An experiment was designed to explore effects of general pretrial publicity in sexual assault trials. Four pretrial publicity conditions (no publicity, neutral news media, prodefendant, and antidefendant) in the form of simulated newspaper articles were presented to 356 participants. Participants subsequently read a mock rape trial summary and reported verdicts. In the absence of pretrial publicity related to sexual assault, women were more likely than men to convict the defendant, but the presence of sexual assault pretrial publicity in any form eliminated sex differences in conviction rates.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BornsteinB. H. (1999) The ecological validity of jury simulations: is the jury still out?Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75–91.
2.
GreeneE. (1990) Media effects on jurors. Law and Human Behavior (Special issue: Law and the Media), 14,439–450.
3.
GreeneE.LoftusE. F. (1984) What's new in the news? The influence of well-publicized news events on psychological research and courtroom trials. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 5, 211–221.
4.
GreeneE.WadeR. (1988) Of private talk and public print: general pretrial publicity and juror decision making. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2, 123–135.
5.
KoveraM. B. (2002) The effects of general pretrial publicity on juror decisions: an examination of moderators and mediating mechanisms. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 43–72.
6.
MacraeC. N.ShepherdJ. W. (1989) Sex differences in the perception of rape victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4, 278–288.
7.
McNamaraK.VattanoF. J.VineyW. (1993) Verdict, sentencing, and certainty as a function of sex of juror and amount of evidence in a simulated rape trial. Psychological Reports, 72, 575–583.
8.
NelliganR. J. (1988) The effects of the gender of jurors on sexual assault verdicts. Sociology and Social Research, 72, 249–251.
9.
NietzelM. T.McCarthyD. M.KernM. J. (1999) Juries: the current state of the empirical literature. In RoeschR.HartS. D., & OgloffJ. R. P. (Eds.), Psychology and law: the state of the discipline.New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Pp. 23–52.
10.
RiedelR. G. (1993) Effects of pretrial publicity on male and female judges and jurors in a mock rape trial. Psychological Reports, 73, 819–832.
11.
SteblayN. M.BesirevicJ.FuleroS. M.Jimenez-LorenteB. (1999) The effects of pretrial publicity on juror verdicts: a meta-analytic review. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 219–236.
12.
StudebakerC. A.PenrodS. D. (1997) Pretrial publicity: the media, the law, and common sense. Psychology, Public Policy, and the Law, 3, 428–460.
13.
VillemurN. K.HydeJ. S. (1983) Effects of sex of defense attorney, sex of juror, and age and attractiveness of the victim on mock juror decision making in a rape case. Sex Roles, 9, 879–889.
14.
WeirJ. A.WrightsmanL. S. (1990) The determinants of mock juror's verdicts in a rape case. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 133–146.
15.
YarmeyA. D. (1985) Attitudes and sentencing for sexual assault as a function of age and sex of subjects. Canadian Journal of Aging, 4, 20–28.
