Perceptions of “Stealthing” in Civil Court

Abstract

This study investigated how jurors perceive victim intoxication in a civil case involving “stealthing,” the nonconsensual removal of a condom during sexual intercourse. Participants read a trial summary and made case judgments. Results revealed: (a) more plaintiff decisions when the victim was sober compared to intoxicated; (b) the effect of victim intoxication on case decision was indirectly affected by pro-victim judgments; and (c) the victim's intoxication was a central reason for decisions in favor of the defendant, whereas a lack of consent was central to plaintiff decisions. The results are compared to past findings in the context of rape.

Keywords

female victimization stealthing rape civil court legal decision-making

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahler

D. J.

Roush

C. E.

Sood

(2021). The micro-task market for lemons: Data quality on Amazon's mechanical Turk. Political Science Research and Methods, 13(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2021.57

Black

M. C.

Basile

K. C.

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Walters

M. L.

Merrick

M. T.

Chen

Stevens

M. R.

(2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Bornstein

B. H.

Golding

J. M.

Neuschatz

Kimbrough

Reed

Magyarics

Luecht

(2017). Mock juror sampling issues in jury simulation research: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 41(1), 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000223

Brodsky

(2017). Rape-adjacent: Imagining legal responses to nonconsensual condom removal. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 32(2), 183–210. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2954726 .

Brühlmann

Petralito

Aeschbach

L. F.

Opwis

(2020). The quality of data collected online: An investigation of careless responding in a crowdsourced sample. Methods in Psychology, 2, Article 100022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metip.2020.100022

Buhrmester

Kwang

Gosling

S. D.

(2011). Amazon’s mechnical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980

Burt

M. R.

(1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.2.217

California Civil Code § 1708.5 . (2022). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1708.5.&lawCode=CIV#:∼:text=(a)%20A%20person%20commits%20a,special%20damages%2C%20and%20punitive%20damages.

Chesser

(2021, October 11). In an Australian first, stealthing is now illegal in the ACT. Could this set a precedent for the country? https://theconversation.com/in-an-australian-first-stealthing-is-now-illegal-in-the-act-could-this-set-a-precedent-for-the-country-169629.

10.

Cornett

(2021). Taking the lead: A strategic analysis of stealthing and the best route for potential civil plaintiffs to recover. William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice, 27(3), 931–961. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmjowl/vol27/iss3/9

11.

Davis

(2019). “Stealthing”: Factors associated with young men's nonconsensual condom removal. Health Psychology, 38(11), 997–1000. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000779

12.

de Visser

R. O.

McDonnell

E. J.

(2012). ‘That’s OK. He’s a guy’: A mixed-methods study of gender double-standards for alcohol use. Psychology & Health, 27(5), 618–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2011.617444

13.

Diamond

S. S.

(1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21(5), 561–571. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024831908377

14.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A. G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

15.

Frost

G. E.

(2023, April 28). Yes, ‘stealthing’ is sexual assault - here are the states taking action against it. https://www.women.com/1270289/yes-stealthing-is-sexual-assault-here-are-the-states-taking-action-against-it/.

16.

Golding

J. M.

Lynch

K. R.

Renzetti

C. M.

Pals

A. M.

(2023). Beyond the stranger in the woods: Investigating the complexity of adult rape cases in the courtroom. In Bornstein

B. H.

Miller

M. K.

(Eds.), Advances in psychology and law (pp. 1–37). Springer.

17.

Golding

J. M.

Neuschatz

J. S.

Bornstein

B. H.

Pals

A. M.

Wetmore

S. A.

(2020). The perceptions of a jailhouse informant in a sexual assault case. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 38, 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-020-09400-3

18.

Gomez-Duran

Martin-Fumado

(2024). Nonconsensual condom-use deception: An empirically based conceptualization of stealthing. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(1), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380221141731

19.

