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.
AskK. (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
2.
AskK. (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
3.
AskK.LandströmS. (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
4.
BaldusD. C.WoodworthG.ZuckermanD.WeinerN. 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.
5.
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
6.
BandalosD. L. (2018). Measurement theory and applications for the social sciences. Guilford Press.
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
9.
BornsteinB. H.GreeneE. (2017). The jury under fire: Myth, controversy, and reform. Oxford University Press.
10.
BosmaA. K.MulderE.PembertonA.VingerhoetsA. 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.
BrewerN.HupfeldR. 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.
BrodyL. R.HallJ. A.StokesL. R. (2016). Gender and emotion: Theory, findings and context. In BarrettL. F.LewisM.Haviland-JonesJ. (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (4th ed., pp. 369–392). Guilford Publications.
CameronJ. J.StinsonD. 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
ChaikenS. (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.
ChaikenS.LedgerwoodA. (2012). A theory of heuristic and systematic information processing. In LangeP. A. M. V.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), A handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 246–266). Sage.
18.
ChaikenS.MaheswaranD. (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.
ChenS.ChaikenS. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In ChaikenS.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73–96). Guilford Press.
20.
CooperJ.BennettE. A.SukelH. L. (1996). Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions?Law and Human Behavior, 20(4), 379–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01498976
DevineD. J.BuddenbaumJ.HoupS.StudebakerN.StolleD. 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.
DevineD. J.ClaytonL. D.DunfordB. B.SeyingR.PryceJ. (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.
DevineD. J.KrouseP. C.CavanaughC. M.BasoraJ. 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.
ElfenbeinH. A.MandalM. K.AmbadyN.HarizukaS.KumarS. (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
FoxJ.WeisbergS. (2011). An R companion to applied regression (2nd ed.). Sage.
29.
GomilaR. (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.
GravelinC. R.BiernatM.BucherC. 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.
GriffithsM. 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
HartwigM.BondC. 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.
HorowitzI. A.BordensK. 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.
HorowitzI. A.BordensK. S.VictorE.BourgeoisM. J.ForsterLeeL. (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.
HorowitzI. A.ForsterLeeL.BrollyI. (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
JonesC. S.KaplanM. 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.
KalvenH.ZeiselH. (1966). The American jury. Little Brown.
40.
KiteM. E.WhitleyB. E. (2018). The internal validity of research. In Principles of research in behavioral sciences (pp. 277–309). Routledge.
41.
KonradiA. (2007). Taking the stand: Rape survivors and the prosecution of rapists. Greenwood Publishing Group.
42.
LakensD.McLatchieN.IsagerP. M.ScheelA. M.DienesZ. (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.
LandströmS.AskK.SommarC. (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.
LipinskiA. J.LewinR. K.FreeB. L.BurkleyJ. G.MajeedR.BeckJ. 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.
MaheswaranD.MackieD. M.ChaikenS. (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
McKimmieB. M.NewtonS. A.SchullerR. A.TerryD. 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
NitschkeF. 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.
NitschkeF. T.MasserB. M.McKimmieB. M.RiachiM. (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.
NitschkeF. T.McKimmieB. M.VanmanE. 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.
NitschkeF. T.McKimmieB. M.VanmanE. 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.
OsmanS. L.DavisC. 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.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T.GoldmanR. (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.
PictonM.OrmerodD.TaytonL.ShettyR.CooperJ.AubreyD.DickinsonG.SmithA. (2018). The Crown Court compendium – Part 1: Jury and trial management and summing up. Judicial College.
56.
QuadaraA.FilebornB.ParkinsonD. (2013). The role of forensic medical evidence in the prosecution of adult sexual assault. Australian Institute of Criminology.
QuintanaD. S.WilliamsD. 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.
ReinhardM.-A.SporerS. 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.
ReinhardM.-A.SporerS. 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.
ReskinB. F.VisherC. 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.
RothbaumB. O.FoaE. B.RiggsD. S.MurdockT.WalshW. (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.
RouderJ. N.MoreyR. D.SpeckmanP. L.ProvinceJ. 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.
SansoneC. (2008). The SAGE handbook of methods in social psychology (p. 592). Sage.
SchullerR. A.HastingsP. 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.
SmithO. (2018). Rape trials in England and Wales. Springer International Publishing.
70.
SternL. D.MarrsS.MillarM. G.ColeE. (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.
SüssenbachP.EysselF.ReesJ.BohnerG. (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.
SzucsD.IoannidisJ. 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.
TemkinJ.KrahéB. (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
van DoornJ.KosterN. 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.
WesselE. M.BollingmoG. C.SønstebyC.NielsenL. M.ElierstenD. E.MagnussenS. (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.
WickhamH.AverickM.BryanJ.ChangW.McGowanL. D.FrançoisR.GrolemundG.HayesA.HenryL.HesterJ.KuhnM.PedersenT. L.MillerE.BacheS. M.MüllerK.OomsJ.RobinsonD.SeidelD. P.SpinuV. (2019). Welcome to the Tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4(43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686
80.
ZyderveltS.ZajacR.KaladelfosA.WesteraN. (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.
