Abstract
We examined how a victim’s length of delayed reporting (2 months, 10 years, 20 years) and reason for delayed reporting (lack of evidence, fear of retaliation, not wanting family to know) influenced mock-jurors’ decision-making. Mock-jurors (N = 709) read a trial transcript of an alleged sexual assault involving a female victim and a male defendant. Jurors were asked to render a dichotomous verdict and rate how truthful they perceived both the victim’s and defendant’s testimony. Among many findings, results identified that mock-jurors were significantly more likely to render a guilty verdict and rate the defendant’s testimony less truthful when the victim delayed reporting by 2 months compared to when she delayed reporting by 10 or 20 years. Further, mock-jurors were significantly more likely to render a guilty verdict and rate the victim’s testimony more truthful when the victim delayed reporting due to concerns about her family finding out compared to when she delayed reporting due to lack of evidence. Moreover, the current study also examined whether jurors’ individual rape myths would influence their perception of the victim’s speed of reporting (immediate reporting vs. delayed reporting). Results identified that individual rape myths moderated the effect of speed of reporting on jurors’ decision-making. Jurors endorsing many rape myths rated the victim’s testimony significantly more truthful when she reported immediately compared to when she delayed reporting; for jurors endorsing few rape myths, speed of reporting did not influence perceptions of the truthfulness of the victim’s testimony.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The data are available from the first author upon reasonable request.
Notes
As mentioned in the introduction, it was speculated that not wanting family to find out and fear of retaliation may be perceived more similarly by jurors than lack of evidence. Therefore, “lack of evidence” was chosen to be the comparison category.
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
Adefolalu AO (2014) Fear of the perpetrator: a major reason why sexual assault victims delayed presenting at hospital. Tropical Med Int Health 19(3):342–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/tmi.12249
Benoit C, Shumka L, Phillips R, Kennedy M, Belle-Isle L (2015) Issue brief: Sexual violence against women in Canada. Status of Women Canada. https://cfc-swc.gc.ca/svawc-vcsfc/issue-brief-en.pdf
Booth N, Willmott D, Boduszek D (2017) Juries in rape trials: Balanced or biased? Crim Law Justice Wkly 181(37):662–663
Bornstein BH, Golding JM, 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(1):13–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000223
Breiding MJ, Chen J, Black MC (2014) Intimate partner violence in the United States 2010. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/
Bronitt S (1998) The rules of recent complaint: rape myths and the legal construction of the “reasonable” rape victim. In: Easteal P (ed) Balancing the scales: Rape, law reform and Australian culture. Federation Press, pp 41–59
Burt MR (1991) Rape myths and acquaintance rape. In: Parrot A, Bechhofer L (eds) Acquaintance rape: The hidden crime. John Wiley & Sons Inc, pp 26–40
Burt MR, Albin RS (1981) Rape myths, rape definitions, and probability of conviction. J Appl Soc Psychol 11(3):212–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1981.tb00739.x
Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS (2003) Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Erlbaum
Conroy S, Cotter A (2017) Self-reported sexual assault in Canada, 2014. Juristat: Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85–002-X
Cotter A, Savage L (2019) Gender-based violence and unwanted sexual behaviour in Canada, 2018: Initial findings from the Survey of Safety in Public and Private Spaces. Juristat: Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85–002-X
Daly K, Bouhours B (2010) Rape and attrition in the legal process: a comparative analysis of five countries. Crime Justice 39(1):565–650. https://doi.org/10.1086/653101
Department for Women, New South Whales (1996) Heroines of fortitude: the experiences of women in court as victims of sexual assault
Estrich S (1987) Real rape. Harvard University Press
Feldman-Summers S, Norris J (1984) Differences between rape victims who report and those who do not report to a public agency. J Appl Soc Psychol 14(6):513–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1984.tb02260.x
Fisher BS, Daigle LE, Cullen FT, Turner MG (2003) Reporting sexual victimization to the police and others: results from a national-level study of college women. Crim Justice Behav 30(1):6–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854802239161
Fisher BS, Cullen FT, Daigle LE (2005) The discovery of acquaintance rape: the salience of methodological innovation and rigor. J Interpers Violence 20(4):493–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260504267761
Franiuk R, Luca A, Robinson S (2020) The effects of victim and perpetrator characteristics on ratings of guilt in a sexual assault case. Violence Against Women 26(6–7):614–635. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219840439
Fraser BM, Pica E, Pozzulo JD (2022) The effect of delayed reporting on mock-juror decision-making in the era of #MeToo. J Interp Viol 37(13–14):NP11791–NP11810. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260521997464
