The Effect of Heuristic Cues on Jurors’ Systematic Information Processing in Rape Trials

Abstract

There is concern that jurors’ decisions in rape trials might be influenced by misleading cues (e.g., victim stereotypes) potentially explaining disproportionately low conviction rates. We investigated the bias hypothesis from the heuristic–systematic model as an explanation for how jurors may be influenced by misleading stereotypes even while they are effortfully processing rape trial evidence. We expected that when case evidence was ambiguous, stereotypes would guide motivated participants’ effortful information processing, but not when case evidence was strong. Mock jurors (N = 901) were asked to make decisions about a rape trial with either ambiguous or strong evidence in which the complainant was either stereotypically distressed or unemotional giving evidence. Participants were either placed under high motivation conditions to encourage effortful information processing or in a control condition with low motivation instructions to encourage less effortful processing as a comparison. Participants’ information processing and case decisions were measured as key dependent variables. We found partial support for the hypothesized interaction and the bias hypothesis, suggesting that the types of evidence participants attended to in decision-making were influenced by misleading stereotypical cues. Our findings have implications for interventions to reduce the effect of misleading stereotypes on decisions in rape trials. Additional online materials for this article are available on PWQ's website at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/03616843221118018.

Keywords

heuristic–systematic model jury decision-making rape emotional victim effect credibility

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ask

(2010). A survey of police officers’ and prosecutors’ beliefs about crime victim behaviors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(6), 1132–1149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509340535

Ask

(2018). Complainant emotional expressions and perceived credibility: Exploring the role of perceivers’ facial mimicry and empathy. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 23(2), 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12132

Ask

Landström

(2010). Why emotions matter: Expectancy violation and affective response mediate the emotional victim effect. Law and Human Behavior, 34(5), 392–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9208-6

Baldus

D. C.

Woodworth

Zuckerman

Weiner

N. A.

(1997). Racial discrimination and the death penalty in the post-Furman era: An empirical and legal overview with recent findings from Philadelphia. Cornell Law Review, 83(6), 1638–1770.

Brewer, N., & Hupfeld, R. M. (2004). Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and witness group identity on mock-juror judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(3), 493–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02558.x

Bandalos

D. L.

(2018). Measurement theory and applications for the social sciences. Guilford Press.

Bluett-Boyd

Fileborn

(2014). Victim/survivor focused justice responses and reforms to criminal court practice. Australian Institute of Family Studies. https://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/rr27.pdf .

Bohner, G., & Schapansky, E. (2018). Law students’ judgments of a rape victim’s statement: The role of displays of emotion and acceptance of sexual aggression myths. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 12, a635–a635. https://doi.org/10.4119/ijcv-3113

Bornstein

B. H.

Greene

(2017). The jury under fire: Myth, controversy, and reform. Oxford University Press.

10.

Bosma

A. K.

Mulder

Pemberton

Vingerhoets

A. J. J. M.

(2018). Observer reactions to emotional victims of serious crimes: Stereotypes and expectancy violations. Psychology, Crime & Law, 24(9), 957–977. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2018.1467910

11.

Brewer

Hupfeld

R. M.

(2004). Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and witness group identity on mock-juror judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(3), 493–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02558.x

12.

Brody

L. R.

Hall

J. A.

Stokes

L. R.

(2016). Gender and emotion: Theory, findings and context. In Barrett

L. F.

Lewis

Haviland-Jones

(Eds.), Handbook of emotions (4th ed., pp. 369–392). Guilford Publications.

13.

Burman

Brooks-Hay

(2018). Victims are more willing to report rape, so why are conviction rates still woeful? The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/victims-are-more-willing-to-report-rape-so-why-are-conviction-rates-still-woeful-92968

14.

Cameron

J. J.

Stinson

D. A.

(2019). Gender (mis)measurement: Guidelines for respecting gender diversity in psychological research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(11), e12506. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12506

15.

Canadian Judicial Council (1998). Model jury instructions. National Committee on Jury Instructions, National Judicial Institute. https://www.nji-inm.ca/index.cfm/publications/model-jury-instructions/

16.

Chaiken

(1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752–766. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752

17.

Chaiken

Ledgerwood

(2012). A theory of heuristic and systematic information processing. In Lange

P. A. M. V.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), A handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 246–266). Sage.

18.

Chaiken

Maheswaran

(1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 460–473. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.460

19.

Chen

Chaiken

(1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In Chaiken

Trope

(Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73–96). Guilford Press.

20.

Cooper

Bennett

E. A.

Sukel

H. L.

(1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions? Law and Human Behavior, 20(4), 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01498976

21.

Cox

(2015). Violence against women: Additional analysis of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey, 2012. Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety. https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/violence-against-women-in-australia-additional-analysis-of-the-australian-bureau-of-statistics-personal-safety-survey-2012/

22.

DePaulo

B. M.

Lindsay

J. J.

Malone

B. E.

Muhlenbruck

Charlton

Cooper

(2003). Cues to deception. Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 74–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.74

23.

