Abstract
The current study examined factors that may influence jurors’ judgments in a sexual harassment case. Mock jurors (N = 479) examined how a defendant’s gender and occupation, a victim’s gender, and whether the victim has produced similar accusations in the past influenced mock juror’s judgments. Participants read a case vignette describing an alleged sexual harassment and were asked to answer questions concerning defendant guilt, defendant culpability, and perceptions of the victim. Additionally, attitudes concerning sexual harassment and sexism were measured. It was found that mock jurors were more likely to believe the defendant was guilty and perceive the victim more favorably when no prior accusations had been made in the past compared to when prior accusations were present. When the defendant and victim were of the same sex, and the defendant was a university professor, higher guilt ratings were attributed to the defendant when there were no prior allegations in the victim’s past. Additionally, a complex four-way interaction was observed for the ratings of defendant guilt, and a three-way interaction was observed when examining perceptions of the victim. The results suggest that both defendant and victim characteristics have the potential to influence jurors’ judgments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abrams D, Viki GT, Masser B, Bohner G (2003) Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: the role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity. J Pers Soc Psychol 84(1):111–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.111
Ahola A, Hellström A, Christanson S (2010) Is justice really blind? Effects of crime descriptions, defendant gender and appearance, and legal practitioner gender on sentences and defendant evaluations in a mock trial. Psychiatry Psychol Law 2:304–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218710903566896
Altantulkhuur K (2018) A second rape: testing victim credibility through prior false accusations. Univ Ill Law Rev 3:1091–1146
Anderson GD, Overby R (2020) The impact of rape myths and current events on the well-being of sexual violence survivors. Violence Against Women 27(9):1379–1401. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220937782
Bitton M, Shaul D (2013) Perceptions and attitudes to sexual harassment: an examination of sex differences and the sex composition of the harasser-target dyad. J Appl Soc Psychol 43:2136–2145. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12166
Bornstein B, Golding J, Neuschatz J, Kimbrough C, Reed K, Magyarics C, Luecht K (2017) Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: a meta-analysis. Law Hum Behav 41:13–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000223
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018) Share of women in occupations with many projected openings, 2016–2026. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2018/data-on-display/dod-women-in-labor-force.htm
Cantor D, Fisher B, Chibnall S, Bruce C, Townsend R, Thomas G, Lee H (2015) Report on the AAU Campus Climate Survey on sexual assault and sexual misconduct. Retrieved from http://www.upenn.edu/ir/surveys/AAU/Report%20and%20Tables%20on%20AAU%20Campus%20Climate%20Survey.pdf
Carlucci M, Golom F (2016) Juror perceptions of female-female sexual harassment: do sexual orientation and type of harassment matter? J Aggress Confl Peace Res 8:238–246. https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-01-2016-0210
Cheryan S, Plaut V (2010) Explaining underrepresentation: a theory of precluded interest. Sex Roles 63:475–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9835-x
Cummings K, Armenta M (2002) Penalties for peer sexual harassment in an academic context: the influence of harasser gender, participant gender, severity of harassment, and the presence of bystanders. Sex Roles 47:273–280. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021338811339
Devine DJ, Clayton L, Dunford B, Seying R, Price J (2001) Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychol Public Policy Law 73:622–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.7.3.622
Gerger H, Kley H, Bohner G, Siebler F (2007) The acceptance of modern myths about sexual aggression scale: development and validation in German and English. Aggressive Behav 33(5):422–440. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20195
Glick P, Fiske S (1996) The ambivalent sexism inventory: differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. J Pers Soc Psychol 70:491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
Gotovac S, Towson S (2015) Perceptions of sexual assault victims/survivors: the influence of sexual history and body weight. Violence Vict 30:66–80. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-12-00168
Greenfield L (1997) An analsysi of data on rape and sexual assault: Sex offenses and offenders. U.S. Department of Justice. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/SOO.PDF
Hosoda M, Stone D (2000) Current gender stereotypes and their evaluative content. Percept Mot Skills 90:1283–1294. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2000.90.3c.1283