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. Aggress Behav 33(5):422–440. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20195
Hockett JM, Smith SJ, Klausing CD, Saucier DA (2016) Rape myth consistency and gender differences in perceiving rape victims: a meta-analysis. Violence Against Women 22(2):139–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215607359
Jones JS, Alexander C, Wynn BN, Rossman L, Dunnuck C (2009) Why women don’t report sexual assault to the police: the influence of psychosocial variables and traumatic injury. J Emerg Med 36(4):417–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.10.077
Kennedy AC, Prock KA (2018) “I still feel like I am not normal”: a review of the role of stigma and stigmatization among female survivors of child sexual abuse, sexual assault, and intimate partner violence. Trauma Violence Abuse 19(5):512–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016673601
Lea SJ, Lanvers U, Shaw S (2003) Attrition in rape cases: developing a profile and identifying relevant factors. Br J Criminol 43(3):583–599. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/43.3.583
Leverick F (2020) What do we know about rape myths and juror decision making? Int J Evid Proof 24(3):255–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712720923157
Lonsway KA, Archambault J (2012) The “justice gap” for sexual assault cases: future directions for research and reform. Violence Against Women 18(2):145–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212440017
Maier SL (2008) “I have heard horrible stories …”: rape victim advocates’ perceptions of the revictimization of rape victims by the police and medical system. Violence Against Women 14(7):786–808. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801208320245
Moore AE (2012) Adult witness credibility: Evidence for a two-factor model [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. The University of Texas at El Paso
Newcombe PA, Van Den Eynde J, Hafner D, Jolly L (2008) Attributions of responsibility for rape: differences across familiarity of situation, gender, and acceptance of rape myths. J Appl Soc Psychol 38(7):1736–1754
Newman DA (2014) Missing data: Five practical guidelines. Organ Res Methods 17(4):372–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114548590
Payne DL, Lonsway KA, Fitzgerald LF (1999) Rape myth acceptance: exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. J Res Pers 33(1):27–68. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1998.2238
Pennington N, Hastie R (1992) Explaining the evidence: tests of the story model for juror decision making. J Pers Soc Psychol 62(2):189–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.189
Pica E, Sheahan CL, Pozzulo JD (2021) The impact of delayed reporting, assault type, victim gender, and victim-defendant familiarity on mock-jurors’ judgments. Appl Psychol Crim Justice 16(2):258–271
Pozzulo JD, Dempsey JL, Crescini C (2010) Factors affecting juror decisions in a case of historic child sexual abuse involving continuous memories. Crim Justice Behav 37:951–964
Read JD, Connolly DA, Welsh A (2006) Archival analysis of actual cases of HCSA: a comparison of jury and bench trials. Law Hum Behav 30:259–285
Reich CM, Anderson GD, Maclin R (2022) Why I didn’t report: reasons for not reporting sexual violence as stated on Twitter. J Aggression Maltreat Trauma 31(4):478–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2021.1912873
Ross DF, Jurden FH, Lindsay RCL, Keeney JM (2003) Replications and limitations of a two-factor model of child witness credibility. J Appl Soc Psychol 33(2):418–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01903.x
Rotenberg C (2017) Police-reported sexual assaults in Canada, 2009 to 2014: a statistical profile. Juristat: Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85–002-X
Rotenberg C, Cotter A (2018) Police-reported sexual assaults in Canada before and after #MeToo, 2016 and 2017. Juristat: Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85–002-X
Statistics Canada (2017) Census profile, 2016 Census. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98–316-X2016001. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E
Temkin J, Krahé B (2008) Sexual assault and the justice gap: a question of attitude. Bloomsbury Publishing. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472564320
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. Am J Forensic Psychol 39(2):19–46
Williams JE (1984) Secondary victimization: confronting public attitudes about rape. Victimology 9(1):66–81
Willmott BD, Debowska A, Woodfield R (2018) Introduction and validation of the Juror Decision Scale (JDS): an empirical investigation of the Story Model. J Crim Just 57:26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.03.004
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics 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. The study was approved by the Carleton University Research Ethics Board-B (No. 112733).
Consent to Participate
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Competing Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
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
Thompson, L.E., Pozzulo, J. How Length of and Reason for Delayed Reporting Influence Mock-Jurors’ Judgments in a Sexual Assault Trial. J Police Crim Psych (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-024-09664-z
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-024-09664-z