Devine

D. J.

Buddenbaum

Houp

Studebaker

Stolle

D. P.

(2009). Strength of evidence, extraevidentiary influence, and the liberation hypothesis: Data from the field. Law and Human Behavior, 33(2), 136–148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9144-x

24.

Devine

D. J.

Clayton

L. D.

Dunford

B. B.

Seying

Pryce

(2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(3), 622–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.7.3.622

25.

Devine

D. J.

Krouse

P. C.

Cavanaugh

C. M.

Basora

J. C.

(2016). Evidentiary, extraevidentiary, and deliberation process predictors of real jury verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 40(6), 670–682. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000209

26.

Elfenbein

H. A.

Mandal

M. K.

Ambady

Harizuka

Kumar

(2002). Cross-cultural patterns in emotion recognition: Highlighting design and analytical techniques. Emotion, 2(1), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.2.1.75

27.

Faravelli

Giugni

Salvatori

Ricca

(2004). Psychopathology after rape. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161(8), 1483–1485. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.8.1483

28.

Fox

Weisberg

(2011). An R companion to applied regression (2nd ed.). Sage.

29.

Gomila

(2021). Logistic or linear? Estimating causal effects of experimental treatments on binary outcomes using regression analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(4), 700–709. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000920

30.

Gravelin

C. R.

Biernat

Bucher

C. E.

(2019). Blaming the victim of acquaintance rape: Individual, situational, and sociocultural factors. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 2422. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02422

31.

Griffiths

M. D.

(2010). The use of online methodologies in data collection for gambling and gaming addictions. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 8(1), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-009-9209-1

32.

Grosjean

Ibanez

(2018). Pastecs: Package for analysis of space-time ecological series (1.3.21) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pastecs

33.

Hartwig

Bond

C. F.

(2014). Lie detection from multiple cues: A meta-analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(5), 661–676. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3052

34.

Horowitz

I. A.

Bordens

K. S.

(2002). The effects of jury size, evidence complexity, and note taking on jury process and performance in a civil trial. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.121

35.

Horowitz

I. A.

Bordens

K. S.

Victor

Bourgeois

M. J.

ForsterLee

(2001). The effects of complexity on jurors’ verdicts and construction of evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 641–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.641

36.

Horowitz

I. A.

ForsterLee

Brolly

(1996). Effects of trial complexity on decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 757–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.6.757

37.

JASP Team (2020). JASP (0.14.1) [Computer software]. https://jasp-stats.org/

38.

Jones

C. S.

Kaplan

M. F.

(2003). The effects of racially stereotypical crimes on juror decision-making and information-processing strategies. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2501_1

39.

Kalven

Zeisel

(1966). The American jury. Little Brown.

40.

Kite

M. E.

Whitley

B. E.

(2018). The internal validity of research. In Principles of research in behavioral sciences (pp. 277–309). Routledge.

41.

Konradi

(2007). Taking the stand: Rape survivors and the prosecution of rapists. Greenwood Publishing Group.

42.

Lakens

McLatchie

Isager

P. M.

Scheel

A. M.

Dienes

(2020). Improving inferences about null effects with Bayes factors and equivalence tests. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 75(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gby065

43.

Landström

Ask

Sommar

(2015). The emotional male victim: Effects of presentation mode on judged credibility. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 56(1), 99–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12176

44.

Lipinski

A. J.

Lewin

R. K.

Free

B. L.

Burkley

J. G.

Majeed

Beck

J. G.

(2021). Exploring ambivalent rape acknowledgment and posttraumatic stress symptoms among college women who have experienced rape: What’s in a name? Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 80, 102389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2021.102389

45.

Maheswaran

Mackie

D. M.

Chaiken

(1992). Brand name as a heuristic cue: The effects of task importance and expectancy confirmation on consumer judgments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(4), 317–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(08)80058-7

46.

McHugh

M. L.

(2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031

47.

McKimmie

B. M.

Newton

S. A.

Schuller

R. A.

Terry

D. J.

(2013). It’s not what she says, it’s how she says it: The influence of language complexity and cognitive load on the persuasiveness of expert testimony. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20(4), 578–589. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2012.727068

48.

New South Wales Law Reform Commission (2020). Report 148: Consent in relation to sexual offences. New South Wales Law Reform Commission. https://www.lawreform.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/Publications/Reports/Report%20148.pdf

49.

Nitschke

F. T.

(2022). The effect of rape complainant emotion on witness credibility in criminal trials [Unpublished doctoral thesis, The University of Queensland]. https://doi.org/10.14264/b14ae20

50.

Nitschke

F. T.

Masser

B. M.

McKimmie

B. M.

Riachi

(2021). Intoxicated but not incapacitated: Are there effective methods to assist juries in interpreting evidence of voluntary complainant intoxication in cases of rape? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(9–10), 4335–4359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518790601

51.

Nitschke

F. T.

McKimmie

B. M.

Vanman

E. J.

(2019). A meta-analysis of the emotional victim effect for female adult rape complainants: Does complainant distress influence credibility? Psychological Bulletin, 145(10), 953–979. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000206

52.

