of stalking allegations brought to trial.     

Perceptions of Children's Credibility in Sexual Assault Cases1

Children's testimony often plays a central role in prosecutions of child sexual abuse. Nevertheless, research on jurors' perceptions of the credibility of child sexual assault victims remains limited. In three experiments, we examined mock jurors' reactions to children's testimony about sexual abuse. Participant jurors were exposed to videotaped or written scenarios of child sexual abuse trials and then rated victim credibility and defendant guilt. Analyses indicated that: (a) victim age was either inversely related or unrelated to perceptions of victim credibility, (b) women were more likely than men to find child victims credible, (c) corroborating testimony from a child victim increased the credibility of another child victim, and (d) exposure of participants to past criminal acts and other negative defendant character evidence heightened perceived victim credibility and defendant guilt. Implications for understanding jurors' reactions to child witnesses are discussed.     

The Impact of Defendant Gender and Relationship to Victim on Juror Decisions in a Child Sexual Abuse Case

We examined the impact of defendant gender and relationship to victim on verdict decisions and ratings of witness believability in a case of alleged child sexual assault. Mock jurors ( N  = 256) read 1 of 4 extensive case summaries. The cases varied the gender of the defendant and his or her relationship to the child (parent or stranger). Data revealed that participants were significantly more likely to find male defendants (especially the father) guilty than female defendants. Female jurors rated the victim as more believable and the defendant as less believable than did male jurors. All mock jurors rated the victim as more believable if the defendant was male, and they saw the female defendants as more believable than the male defendants.     

How type of excuse defense, mock juror age, and defendant age affect mock jurors' decisions

The authors investigated the effects of mock juror age (younger vs. older), defendant age (22 vs. 65), and type of excuse defense used by defendants (a highly self-inflicted condition, Cocaine Dependency Disorder, vs. a less self-inflicted condition, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder) on mock juror decisions. Ninety-six younger and 96 older adults read a scenario and answered a questionnaire. Results indicated that the defendant using the highly self-inflicted excuse was more likely to receive a guilty verdict and a longer sentence than was the defendant using the less self-inflicted excuse. Older jurors were more certain of their verdicts and saw the defendant as more responsible for his condition than did younger jurors. Defendant age did not affect juror decisions. In addition, excuse type and juror age affected the jurors' perceptions of the victim's responsibility for the attack. The authors discuss the potential influence of juror age on perceptions of defendant responsibility.     

Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: The effects of evidence,coherence and credentials on juror decision making

Psychological experts have been used increasingly to testify in child sexual abuse cases, yet little research has investigated what specific factors make experts effective. This study examined the potential effects that credentials, evidence strength and coherence may have on juror decision making. Sixty‐four mock jurors read cases of child sexual abuse, followed by experts' testimony and rated guilt of the defendant, effectiveness of the expert testimony and credibility of the victim. Evidence strength and coherence of the testimony affected all dependent variables, and the interaction was significant. Guilt ratings of the defendant were lower and the victim was rated as less credible when both evidence strength and coherence were low. The credentials of the expert, however, had negligible impact. These findings indicate that experts can be effective and impact jurors when testimony is either high in coherence or high in evidence. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Effects of Opening Statements on Mock Jurors' Verdicts in a Simulated Criminal Trial1

Twenty-nine male and 37 female adults served as mock jurors in a simulated criminal trial in which the amount of preview offered in both the prosecution's and defense's opening statements was factorially varied. It was found that the effects upon verdicts of guilt of the amount of preview in either side's opening statement depended on that in the other side's opening statement. Extensive prosecution opening statements led to more guilty verdicts only when the de fense's opening statement was also extensive; when the defense's opening statement was brief, participants tended to find the defendant guilty regardless of the amount of preview in the prosecution's opening statement. Extensive opening statements from the defense led to more not-guilty verdicts only when the prosecution's opening statement was brief. Results from a series of mid-trial measures indicated that opening statements predisposed jurors to favor one side or the other very early in the trial, and that jurors tended to maintain this predisposition throughout the course of the trial. It was suggested that opening statements serve to create thematic frameworks which the jurors use to assist them in their processing of trial information. Implications for legal practice were also discussed.     

Attractive but guilty: deliberation and the physical attractiveness bias

The current study examined the effect of jury deliberation on the tendency for mock jurors to find attractive defendants guilty less often. It was expected that there would be an interaction between group deliberation (yes or no) and defendant's appearance (plain-looking or attractive). It was hypothesized that mock jurors who did not deliberate would be more likely to find a plain-looking defendant guilty and that deliberation would mitigate this effect. The study was a 2 x 2 between-subjects factorial design. Participants were assigned randomly to one of four conditions: attractive defendant/deliberation, attractive defendant/no deliberation, plain-looking defendant/deliberation, and plain-looking defendant/no deliberation. A total of 172 undergraduates from a small, rural college in Vermont contributed to this study: mock jurors were 70 men and 52 women, ages ranged from 18 to 52 years (M=20.5, SD=4.9). The hypothesis was supported. Mock jurors who did not deliberate were more likely to find the plain-looking defendant guilty, whereas mock jurors who deliberated were more likely to find the attractive defendant guilty.     

Improving the Credibility of Child Sexual Assault Victims in Court: The Impact of a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner

The present study investigated the influence of a sexual assault nurse examiner's (SANE's) testimony on mock juror perceptions of a child or adolescent victim of child sexual assault. Community members (N = 252, 156 females) read a fictional criminal trial summary of a child sexual assault case in which the victim was 6 or 15 years old and the prosecution presented medical testimony from a SANE or a traditional registered nurse (RN), or did not present medical testimony. Mock jurors were more likely to render guilty verdicts when a SANE testified compared with the other two testimony conditions. In addition, pro-victim judgments (e.g., sympathy toward the victim) and negative defendant judgments (e.g., anger toward the defendant) mediated this relation. Finally, cognitive network representations of the case demonstrated that the RN and no-medical-testimony groups were similar and the SANE group was distinct from the other two conditions. We discuss these results in terms of the implications of SANE testimony in child sexual assault court cases. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Habla Ingles? The Effects of Language Translation on Simulated Juror Decisions1

Two studies were conducted in which college students, acting as simulated jurors, heard the testimony of a defendant in an assault case. The testimony was presented in English or in another language (Spanish in Study 1 and Thai in Study 2) which was translated into English by an interpreter. In Study 1, non-Hispanics judged the defendant to be more guilty than did Hispanics when the defendant's testimony was presented in Spanish than when it was presented in English. This bias was offset when the judge's instructions admonished the jurors to ignore the fact that the defendant's testimony was translated. Similarly, in Study 2, subjects (all non-Thai) judged the defendent more guilty when his testimony was presented in Thai than when it was presented in English. Again, this bias was eliminated by the judge's instructions to the jurors to ignore the fact that the testimony was translated. The increased guilty verdicts for defendants who did not testify in English appeared to be due to prejudice and language ethnocentrism, the belief that defendants in U.S. courts should speak English.     

Juror Perceptions in a Rape Trial: Examining the Complainant's Ingestion of Chemical Substances Prior to Sexual Assault

This study examined the impact of a rape complainant's willingness to ingest a chemical substance and the type of ingested substance on the decisions of 229 mock jurors. Jurors were influenced by the type of substance used by the complainant, the complainant's willingness to use a substance, and rape myths. The complainant's ingestion of alcohol (compared to gamma-hydroxybutrate [GHB] and marijuana) led to the highest guilt ratings for the defendant. The complainant who willingly ingested a substance was viewed as less credible and more to blame for the rape compared to one who unwillingly used a substance. The complainant was perceived as the most credible when she unwillingly ingested GHB or marijuana. Jurors high in rape myth acceptance gave lower ratings of guilt to the defendant compared to jurors with lower rape myth acceptance. Overall, the results highlight several juror and case factors that might bias jurors in actual rape trials.     

The Effect of Several Types of Pretrial Publicity on the Guilt Attributions of Simulated Jurors1

The experiment (N= 312) tested the effects of two types of pretrial publicity (PTP) on the guilt verdicts of simulated jurors. Heinous PTP was manipulated by varying the degree to which the lurid details of a rape-murder were presented to prospective jurors. Prejudgement PTP varied in the extent to which it implied that the defendant was the perpetrator or the rape-murder. As predicted, PTP which was high in either heinousness or prejudgment increased the females' tendency to conclude-after the trial evidence-that the defendant was guilty of the crime. The biasing effect of prejudgment PTP, however, was significant only among females categorized as being of low IQ. In contrast, neither dimension of PTF' significantly influenced the guilt verdicts of male jurors. Several possible explanations of the sex's differential vulnerability to PTP were proposed. In addition, evidence was obtained that female jurors may have been derogating the rape-murder victim and defensively minimizing the gravity of her fate, as a result of motivations to believe in a just world.