Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 9, Issue 8, pp 879–889 | Cite as

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

  • Nora K. Villemur
  • Janet Shibley Hyde
Article

Abstract

In an experimental study, mock jurors heard a 50-minute audiotape of a rape trial and saw pictures of the victim and defendant. The factors in the design were sex of the defense attorney, age of the victim (early 20s or 60s), attractiveness of the victim, and sex of the juror. The most striking finding was a higher acquittal rate under the female defense attorney condition (71%) than under the male defense attorney condition (49%). This may be an instance of the recently described “talking platypus” phenomenon. Main effects for juror's sex, age of the victim, and attractiveness of the victim were not significant, but these factors showed complex interactions. Internal-external scores did not predict decisions. The most frequent reasons given for acquittals were reasonable doubt and the victim's not resisting.

Keywords

Experimental Study Social Psychology Complex Interaction Striking Finding Reasonable Doubt 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abramson, R. P., Goldberg, P. A., Greenberg, J. H., & Abramson, L. M. The talking platypus phenomenon: Competency ratings as a function of sex and professional status. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1977, 2, 114–124.Google Scholar
  2. Amir, M. Patterns of forcible rape. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  3. Brownmiller, S. Against our will: Men, women, and rape. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1975.Google Scholar
  4. Davis, J. H., Kerr, N. L., Atkin, R. S., Holt, R. W., & Meek, D. The decision processes of 6- and 12-person juries assigned unanimous and two-thirds majority rules. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 1–14.Google Scholar
  5. Davis, J. H., Kerr, N. L., Strasser, G., Meek, D., & Holt, R. W. Victim consequences, sentence severity, and decision processes in mock juries. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1977, 18, 346–365.Google Scholar
  6. Davis, J. H., Spitzer, C. E., Nagao, D., & Strasser, D. The nature of biases in social decisions by individuals and groups: An example from mock juries. In H. Grandstatter, J. H. Davis, & H. Schuler (Eds.), Social decision processes. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1979.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, J. H., Strasser, G., Spitzer, C. E., & Holt, R. W. Changes in group members' decision preferences during discussion: An illustration with mock juries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 1177–1187.Google Scholar
  8. Everitt, B. S. The analysis of contingency tables. London: Chapman & Hall, 1977.Google Scholar
  9. Feild, H. S. Attitudes toward rape: A comparative analysis of police, rapists, crisis counselors, and citizens. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978, 36, 156–179.Google Scholar
  10. Goldberg, P. A. Are women prejudiced against women? Transaction, 1968, 5, 28–30.Google Scholar
  11. Hadden, S. C. Social dimensions of jury decision-making. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1973, 1, 269–277.Google Scholar
  12. Hoiberg, B. C., & Stires, L. K. The effect of several types of pretrial publicity on the guilt attributions of simulated jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1973, 3, 267–275.Google Scholar
  13. Jones, C., & Aronson, E. Attribution of fault to a rape victim as a function of the respectability of the victim. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 26, 415–419.Google Scholar
  14. Kerr, N. L., Atkin, R. S., Strasser, D., Meek, D., Holt, R. W., & Davis, J. H. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: Effects of concept definition and assigned decision rule on the judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 282–294.Google Scholar
  15. Kerr, N. L., & Turner-Kurtz, A. Effect of a victim's suffering and respectability on mock juror judgments: Further evidence on the just world theory. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 1977, 8, 42–56.Google Scholar
  16. Landy, D., & Aronson, E. The influence of the character of the criminal and his victim on the decision of simulated jurors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1969, 5, 141–152.Google Scholar
  17. Lerner, M. Evaluation of performance as a function of performer's reward and attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 355–360.Google Scholar
  18. Lerner, M., & Simmons, C. Observer's reaction to the “innocent victim”: Compassion or rejection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 203–210.Google Scholar
  19. Phares, E. J. Locus of control in personality. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  20. Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80(1, Whole No. 609).Google Scholar
  21. Scroggs, J. R. Penalties for rape as a function of victim provocativeness, damage, and resistance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1976, 4, 360–368.Google Scholar
  22. Shaver, K. G. An introduction to attribution processes. Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop, 1975.Google Scholar
  23. Smith, R. E., Keating, J. P., Hester, R. K., & Mitchell, H. E. Role and justice considerations in the attribution of responsibility to a rape victim. Journal of Research in Personality, 1976, 10, 246–257.Google Scholar
  24. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. The Attitudes toward Women Scale. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 1972, 2, 66.Google Scholar
  25. Walster, E., Aronson, E., & Abrahams, D. On increasing the persuasiveness of a low prestige communicator. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1966, 2, 325–342.Google Scholar
  26. Ward, C. Prejudice against women: Who, when, and why? Sex Roles, 1981, 7, 163–171.Google Scholar
  27. Weis, K., & Borges, S. S. Victimology and rape: The case of the legitimate victim. Issues in Criminology, 1973, 8, 71–115.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nora K. Villemur
    • 1
  • Janet Shibley Hyde
    • 1
  1. 1.Bowling Green State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations