Mock jurors heard one of four versions of a ‘date rape’ case and deliberated, in small groups, to a verdict. Exposure to the direct examination of an expert who testified about rape myths undermined belief in the defendant's testimony that sex with the complainant had been consensual, and increased the frequency of guilty votes. However, exposure to the expert's cross-examination reversed the effects of the direct examination on the frequency of guilty votes. Women jurors disbelieved the defendant and voted him guilty to a greater extent than male jurors, while in both sexes profeminist attitudes correlated with disbelief in the defendant's testimony but failed to correlate significantly with final verdicts. Implications are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BurtM., Cultural Myths and Support for Rape, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, pp. 217–230, 1980.
2.
FieldH. S., Attitudes towards Rape: A Comparative Analysis of Police, Rapists, Crisis Counselors and Citizens, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, pp. 156–179, 1978.
3.
BorgidaE.BrekkeN., Psychological Research on Rape Trials, in Research Handbook on Rape and Sexual Assault, BurgessA. (ed.), Garland, New York, pp. 123–150, 1984.
4.
BurgessA. E.HolstromL., Rape Trauma Syndrome, American Journal of Psychiatry, 131, pp. 980–986, 1974.
5.
ClarkL.LewisD., Rape: The Price of Coercive Sexuality, Women's Educational Press, Toronto, 1977.
6.
EstrichS., Real Rape, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1987.
7.
LafreeG.ReskinB.VisherC., Juror's Responses to Victims' Behavior and Legal Issues in Sexual Assault Trials, Social Problems, 32, pp. 389–407, 1985.
8.
ReskinB. F.VisherC. A., The Impact of Evidence and Extralegal Factors in Jurors' Decisions, Law and Society Review, 20, pp. 423–438, 1986.
9.
FrazierP.BorgidaE., Rape Trauma Syndrome Evidence in Court, American Psychologist, 40, pp. 984–993, 1985.
10.
BrekkeN.BorgidaE., Expert Testimony in Rape Trials: A Socio-Cognitive Analysis, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, pp. 372–377, 1988.
11.
McCloskeyM.EgethH. E., Eyewitness Identification: What Can a Psychologist Tell a Jury, American Psychologist, 38, pp. 550–563, 1983.
12.
AcockA.IrelandN., Attribution of Blame in Rape Cases: The Impact of Norm Violation, Gender and Sex-Role Attitude, Sex-Roles, 9, pp. 179–192, 1983.
13.
CostinF., Beliefs about Rape and Women's Social Roles, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, pp. 319–325, 1985.
14.
MalamuthN.CheckJ., Sexual Arousal to Rape Depictions: Individual Differences, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 92, pp. 55–67, 1983.
15.
CalhounL.SelbyJ.WarringL., Social Perception of the Victim's Causal Role: An Exploratory Examination of Four Factors, Human Relations, 29, pp. 517–526, 1976.
16.
ThorntonB.RyckmanR.RobbinsM., The Relationship of Observer Characteristics to Beliefs in the Causal Responsibility of Victims of Sexual Assault, Human Relations, 35, pp. 321–330, 1982.
17.
DavisJ. H.KerrN. L.AtkinR. S.HoltR.MeekD., The Decision Processes of 6 and 12 Person Juries Assigned Unanimous and 2/3 Majority Decision Rules, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, pp. 1–14, 1975.
18.
Feldman-SummersS.LidnerK., Perceptions of Victims and Defendants in Criminal Assault Cases, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, pp. 185–195, 1976.
19.
SpenceJ. T.HelmreightR.StrappJ., A Short Version of the Attitudes toward Women Scale (AWS), Bulletin of Psychonomic Society, 2, pp. 219–220, 1973.
20.
BlackA. C.NolanJ. R.ConnollyM. A., Black's Law Dictionary, West Publishers, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1979.
21.
MuchlenhardC. L.FriedmanD. E.ThomasC. M., Is Date Rape Justifiable: The Effects of Dating Activity, Who Initiated, Who Paid, and Men's Attitude toward Women, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, pp. 297–310, 1985.
22.
BrownmillerS., Against Our Will, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1975.
23.
JenkinsM. J.DambrotF. H., The Attribution of Date Rape: Observers Attitudes and Sexual Experiences and the Dating Situation, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, pp. 875–895, 1987.
24.
HansV. P.VidmarN., Judging the Jury, Plenum, New York, 1986.
25.
SaundersD. M.VidmarN.HewittE. C., Eyewitness Testimony and the Discrediting Effect, in Evaluating Witness Evidence, Lloyd-BostockS.CliffordB. R. (eds.), Wiley, New York, pp. 57–78, 1983.
26.
SpanosN. P.GwynnM. I.TerradeK., The Effects on Mock Jurors of Experts Favorable and Unfavorable towards Hypnotically Elicited Eyewitness Testimony, Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, pp. 922–926, 1989.
27.
WeinbergH. I.BarronR. S., The Discredible Eyewitness, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, pp. 60–67, 1982.
28.
LafreeG. D., Variables Affecting Guilty Pleas and Convictions in Rape Cases: Toward a Social Theory of Rape Processing, Social Forces, 58, pp. 833–850, 1979.
29.
TiegerT., Self Reported Likelihood of Raping and the Social Perception of Rape, Journal of Research in Personality, 15, pp. 147–158, 1981.
30.
LordC. G.RossL.LepperM. R., Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, pp. 2110–2120, 1979.
31.
RapaportK.BurkhartB. R., Personality and Attitudinal Characteristics of Sexually Coercive Males, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, pp. 216–221, 1984.
32.
KaninE.ParcellS., Sexual Aggression: A Second Look at The Offended Female, Archives of Sexual Behavior, 6, pp. 67–76, 1977.
33.
LewinM., Unwanted Intercourse: The Difficulty of Saying No, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9, pp. 184–192, 1985.
34.
RussellD., The Politics of Rape: The Victim's Perspective, Stein & Day, New York, 1975.
35.
KrulewitzJ., Sex Differences in Evaluations of Female and Male Victims' Responses to Assault, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8, pp. 291–305, 1981.
