The Impact of Mock Jury Gender Composition on Deliberations and Conviction Rates in a Child Sexual Assault Trial

Abstract

This study investigated how the gender composition of mock juries affects deliberations and conviction rates in a child sexual assault (CSA) trial. As opposed to studies in which mock jurors make decisions as individuals, mock jury research allows for investigation of how individual decisions translate into group verdicts. Gender composition within mock juries was varied to examine whether well-established gender differences in individual judgments affect the jury-level decision-making process. Three hundred men and women, in 6-member mock juries, heard a fictional CSA trial. During deliberations, proprosecution/ prodefense statements by women were approximately equal, whereas men made more prodefense statements. Women switched votes during deliberations more than did men; jurors in woman majority mock juries changed from not guilty to guilty more often than did jurors in nonwoman majority juries, and vice versa; and woman majority mock juries convicted most often. Findings indicate that predeliberation gender differences led to unique jury deliberation strategies and voting patterns.

Keywords

child witnesses jury decision making child sexual assault

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Asch, S.E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31-35.

Bornstein, B.H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91.

Bottoms, B.L. , Golding, J.M. , Stevenson, M.C. , Wiley, T.R.A. , & Yozwiak, J.A. (in press). A review of factors affecting jurors' decisions in child sexual abuse cases. In J. D. Read , D. Ross , M. Toglia., & R. Lindsay (Eds.), The psychology of eyewitness testimony. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bottoms, B.L. , Schmidt, E. , & Epstein, M. (1998). Effects of juror gender and verdict preference on persuasion during deliberations in child abuse trials. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the American Psychology—Law Society, Redondo Beach, CA.

Cooper, W.S. (1999). Kentucky instruction to juries. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Crowley, M.J. , O'Callaghan, M. , & Ball, P.J. (1994). The juridical impact of psychological expert testimony in a simulated child sexual abuse trial. Law and Human Behavior , 18(1), 89-105.

Diamond, S.S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations . Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561-571.

Dillehay, R.C. , & Nietzel, M.T. (1980). Constructing a science of jury behavior. In L. Wheeler (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (pp. 246-264). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Duggan, L.M. , Aubrey, M. , Doherty, E. , Isquith, P.K. , Levine, M. , & Scheiner, J. (1989). The credibility of children as witnesses in a simulated child sex abuse trial. In S. J. Ceci , D. F. Ross , & M. P. Toglia (Eds.), Perspectives on the child witness (pp. 71-99). New York: Springer-Verlag .

10.

Gabora, N.J. , Spanos, N.P. , & Joab, A. (1993). The effects of complainant age and expert psychological testimony in a simulated child sexual abuse trial. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 103-119.

11.

Golding, J.M. , Sego, S.A. , Polley, R.R. , & Hasemann, D. (1995). The believability of repressed memories. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 569-592.

12.

Golding, J.M. , Stewart, T.L. , Yozwiak, J.A. , Djadali, Y. , & Sanchez, R.P. (2000). The impact of DNA evidence in a child sexual assault trial. Child Maltreatment, 5, 373-383.

13.

Goodman, G.S. , Pyle-Taub, E. , Jones, D.P.H. , England, P. , Port, L.P. , Rudy, L. , et al. (1992). Emotional effects of criminal court testimony on child sexual assault victims. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57(Serial No. 229).

14.

Goodman, G.S. , Quas, J.A. , Bulkley, J. , & Shapiro, C. (1999). Innovations for child witnesses: A national survey . Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5(2), 255-281.

15.

Hastie, R. , Penrod, S.D. , & Pennington, N. (1981). Inside the jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

16.

Isquith, P.K. , Levine, M. , & Scheiner, J. (1993). Blaming the child: Attribution of responsibility to victims of child sexual abuse. In G. S. Goodman & B. L. Bottoms (Eds.), Child victims, child witnesses: Understanding and improving memory (pp. 203-228). New York: Guilford .

17.

Kalven, H. , & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown.

18.

Kentucky revised statutes. (2002). Eagan, MN: West Group (Section 510.110).

19.

Kerr, N.L. , Niedermeier, K.E. , & Kaplan, M.F. (1999). Bias in jurors vs. bias in juries: New evidence from the SDS perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making, 80, 70-86.

20.

Kovera, M.B. , Gresham, A.W. , Borgida, E. , Gray, E. , & Regan, P.C. (1997). Does expert psychological testimony inform or influence juror decision making? A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 178-191.

21.

Myers, J.E. , Redlich, A. , Goodman, G. , Prizmich, L. , & Imwinkelried, E. (1999). Juror's perceptions of hearsay in child sexual abuse cases. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 5(2), 388-419.

22.

Rose, M.R. (1999). The peremptory challenge accused of race or gender discrimination? Some data from One County. Law and Human Behavior , 23, 695-702.

23.

Schklar, J. , & Diamond, S.S. (1999). Juror reactions to DNA evidence: Errors and expectancies . Law and Human Behavior, 23, 159-184.

24.

Tanford, S. , & Penrod, S. (1986). Jury deliberations: Discussion content and influence processes in jury decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 322-347.

25.

Yozwiak, J.A. , Golding, J.M. , & Marsil, D.F. (2004). The impact of type of out-of-court disclosure in a child sexual assault trial. Child Maltreatment, 9, 325-334.