Gosling

S. D.

Vazire

Srivastava

John

O. P.

(2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59(2), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.93

20.

Hauser

D. J.

Moss

A. J.

Rosenzweig

Jaffe

S. N.

Robinson

Litman

(2023). Evaluating Cloud Research’s approved group as a solution for problematic data quality on MTurk. Behavior Research Methods, 55(8), 3953–3964. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01999-x

21.

Hayes

A. F.

(2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.

22.

Latimer

R. L.

Vodstrcil

L. A.

Fairley

C. K.

Cornelisse

V. J.

Chow

E. P. F.

Read

T. R. H.

, et al. (2018). Non-consensual condom removal, reported by patients at a sexual health clinic in Melbourne, Australia. PLoS ONE, 13(12), Article e0209779. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209779

23.

Livingston

T. N.

Rerick

P. O.

Miller

M. K.

(2019). Psychological explanations of how gender relates to perceptions and outcomes at trial. In Bornstein

B. H.

Miller

M. K.

(Eds.), Advances in psychology and law (Vol. 4, pp. 137–173). Springer.

24.

Lynch

K. R.

Wasarhaley

N. E.

Golding

J. M.

Simcic

T. A.

(2013). Who bought the drinks? Juror perceptions of intoxication in a rape trial. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(16), 3205–3222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513496900

25.

McKimmie

B. M.

Masser

B. M.

Bongiomo

(2014). What counts as rape? The effect of offense prototypes, victim stereotypes, and participant gender on how the complainant and defendant are perceived. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(12), 2273–2303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513518843

26.

National Sexual Violence Resource Center . (2004). Global perspectives on sexual violence: Findings from the world report on violence and health. https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/Publications_NSVRC_Booklets_Global-perspectives-on-sexual-violence.pdf.

27.

National Sexual Violence Resource Center . (n.d.-a). About sexual assault. https://www.nsvrc.org/about-sexual-assault.

28.

Nguyen

K. K.

Weeks

Stenstrom

(2020). Investigating the effects of stealthing justifications on rape perceptions. Violence Against Women, 27(6–7), 790–805. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220930823

29.

Online Resource . https://osf.io/xvqu4/?view_only=2e465771381840b199fa52fdaf69db42 .

30.

Payne

D. L.

Lonsway

K. A.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33(1), 27–68. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1998.2238

31.

Pennington

Hastie

(2000). Explanation-based decision making. In Connolly

Arkes

H. R.

Hammond

K. R.

(Eds.), Judgements and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader (pp. 212–228). Cambridge University Press.

32.

RAINN . (n.d.-b). Victims of sexual violence: Statistics. https://rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence.

33.

RAINN . (n.d.-c). Legal role of consent. https://rainn.org/articles/legal-role-consent.

34.

Schuller

R. A.

Wall

A. M.

(1998). The effects of defendant and complainant intoxication on mock jurors’ judgements of sexual assault. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22(4), 555–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00177.x

35.

Schvaneveldt

R. W.

(1990). Proximities, networks, and schemata. In Schvaneveldt

R. W.

(Ed.), Ablex series in computational sciences. Pathfinder associative networks: Studies in knowledge organization (pp. 135–148). Ablex Publishing.

36.

Starfelt

L. C.

White

K. M.

(2015). The influence of perpetrator and victim intoxication on perceivers’ ratings of a sexual perpetrator’s own awareness of wrongdoing for his sexually aggressive behaviour. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 21(2), 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2013.842002

37.

Stewart

(2021). Stealthing is still flying dangerously under the radar. https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/15/opinions/stealthing-california-law-michaela-coel-stewart/index.html.

38.

Turnbull

(2023). Danushka Gunathilaka: Sri Lankan cricketer found not guilty of rape. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-66920784.

39.

Wall

A. M.

Schuller

R. A.

(2000). Sexual assault and defendant/victim intoxication: Jurors’ perceptions of guilt. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(2), 253–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02315.x