Jules S, McQuiston D (2013) Speech style and occupational status affect assessments of eyewitness testimony. J Appl Soc Psychol 43:741–748
Katz R, Hannon R, Whitten L (1996) Effects of gender and situation on the perception of sexual harassment. Sex Roles 34:35–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01544794
Kearl H (2018) The facts behind the #MeToo movement: A national study on sexual harassment and assault. Reston, VA: National Sexual Violence Resource Center. https://www.nsvrc.org/resource/facts-behind-metoomovement-national-study-sexual-harassment-and-assault
Kelly L, Lovett J, Regan L (2005) A gap or chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases (Home Office Research Study 293). Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, London
Kerr N, Hymes R, Anderson A, Weathers J (1995) Defendant-juror similarity and mock juror judgments. Law Hum Behav 19:545–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499374
Loeffler R, Lawson T (2002) Age and occupational status of defendant in relation to mock juror sentencing recommendations. Curr Psychol 21:289–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-002-1019-6
Leverick, F. (2020). What do we know about rape myths and juror decision making? The Int J Evid Proof 21:255–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712720923157
Lisak D, Gardinier L, Nicksa SC, Cote AM (2010) False allegations of sexual assault: an analysis of ten years of reported cases. Violence against Women 16:1318–1334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801210387747
Mazer D, Percival E (1989) Students’ experiences of sexual harassment at a small university. Sex Roles 20:135–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0028802
McPhail BA (2004) Setting the record straight: social work is not a female-dominated profession. Soc Work 49:323–326
Morgan R, Thompson A (2021) Criminal Victimization, 2020. U.S.Department of Justice. https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh236/files/media/document/cv20.pdf
Natanson H, Balingit M (2022, April) Teachers who mention sexuality are ‘grooming’ kids, conservatives say. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/04/05/teachers-groomers-pedophiles-dont-say-gay/
Office of Crime Victims Advocacy (2001) Sexual assault experiences and perceptions of community response to sexual assault: a survey of Washington State women. Retrieved from https://depts.washington.edu/uwhatc/PDF/research/sexualassaultexpr2001-11.pdf
Pica E, Sheahan CL, Pozzulo J (2020) Prior allegations of harassment impact mock jurors’ perceptions of a sexual harassment in a criminal trial. Sex Roles 82:541–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01076-2
Riegle-Crumb C, King B (2010) Questioning a White Male Advantage in STEM: examining disparities in college major by gender and race/ethnicity. Educ Res 39:656–664. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10391657
Rosoff SM (1989) Physicians as criminal defendants: specialty, sanctions, and status liability. Law Hum Behav 13(2):231–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01055925
Runtz MG, O’Donnell C (2006) Students’ perceptions of sexual harassment: is it harassment only if the offender is a man and the victim is a woman? J Appl Soc Psychol 33:963–982. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01934.x
Shaw JI, Skolnick P (1996) When is defendant status a shield or a liability? Clarification and extension. Law Hum Behav 20(4):431–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01498979
Stuart SM, McKimmie BM, Masser BM (2019) Rape perpetrators on trial: the effect of sexual assault-related schemas on attributions of blame. J Interpers Violence 34(2):310–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516640777
Taylor N (2007) Juror attitudes and biases in sexual assault cases Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice (344), 1–6. Retrieved from https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2007-10/apo-nid581.pdf
Thompson LE, Pica E, Pozzulo J (2021) Jurors’ decision making in a sexual assault trial: the influence of victim age, delayed reporting, and multiple allegations. American Journal of Forensic Psychology 39:19–46
Wayne JH, Riordan CM, Thomas KM (2001) Is all sexual harassment viewed the same? Mock juror decisions in same- and cross-gender cases. J Appl Psychol 86(2):179–187. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.2.179
West M, Curtis J (2006) AAUP faculty gender equity indicators 2006. Retrieved from http://live-uarizona-diversity.pantheon.arizona.edu/sites/default/files/aaupgenderequityindicators2006.pdf
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Conflict of Interest
Dr. Emily Pica declares that she has no conflict of interest. Dr. Chelsea Sheahan declares that she has no conflict of interest. Dr. Joanna Pozzulo declares that she has no conflict of interest. Alexia Vettese declares that she has no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Pica, E., Sheahan, C.L., Pozzulo, J. et al. Prior Allegations Matter: Mock Jurors’ Perceptions of Sexual Harassment. J Police Crim Psych (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-023-09632-z
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-023-09632-z