Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 54, Issue 7–8, pp 547–555 | Cite as

The Effects of Victim’s Substance Use and Relationship Closeness on Mock Jurors’ Judgments in an Acquaintance Rape Case

  • Ashley A. Wenger
  • Brian H. BornsteinEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Previous research has demonstrated that jurors perceive a female victim who is drunk at the time when she is sexually assaulted as less credible and more deserving of such punishment than a sober victim. In this experiment, we investigated the effect of an alleged acquaintance rape victim’s type of substance use and closeness of relationship with the defendant on the judgments of 152 student mock jurors. Participants read a case summary and answered a series of questions about their impressions of the actors and actions involved in the case. Participants perceived a victim who was sober at the time of the incident as more credible than a victim who was intoxicated due to illegal substance use (alcohol or LSD), and convictions were also most likely when the victim was sober. Women perceived the victim as more credible than men did. Higher victim credibility judgments were associated with less rape myth acceptance (RMA) on the part of participants.

Keywords

Juries Rape Substance use 

Notes

Acknowlwdgments

We thank Dick Dienstbier for his helpful comments and advice on the project. This article is based on an honors thesis conducted by the first author, under supervision of the second author. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2004 meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society in Scottsdale, Arizona.

References

  1. Abbey, A. (2002). Alcohol-related sexual assault: A common problem among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, S14, S118–S128.Google Scholar
  2. Abbey, A., Clinton, A. M., McAuslan, P. Zawacki, T., & Buck, P. O. (2002). Alcohol-involved rapes: Are they more violent? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abbey, A., McAuslan, P., Ross, L. T., & Zawacki, T. (1999). Alcohol expectancies regarding sex, aggression, and sexual vulnerability: Reliability and validity assessment. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 13, 174–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abbey, A., Zawacki, T., Buck, P. O., Clinton, A. M., & McAuslan, P. (2004). Sexual assault and alcohol consumption: What do we know about their relationship and what types of research are still needed? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 271–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Abrams, D., Viki, G. T., Masser, B., & Bohner, G. (2003). Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 111–125.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217–230.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Copenhaver, S., & Grauerholz, E. (1991). Sexual victimization among sorority women: Exploring the link between sexual violence and institutional practices. Sex Roles, 24, 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deitz, S. R., Littman, M., & Bentley, B. J. (1984). Attribution of responsibility for rape: The influence of observer empathy. Sex Roles, 10, 261–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. B., Seying, R., & Pryce, J. (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 622–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diamond, S. S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Doweiko, H. E. (1996). Concepts of chemical dependency (3d ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  13. Fischer, G. J. (1991). Cognitive predictors of not-guilty verdicts in a simulated acquaintance rape trial. Psychological Reports, 68, 1199–1206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischer, G. J. (1997). Gender effects on individual verdicts and on mock jury verdicts in a simulated acquaintance rape trial. Sex Roles, 36, 491–501.Google Scholar
  15. Frese, B., Moya, M., & Megías, J. L. (2004). Social perception of rape: How rape myth acceptance modulates the influence of situational factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 143– 161.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fromme, K., Katz, E. C., & Rivet, K. (1997). Outcome expectancies and risk-taking behavior. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 21, 421–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fulero, S. M., & Penrod, S. D. (1990). Attorney jury selection folklore: What do they think and how can psychologists help? Forensic Reports, 3, 233–259.Google Scholar
