Abstract
Male versus female rape complainants are typically perceived as less credible. This study sought to (a) examine whether medical forensic expert testimony can moderate this bias; (b) retest complainant gender effects on verdict; and (c) assess gender role attitudes as a moderator of the effect of complainant and forensic nurse gender on credibility. For Objective (a), we tested competing hypotheses. Gender-role congruency research predicts that female nurses will increase the credibility of and convictions for all complainants. Conversely, nursing and self-disclosure research suggests that such outcomes will occur when the complainant is examined by a same-gender nurse. For Objective (b), we predicted that mock jurors would assign fewer convictions for the male complainant. For Objective (c), we predicted that mock jurors with stronger versus weaker gender role attitudes would perceive male complainants and forensic nurses as less credible. Prolific users (N = 773) read a rape trial summary with complainant and nurse gender manipulated between subjects. We measured verdict, complainant and nurse credibilities, and gender role attitudes. Replicating prior work, mock jurors judged the male complainant as less credible. Contrary to past research, fewer convictions were assigned to the defendant when the complainant was male. Despite these findings, mock jurors’ perceptions of the forensic nurse testimony were not affected by the complainant’s gender. Nurse gender and gender role attitudes failed to moderate any effects. Results suggest that gender bias did not affect perceptions of evidence presented by the nurse despite affecting verdict decisions, illustrating that extralegal factors may influence verdicts even when they do not affect how trial evidence is perceived. Findings also tentatively suggest that jurors are not significantly affected by forensic nurse gender. Practical and policy implications are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