Nitschke

F. T.

McKimmie

B. M.

Vanman

E. J.

(2022). Eliciting the emotional victim effect with photographic and text-based emotion stimuli [Unpublished manuscript]. School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Newcastle.

53.

Osman

S. L.

Davis

C. M.

(1997). Predicting men’s perceptions of date rape using the heuristic-systematic model. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 22(3), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/01614576.1997.11074190

54.

Petty

R. E.

Cacioppo

J. T.

Goldman

(1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(5), 847–855. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.847

55.

Picton

Ormerod

Tayton

Shetty

Cooper

Aubrey

Dickinson

Smith

(2018). The Crown Court compendium – Part 1: Jury and trial management and summing up. Judicial College.

56.

Quadara

Fileborn

Parkinson

(2013). The role of forensic medical evidence in the prosecution of adult sexual assault. Australian Institute of Criminology.

57.

Queensland Courts (2019). Supreme and District courts criminal directions benchbook. Queensland Courts. https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/court-users/practitioners/benchbooks/supreme-and-district-courts-benchbook

58.

Quintana

D. S.

Williams

D. R.

(2018). Bayesian alternatives for common null-hypothesis significance tests in psychiatry: A non-technical guide using JASP. BMC Psychiatry, 18(1), 178. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1761-4

59.

R Core Team (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (4.0.3) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

60.

Reinhard

M.-A.

Sporer

S. L.

(2008). Verbal and nonverbal behavior as a basis for credibility attribution: The impact of task involvement and cognitive capacity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 477–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.07.012

61.

Reinhard

M.-A.

Sporer

S. L.

(2010). Content versus source cue information as a basis for credibility judgments: The impact of task involvement. Social Psychology, 41(2), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000014

62.

Reskin

B. F.

Visher

C. A.

(1986). The impacts of evidence and extralegal factors in jurors’ decisions. Law & Society Review, 20(3), 423. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053582

63.

Reymond v Township of Bosanquet (1919). 59 CanSC 452.

64.

Rothbaum

B. O.

Foa

E. B.

Riggs

D. S.

Murdock

Walsh

(1992). A prospective examination of post-traumatic stress disorder in rape victims. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 5(3), 455–475. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.2490050309

65.

Rouder

J. N.

Morey

R. D.

Speckman

P. L.

Province

J. M.

(2012). Default Bayes factors for ANOVA designs. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56(5), 356–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2012.08.001

66.

Sansone

(2008). The SAGE handbook of methods in social psychology (p. 592). Sage.

67.

Schönbrodt

F. D.

Wagenmakers

E.-J.

(2018). Bayes factor design analysis: Planning for compelling evidence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(1), 128–142. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1230-y

68.

Schuller

R. A.

Hastings

P. A.

(2002). Complainant sexual history evidence: Its impact on mock jurors’ decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(3), 252–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.00064

69.

Smith

(2018). Rape trials in England and Wales. Springer International Publishing.

70.

Stern

L. D.

Marrs

Millar

M. G.

Cole

(1984). Processing time and the recall of inconsistent and consistent behaviors of individuals and groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(2), 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.2.253

71.

Süssenbach

Eyssel

Rees

Bohner

(2017). Looking for blame: Rape myth acceptance and attention to victim and perpetrator. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(15), 2323–2344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515591975

72.

Szucs

Ioannidis

J. P. A.

(2017). Empirical assessment of published effect sizes and power in the recent cognitive neuroscience and psychology literature. PLoS Biology, 15(3), e2000797. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2000797

73.

Temkin

Krahé

(2008). Sexual assault and the justice gap: A question of attitude. Bloomsbury Publishing.

74.

Thelan, A. R., & Meadows, E. A. (2021). The Illinois rape myth acceptance scale—subtle version: Using an adapted measure to understand the declining rates of rape myth acceptance. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211030013

75.

Thomas

(2010). Are juries fair? Ministry of Justice. https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/are-juries-fair-research.pdf

76.

van Doorn

Koster

N. N.

(2019). Emotional victims and the impact on credibility: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 47, 74–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.03.007

77.

Wessel

E. M.

Bollingmo

G. C.

Sønsteby

Nielsen

L. M.

Eliersten

D. E.

Magnussen

(2012). The emotional witness effect: Story content, emotional valence and credibility of a male suspect. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18(5), 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2010.502119

78.

White v R. (1947). SCR 268.

79.

Wickham

Averick

Bryan

Chang

McGowan

L. D.

François

Grolemund

Hayes

Henry

Hester

Kuhn

Pedersen

T. L.

Miller

Bache

S. M.

Müller

Ooms

Robinson

Seidel

D. P.

Spinu

(2019). Welcome to the Tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686

80.

Zydervelt

Zajac

Kaladelfos

Westera

(2017). Lawyers’ strategies for cross-examining rape complainants: Have we moved beyond the 1950s? The British Journal of Criminology, 57(3), 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azw023

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.25 MB