  18. George, W. H., Lehman, G. L., Cue, K. L., & Martinez, L. J. (1997). Postdrinking sexual inferences: Evidence for linear rather than curvilinear dosage effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 629–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. George, W. H., & Martinez, L. J. (2002). Victim blaming in rape: Effects of victim and perpetrator race, type of rape, and participant racism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 110–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hammock, G. S., & Richardson, D. R. (1997). Perceptions of rape: The influence of closeness of relationship, intoxication, and sex of participant. Violence and Victims, 12, 237–246.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jimenez, J. A., & Abreu, J. M. (2003). Race and sex effects on attitudinal perceptions of acquaintance rape. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 252–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson, J. D., Jackson, L. A., Gatto, L., & Nowak, A. (1995). Differential male and female responses to inadmissible sexual history information regarding a rape victim. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 503–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kilpatrick, D. G., Acierno, R., Resnick, H. S., Saunders, B. E., & Best, C. L. (1997). A 2-year longitudinal analysis of the relationships between violent assault and alcohol and drug use in women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 834–847.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koski, D. D. (2002). Jury decisionmaking in rape trials: A review and empirical assessment. Criminal Law Bulletin, 38, 21–159.Google Scholar
  26. Leigh, B. C., Aramburu, B., & Norris, J. (1992). The morning after: Gender differences in attributions about alcohol-related sexual encounters. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 343–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1994). Rape myths: In review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 133–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lunney, G. H. (1970). Using analysis of variance with a dichotomous dependent variable: An empirical study. Journal of Educational Measurement, 7, 263–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marx, B. P., Nicols-Anderson, C., Messman-Moore, T., Miranda, R. J., & Porter, C. (2000). Alcohol consumption, outcome expectancies, and victimization among female college students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1056–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moran, G., Cutler, B. L., & De Lisa, A. (1994). Attitudes toward tort reform, scientific jury selection, and juror bias: Verdict inclination in criminal and civil trials. Law & Psychology Review, 18, 309–328.Google Scholar
  31. Schuller, R. A., & Klippenstine, M. A. (2004). The impact of complainant sexual history evidence on jurors’ decisions: Considerations from a psychological perspective. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 321–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schuller, R. A., & Wall, A. M. (1998). The effect of defendant and complainant intoxication on mock jurors’ judgments of sexual assault. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 555–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schutte, J. W., & Hosch, H. M. (1997). Gender differences in sexual assault verdicts. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 759–772.Google Scholar
  34. Seifert, S. A. (1999). Substance use and sexual assault. Substance Use and Misuse, 34, 935–945.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Selby, J. W., Calhoun, L. G., & Brock, T. A. (1977). Sex differences in the social perception of rape victims. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 412–415.Google Scholar
  36. Stylianou, S. (2002). Control attitudes toward drug use as a function of paternalistic and moralistic drug use. Journal of Drug Issues, 32, 119–153.Google Scholar
  37. Taylor, T. S., & Hosch, H. M. (2004). An examination of jury verdicts for evidence of a similarity-leniency effect, an out-group punitiveness effect or a black sheep effect. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 587–598.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Testa, M. (2004). The role of substance use in male-to-female physical and sexual violence: A brief review and recommendations for future research. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1494– 1505.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Testa, M., & Parks, K. A. (1996). The role of women’s alcohol consumption in sexual victimization. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1, 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tyler, K. A., Hoyt, D. R., & Whitbeck, L. B. (1998). Coercive sexual strategies. Violence and Victims, 13, 47–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Ullman, S. E., Karabatsos, G., & Koss, M. P. (1999). Alcohol and sexual assault in a national sample of college women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 603–625.Google Scholar
  42. Viki, G. T., Abrams, D., & Masser, B. (2004). Evaluating stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent sexism in perpetrator blame and recommended sentence length. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 295–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wall, A. M., & Schuller, R. A. (2000). Sexual assault and defendant/victim intoxication: Jurors’ perceptions of guilt. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 253–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weisheit, R. A., & Johnson, K. (1992). Exploring the dimensions of support for decriminalizing drugs. Journal of Drug Issues, 22, 53–75.Google Scholar
  45. Zawacki, T., Abbey, A., Buck, P. O., McAuslan, P., & Clinton-Sherrod, A. M. (2003). Perpetrators of alcohol-involved sexual assaults: How do they differ from other sexual assault perpetrators and nonperpetrators? Aggressive Behavior, 29, 366–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of NebraskaLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations