Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 421–448 | Cite as

Empathy and Jurors' Decisions in Patricide Trials Involving Child Sexual Assault Allegations

  • Tamara M. Haegerich
  • Bette L. Bottoms


In a mock-trial paradigm, 205 participants considered a patricide trial in which a child defendant claimed the patricide was done in self-defense after years of sexual abuse. Participants in an empathy-induction condition were asked to take the perspective of the defendant and to detail how they would be thinking and feeling if they were the defendant. Control condition participants received no such instructions. Results indicated that, compared to jurors in the control condition, jurors who were asked to take the defendant's perspective had more empathy for the defendant (without feeling more similar to or more sympathy for the defendant), found the defendant less guilty and less responsible for the murder, and were more likely to consider abuse to be a mitigating factor in the killing. Overall, compared to men, women were more likely to believe the defendant's abuse allegations, find the defendant credible, and consider the defendant to be less responsible for the murder. Women in the empathy condition found the defendant less guilty than did all other jurors. Finally, child defendant gender was also varied, but this had few effects on case judgments overall. Jurors, however, were more likely to believe that the girl defendant was sexually abused than the boy defendant. We discuss theoretical implications for understanding the social psychological construct of empathy as well as implications for understanding jurors' decisions in cases involving child sexual assault allegations.


Social Psychology Sexual Assault Child Sexual Assault Theoretical Implication Psychological Construct 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aderman, D., Archer, R. L., & Harris, J. L. (1975). Effect of emotional empathy on attribution of responsibility. Journal of Personality, 43, 156–161.Google Scholar
  2. Aderman, D., Brehm, S. S., & Katz, L. B. (1974). Empathic observation of an innocent victim. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 342–347.Google Scholar
  3. Allison, J. A. (1996). The law and information processing: Implications for verdicts in rape cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1961–1977.Google Scholar
  4. Amato, P. R. (1979). Juror-defendant similarity and the assessment of guilt in politically motivated crimes. Australian Journal of Psychology, 31, 79–88.Google Scholar
  5. American Lawyer/Court TV Video Library Service (1992). Kentucky v. English Trial Story [Film]. Available from Courtroom Television Network, 600 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10016.Google Scholar
  6. Archer, R. L., Foushee, H. C., Davis, M. H., & Aderman, D. (1979). Emotional empathy in a courtroom simulation: A person–situation interaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 275–291.Google Scholar
  7. Batson, C. D., Duncan, B. D., Ackerman, P., Buckley, T., & Birch, K. (1981). Is empathic emotion a source of altruistic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 290–302.Google Scholar
  8. Batson, C. D., Turk, C. L., Shaw, L. L., & Klein, T. R. (1995). Information function of empathic emotion: Learning that we value the other's welfare. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 300–313.Google Scholar
  9. Bell, S. T., Kuriloff, P. J., & Lottes, I. (1994). Understanding attributions of blame in stranger rape and date rape situations: An examination of gender, race, identification, and students' social perceptions of rape victims. Journal of Applied Psychology, 24, 1719–1734.Google Scholar
  10. Borgida, E., & Brekke, N. (1985). Psycholegal research on rape trials. In A. W. Burgess (Ed.), Rape and sexual assault: A research handbook (pp. 313–342). New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  11. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75–91.Google Scholar
  12. Bottoms, B. L. (1993). Individual differences in perceptions of child sexual assault victims. In G. S. Goodman & B. L. Bottoms (Eds.), Child victims, child witnesses: Understanding and improving testimony (pp. 229–261). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  13. Bottoms, B. L., & Goodman, G. S. (1994). Perceptions of children's credibility in sexual assault cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 702–732.Google Scholar
  14. Brady, E. C., Chrisler, J. C., Hosdale, D. C., Osowiecki, D. M., & Veal, T. A. (1991). Date rape: Expectations, avoidance strategies, and attitudes towards victims. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 427–429.Google Scholar
  15. Broussard, S. D., & Wagner, W. G. (1988). Child sexual abuse: Who is to blame? Child Abuse and Neglect, 12, 563–569.Google Scholar
  16. Church, G. J. (1993, October 4). Sons and murderers. Time, pp. 68–69.Google Scholar
  17. Coller, S. A., & Resick, P. A. (1987). Women's attributions of responsibility for date rape: The influence of empathy and sex role stereotyping. Violence and Victims, 2, 115–125.Google Scholar
  18. Corder, B. F., & Whiteside, R. (1988). A survey of jurors' perception of issues related to child sexual abuse. American Journal of Forensic Psychology,6, 37–43.Google Scholar
  19. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1990). Juror sensitivity to eyewitness identification evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 185–191.Google Scholar
  20. Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.Google Scholar
  21. Davis, M. H. (1994). Empathy: A social psychological approach. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark.Google Scholar
  22. Davis, M. H. (1996). Empathy: A social psychological approach (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  23. Deitz, S. R., Blackwell, K. T., Daley, P. C., & Bentley, B. J. (1982). Measurement of empathy toward rape victims and rapists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 372–384.Google Scholar
  24. Deitz, S. R., & Byrnes, L. E. (1981). Attribution of responsibility for sexual assault: The influence of observer empathy and defendant occupation and attractiveness. Journal of Psychology, 108, 17–29.Google Scholar
  25. Deitz, S. R., Littman, M., & Bentley, B. J. (1984). Attribution of responsibility for rape: The influence of observer empathy, victim resistance, and victim attractiveness. Sex Roles, 10, 261–280.Google Scholar
  26. Diamond, S. S. (1993). Instructing on death: Psychologists, juries, and judges. American Psychologist, 48, 423–434.Google Scholar
  27. Diamond, S. S. (1997). Illuminations and shadows from jury simulations. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 561–571.Google Scholar
  28. Eisenberg, N. (Ed.) (1989). Empathy and related emotional responses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  29. Eisenberg, N., & Lennon, R. (1983). Sex differences in empathy and related capacities. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 100–131.Google Scholar
  30. Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987a). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 91–119.Google Scholar
  31. Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987b). Empathy, sympathy, and altruism: Empirical and conceptual links. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 292–316). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Eisenberg, N., Owens, R. G., & Dewey, M. E. (1987). Attitudes of health professionals to child sexual abuse and neglect. Child Abuse and Neglect, 11, 109–116.Google Scholar
  33. Eisenberg, N., & Strayer, J. (1987). Critical issues in the study of empathy. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 3–16). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Elliot, D. M., & Briere, J. (1995). Posttraumatic stress associated with delayed recall of sexual abuse: A general population study. Journal of Traumatic Stress,8, 629–647.Google Scholar
  35. Epstein, M. A., & Bottoms, B. L. (1998). Memories of childhood sexual abuse: A survey of young adults. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22, 1217–1238.Google Scholar
  36. Ewing, C. P. (1990). When children kill. Lexington, MA: Heath.Google Scholar
  37. Finkelhor, D. (1984). Child sexual abuse: New theory and research. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  38. Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G., Lewis, I. A., & Smith, C. (1990). Sexual abuse in a national survey of adult men and women: Prevalence, characteristics, and risk factors. Child Abuse and Neglect, 14, 19–28.Google Scholar
  39. Follingstad, D. R., Polek, D. S., House, E. S., Deaton, L. H., Bulger, M. W., & Conway, Z. D. (1989). Factors predicting verdicts in cases where battered women kill their husbands. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 253–269.Google Scholar
  40. Galper, R. E. (1976). Turning observers into actors: Differential causal attributions as a function of empathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 10, 328–335.Google Scholar
  41. Gabora, N. J., Spanos, N. P., & Joab, A. (1993). The effects of complaintant age and expert psychological testimony in a simulated child sexual abuse trial. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 103–119.Google Scholar
  42. Golding, J. M., Sanchez, R. P., & Sego, S. A. (1997). The believability of hearsay testimony in a child sexual assault trial. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 299–325.Google Scholar
  43. Goodman, G. S., Golding, J. M., & Haith, M. T. (1984). Jurors' reactions to child witnesses. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 139–156.Google Scholar
  44. Goodman, G. S., Golding, J. M., Helgeson, V. S., Haith, M. M., & Michelli, J. (1987). When a child takes the stand: Jurors' perceptions of children's eyewitness testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 27–48.Google Scholar
  45. Goodman, G. S., Tobey, A. E., Batterman-Fraunce, J. M., Orcutt, H., Thomas, S., Shapiro, C., & Sachsenmaier, T. (1998). Face-to-face confrontation: Effects of closed-circuit technology on children's eyewitness testimony and jurors' decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 165–204.Google Scholar
  46. Griffit, W., & Jackson, T. (1973). Simulated jury decisions: The influence of jury–defendant attitude similarity-dissimilarity. Social Behavior and Personality,1, 1–7.Google Scholar
  47. Hamlin, S. (1985). What makes juries listen: A communications expert looks at the trial. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  48. Heide, K. M. (1992). Why kids kill parents: Child abuse and adolescent homicide. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 307–316.Google Scholar
  50. Isquith, P. (1988, April). Students and community members as jurors. In M. Levine (Chair), Simulated jury research on a child as a witness. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Buffalo, New York.Google Scholar
  51. Kerr, N. L., Hymes, R. W., Anderson, A. B., & Weathers, J. E. (1995). Defendant–juror similarity and mock juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 545–567.Google Scholar
  52. Kovera, M. B., Gresham, A.W., Borgida, E., Gray, E., & Regan, P. C. (1997). Does expert psychological testimony inform or influence juror decision making? A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 178–191.Google Scholar
  53. Krahe, B. (1988). Victim and observer characteristics as determinants of responsibility attributions to victims of rape. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 50–58.Google Scholar
  54. Krebs, D. (1975). Empathy and altruism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 1134–1146.Google Scholar
  55. Larsen, K., & Long, E. (1988). Attitudes toward rape. Journal of Sex Research, 24, 299–304.Google Scholar
  56. Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1998). Small groups. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 415–469). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Lind, E. A., & Walker, L. (1979). Theory testing, theory development, and laboratory research on legal issues. Law and Human Behavior,3, 5–19.Google Scholar
  58. Macrae, C. N., & Shepherd, J. W. (1989). Sex differences in the perception of rape victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,4, 278–288.Google Scholar
  59. McGlynn, R. P., Megas, J. C., & Benson, D. H. (1976). Sex and race as factors affecting the attribution of insanity in a murder trial. Journal of Psychology, 93, 93–99.Google Scholar
  60. Morison, S., & Greene, E. (1992). Juror and expert knowledge of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 16, 595–613.Google Scholar
  61. Muller, R. T., Caldwell, R. A., & Hunter, J. E. (1994). Factors predicting the blaming of victims of physical child abuse or rape. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 26, 259–279.Google Scholar
  62. Myers, J. E. B. (1998). Legal issues in child abuse and neglect (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  63. Nightingale, N. (1993). Juror reactions to child victim witnesses: Factors affecting trial outcome. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 679–694.Google Scholar
  64. O'Donohue, W. T., Elliot, A. N., Nickerson, M.,& Valentine, S. (1992). Perceived credibility of children's sexual abuse allegations: Effects of gender and sexual attitudes. Violence and Victims, 7, 147–155.Google Scholar
  65. Quas, J. A., Bottoms, B. L., Haegerich, T. M., & Nysse, K. L. (1999). Effects of victim, defendant, and juror gender on decision making in child sexual assault cases. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  66. Robinson, M. D., & Johnson, J. T. (1997). Is it emotion or is it stress? Gender stereotypes and the perception of subjective experience. Sex Roles, 36, 235–258.Google Scholar
  67. Rogers, C. M., & Terry, T. (1984). Clinical intervention with boy victims of sexual abuse. In I. R. Stuart & J. G. Green (Eds.), Victims of sexual aggression (pp. 91–104). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  68. Scheiner, J. L. (1988, April). The use of the minimalist vignette as amethod for assessing the generalizability of videotape trial simulation results. In M. Levine (Chair), Simulated jury research on a child as a witness. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Buffalo, New York.Google Scholar
  69. Schmidt, C. W., & Brigham, J. C. (1996). Jurors' perceptions of child victim-witnesses in a simulated sexual abuse trial. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 581–606.Google Scholar
  70. Schuller, R. A., & Hastings, P. A. (1996). Trials of battered women who kill: The impact of alternative forms of expert evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 167–187.Google Scholar
  71. Schuller, R. A., Smith, V. L., & Olson, J. M. (1994). Jurors' decisions in trials of battered women who kill: The role of prior beliefs and expert testimony. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 316–337.Google Scholar
  72. Schutte, J. W., & Hosch, H. M. (1997). Gender differences in sexual assault verdicts: A meta-analysis. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 759–772.Google Scholar
  73. Simonoff, J. S. (1998). Logistic regression, categorical predictors, and goodness-of-fit: It depends on who you ask. American Statistician, 52, 10–14.Google Scholar
  74. Smith, L. J., & Malandro, L. A. (1985). Courtroom communication strategies. New York: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  75. Smith, V. L. (1993). When prior knowledge and law collide: Helping jurors to use the law. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 507–536.Google Scholar
  76. Stalans, L. J., & Henry, G. T. (1994). Societal views of justice for adolescents accused of murder: Inconsistency between community sentiment and automatic legislative transfers. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 675–696.Google Scholar
  77. Stephan, C. (1974). Sex prejudice in jury simulation. Journal of Psychology, 88, 305–312.Google Scholar
  78. Sulzer, J. L., & Burglass, R. K. (1968). Responsibility attribution, empathy, and punitiveness. Journal of Personality, 36, 272–282.Google Scholar
  79. Warmbir, S. (1997, July 10). She was out of her mind: Mother testifies daughter didn't know what she was doing when she beat her father to death. Daily Herald (Chicago).Google Scholar
  80. Weir, J. A., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1990). The determinants of mock jurors' verdicts in a rape case. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 901–919.Google Scholar
  81. Weiten, W., & Diamond, S. S. (1979). A critical review of the jury simulation paradigm: The case of defendant characteristics. Law and Human Behavior,3, 71–93.Google Scholar
  82. Wiener, R. L., Feldman-Wiener, A. T., & Grisso, T. (1989). Empathy and biased assimilation of testimonies in cases of alleged rape. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 343–355.Google Scholar
  83. Wiener, R. L., Habert, K., Shkodriani, G.,& Staebler, C. (1991). The social psychology of jury nullification: Predicting when jurors disobey the law. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1389–1401.Google Scholar
  84. Wiener, R. L., Pritchard, C. C., & Weston, M. (1995). Comprehensibility of approved jury instructions in capital murder cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 455–467.Google Scholar
  85. Wispè, L. (1986). The distinction between sympathy and empathy: To call forth a concept, a word is needed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 314–321.Google Scholar
  86. Wright, E. T. (1987). How to use courtroom drama to win cases. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Psychology-Law Society/Division of the American Psychological Association 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tamara M. Haegerich
    • 1
  • Bette L. Bottoms
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyThe University of Illinois at ChicagoChicago
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyThe University of Illinois at ChicagoChicago

Personalised recommendations