Advertisement

Psychological Explanations of How Gender Relates to Perceptions and Outcomes at Trial

  • Tyler N. LivingstonEmail author
  • Peter O. Rerick
  • Monica K. Miller
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Advances in Psychology and Law book series (APL, volume 4)

Abstract

Although the American legal system does not statutorily permit differential civil and criminal trial outcomes on the basis of gender, empirical observations of the effects of gender on trial outcomes are ample yet mixed. For several decades, legal actors have attempted to diminish the effects of gender in the courtroom through Supreme Court rulings, presidential policies, legislation, and modification of language in legal documents. Social scientific research suggests that implicit and explicit processes likely affect how the gender of legal actors (e.g., defendants, victims) relates to trial outcomes. This chapter first discusses a variety of laws and policies designed to curtail gender bias generally (e.g., in employment settings) and in the trial process specifically. Next, the chapter synthesizes empirical research that demonstrates the relationship between gender and trial process and outcomes. This synthesis of the psychological research includes specific emphasis on the gender of five primary legal actors: victims, defendants, attorneys, experts, and legal decision-makers. Then, the chapter offers psychological mechanisms that explain why the gender of legal actors (e.g., jurors, witnesses) might relate to trial outcomes. We include overarching theoretical psychological explanations for the observed effects of gender using the symbolic interaction framework and the influence of gender roles and stereotypes. Finally, we identify deficits in the existing research on the relationship between gender and the trial process, suggesting topics for future empirical examination.

Keywords

Gender Defendants Victims Attorneys Expert witnesses Jurors Judges 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Brielle Jackson for their help in preparing this chapter.

References

  1. Abrams, D. S., & Yoon, A. H. (2007). The luck of the draw: Using random case assignment to investigate attorney ability. The University of Chicago Law Review, 74, 1145–1177.  https://doi.org/10.2307/20141859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abramson, R. P., Goldberg, P. A., Greenberg, J. H., & Abramson, L. M. (1979). The talking platypus phenomenon: Competency ratings as a function of sex and professional status. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2, 114–124.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1977.tb00494.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adler, P. A., Kless, S. J., & Adler, P. (1992). Socialization to gender roles: Popularity among elementary school boys and girls. Sociology of Education, 65, 169–187. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alvarez, L., & Buckley, C. (2013, July 13). Zimmerman is acquitted in Trayvon Martin killing. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/us/george-zimmerman-verdict-trayvon-martin.html?mcubz=0.
  5. Alver, F., & Caglar, S. (2015). The impact of symbolic interactionism on research studies about communication science. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 8, 479–484.Google Scholar
  6. American Bar Association. (2018). A current glance at women in the law. ABA Commission on Women in the Profession. Retrieved from https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/women/a-current-glance-at-women-in-the-law-jan-2018.pdf
  7. Anwar, S., Bayer, P., & Hjalmarsson, R. (2017). A jury of her peers: The impact of the first female jurors on criminal convictions. The Economic Journal, 1–48.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Applegate, B. K., Cullen, F. T., & Fisher, B. S. (2002). Public views toward crime and correctional policies: Is there a gender gap? Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 89–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(01)00127-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Batchelder, J. S., Koski, D. D., & Byxbe, F. R. (2004). Women’s hostility toward women in rape trials: Testing the intra-female gender hostility thesis. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 181–200.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02885871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Beckham, C. M., Spray, B. J., & Pietz, C. A. (2007). Jurors’ locus of control and defendants’ attractiveness in death penalty sentencing. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147, 285–298.  https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.147.3.285-298.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bennett, R. E., Gottesman, R. L., Rock, D. A., & Cerullo, F. (1993). Influence of behavior perceptions and gender on teachers’ judgments of students’ academic skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 347–356.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.2.347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bickle, G. S., & Peterson, R. D. (1991). The impact of gender-based family roles on criminal sentencing. Social Problems, 38, 372–394.  https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.1991.38.3.03a00050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Birnbaum, E. (2018, September 25). Republicans hire female attorney to handle Kavanaugh, Ford questioning. The Hill. Retrieved from https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/408306-republicans-hire-female-attorney-to-handle-kavanaugh-ford-questioning-report.
  15. Blais, J., & Forth, A. (2014). Potential labeling effects: Influence of psychopathy diagnosis, defendant age, and defendant gender on mock jurors’ decisions. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20, 116–134.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2012.749473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Blumer, H. (1973). A note on symbolic interactionism. American Sociological Review, 38, 797–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bodenhausen, G. V. (1988). Stereotypic biases in social decision making and memory: Testing process models of stereotype use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 726–737.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.726.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 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, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  19. Bottoms, B. L., & Goodman, G. S. (1994). Perceptions of children’s credibility in sexual assault cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(8), 702–732.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb00608.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bottoms, B. L., Golding, J. M., Stevenson, M. C., Wiley, T. R. A., & Yozwiak, J. A. (2007). A review of factors affecting jurors’ decisions in child sexual abuse cases. In M. P. Toglia, J. D. Read, D. F. Ross, & R. C. L. Lindsay (Eds.), Handbook of eyewitness psychology: Memory for events (Vol. 1, pp. 509–543). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Bottoms, B. L., Peter-Hagene, L. C., Stevenson, M. C., Wiley, T. A., Mitchell, T. S., & Goodman, G. S. (2014). Explaining gender differences in jurors’ reactions to child sexual assault cases. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 32, 789–812.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Boyd, C. L. (2016). Representation on the courts? The effects of trial judges’ sex and race. Political Research Quarterly, 69, 788–799. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44018057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Boyd, C. L., Epstein, L., & Martin, A. D. (2010). Untangling the causal effects of sex on judging. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 389–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Braden-Maguire, J., Sigal, J., & Perrino, C. S. (2005). Battered women who kill: Variables affecting simulated jurors’ verdicts. Journal of Family Violence, 20, 403–408.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-005-7801-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Brenner, P. S., Serpe, R. T., & Stryker, S. (2014). The causal ordering of prominence and salience in identity theory: An empirical examination. Social Psychology Quarterly, 77, 231–252.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272513518337.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Brodsky, S. L., Griffin, M. P., & Cramer, R. J. (2010). The witness credibility scale: An outcome measure for expert witness research. Behavioral Science & The Law, 28, 892–907.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Brown, R. L., & Campbell, S. (1997). How the public views female and black attorneys. Arkansas Law Review, 32, 22–31.Google Scholar
  28. Burczyk, K., & Standing, L. (1989). Attitudes towards rape victims: Effects of victim status, sex of victim, and sex of rater. Social Behavior and Personality, 17, 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.1989.17.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Carson, L. (2008). Lay perceptions of an expert witness in a sexual discrimination in the workplace case. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 5, 107–123.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Chapman, E. N., Kaatz, A., & Carnes, M. (2013). Physicians and implicit bias: How doctors may unwittingly perpetuate health care disparities. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 28, 1504–1510.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-013-2441-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Chew, P. K. (2017). Comparing the effects of judges’ gender and arbitrators’ gender in sex discrimination cases and why it matters. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 32, 195–218.Google Scholar
  32. Clark, J., & Jackson, C. (2018, January 29). Global attitudes toward transgender people. Ipsos. Retrieved from https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/global-attitudes-toward-transgender-people.
  33. Cochran, J. K., & Sanders, B. A. (2009). The gender gap in death penalty support: An exploratory study. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 525–533.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Collins, T. A., Dumas, T. L., & Moyer, L. P. (2017). Intersecting disadvantages: Race, gender, and age discrimination among attorneys. Social Science Quarterly, 98, 16342–16358.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Coons, J. V., & Espinoza, R. K. E. (2018). An examination of aversive heterosexism in the courtroom: Effects of defendants’ sexual orientation and attractiveness, and juror gender on legal decision making. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 5, 36–43.  https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Corley, C. J., Cernkovich, S., & Giordano, P. (1989). Sex and the likelihood of sanction. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 80(2), 540–556.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1143804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Couch, J. V., & Sigler, J. N. (2002). Gender of an expert witness and the jury verdict. The Psychological Record, 52, 281–287.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03395430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Cox, J., & Kopkin, M. R. (2016). Defendant and victim sex, sexism, and decision making in an ambiguous assault case. Women & Criminal Justice, 26, 381–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Crew, B. (1991). Sex differences in criminal sentencing: Chivalry or patriarchy. Justice Quarterly, 8(1), 59–84.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829100090911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Czapanskiy, K. (1993). Domestic violence, the family, and the lawyering process: Lessons from studies on gender bias in the courts. Family Law Quarterly, 27, 247–277. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25739935.
  41. Daftary-Kapur, T., O’Connor, M., & Mechanic, M. (2014). Gender-intrusive questioning: A survey of expert witnesses. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 32, 180–194.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Daly, K., & Stubbs, J. (2006). Feminist engagement with restorative justice. Theoretical Criminology, 10, 9–28.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480606059980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Davies, M. (2000). Male sexual assault victims: A selective review of the literature and implications for support services. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 203–214.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(00)00043-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Davies, M., Walker, J., Archer, J., & Pollard, P. (2013). The scripting of male and female rape. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 5, 68–76.  https://doi.org/10.1108/17596591311313663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Davies, P. G., Spencer, S. J., & Steele, C. M. (2005). Clearing the air: Identity safety moderates the effects of stereotype threat on women’s leadership aspirations. Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes, 2, 276–287.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Denov, M. (2004). The long-term effects of child sexual abuse by female perpetrators: A qualitative study of male and female victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1137–1156.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260504269093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Diamond, S. S. (2013, July 15). Zimmerman trial: Time to reconsider six-member jury. Miami Herald. Retrieved from https://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/14/3497719/zimmerman-trial-time-to-reconsider.html.
  48. Dunlap, E. E., Hodell, E. C., Golding, J. M., & Wasarhaley, N. E. (2012). Mock jurors’ perception of stalking: The impact of gender and expressed fear. Sex Roles, 66, 405–417.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9970-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Dunlap, E. E., Lynch, K. R., Jewell, J. A., Wasarhaley, N. E., & Golding, J. M. (2015). Participant gender, stalking myth acceptance, and gender role stereotyping in perceptions of intimate partner stalking: A structural equation modeling approach. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21, 234–253.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2014.951648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979).Google Scholar
  51. Ellison, L., & Munro, V. E. (2009). Of “normal sex” and “real rape”: Exploring the use of socio-sexual scripts in (mock) jury deliberation. Social & Legal Studies, 18, 291–312.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663909339083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Erez, E. (1992). Dangerous men, evil women: Gender and parole decision-making. Justice Quarterly, 9, 393–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Farhang, S., & Wawro, G. (2004). Institutional dynamics on the US court of appeals: Minority representation under panel decision making. Journal of Law Economics and Organization, 20, 299–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Forsterlee, L., Fox, G. B., Forsterlee, R., & Ho, R. (2004). The effects of a victim impact statement and gender on juror information processing in a criminal trial: Does the punishment fit the crime? Australian Psychologist, 39, 57–67.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00050060410001660353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Francis, B. (2016). The female human trafficker in the criminal justice system: A test of the chivalry hypothesis (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar
  57. Gavin, J., & Scott, A. J. (2016). The influence of the sex of and prior relationship between the perpetrator and victim on perceptions of stalking: A qualitative analysis. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 23, 716–732.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2016.1142933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Gilbert, P. R. (2002). Discourses of female violence and societal gender stereotypes. Violence Against Women, 8, 1271–1300.  https://doi.org/10.1177/107780102762478019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Glenn v. Brumby et al., 724 F. Supp. 2d 1284 (N.D. Ga. 2010).Google Scholar
  60. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Golding, J. M., Bradshaw, G. S., Dunlap, E. E., & Hodell, E. C. (2007). The impact of mock jury gender composition on deliberations and conviction rates in a child sexual assault trial. Child Maltreatment, 12, 182–190.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559506298995.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Gottschall, J. (1983). Carter’s judicial appointments: The influence of affirmative action and merit selection on voting on the U.S. courts of appeals. Judicature, 67, 165–173.Google Scholar
  63. Greenwald, A., McGhee, D., & Schwartz, J. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Groth, A. N., & Burgess, A. W. (1980). Male rape offenders and victims. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137, 806–810.  https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.137.7.806.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Grubb, A., & Turner, E. (2012). Attribution of blame in rape cases: A review of the impact of rape myth acceptance, gender role conformity and substance use on victim blaming. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 443–452.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Gutheil, T. G., & Simon, R. I. (2005). Narcissistic dimensions of expert witness practice. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 33, 55–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Haegerich, T. M., & Bottoms, B. L. (2000). Empathy and jurors’ decisions in patricide trials involving child sexual assault allegations. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 421–448. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1394458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Hahn, P. W., & Clayton, S. D. (1996). The effects of attorney presentation style, attorney gender, and juror gender on juror decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 533–554.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Haines, E. L., Deaux, K., & Lofaro, N. (2016). The times are a-changing…or are they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes, 1983–2014. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 353–363.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316634081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Haney, C. (2005). Death by design: Capital punishment as a social psychological system. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Henning, K., & Feder, L. (2005). Criminal prosecution of domestic violence offenses: An investigation of factors predictive of court outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 612–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Herzog, S., & Oreg, S. (2008). Chivalry and the moderating effect of ambivalent sexism: Individual differences in crime seriousness judgments. Law & Society Review, 42, 45–73.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2008.00334.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Hodell, E. C., Wasarhaley, N. E., Lynch, K. R., & Golding, J. M. (2014). Mock juror gender biases and perceptions of self-defense claims in intimate partner homicide. Journal of Family Violence, 29, 495–506.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-014-9609-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Hodgson, S., & Pryor, B. (1984). Sex discrimination in the courtroom: Attorney’s gender and credibility. Psychological Reports, 55, 483–486.  https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1984.55.2.483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Holliday, M. E. (2018, July 19). Federal appeals court continues to block Trump transgender military ban. Jurist. Retrieved from https://www.jurist.org.
  76. Jackson, B., McDermott, C., & Miller, M. K. (2018). Gender, interrogated: Prejudice, gender performance, and bias against gender-variant suspects. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
  77. J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994).Google Scholar
  78. Jones, C. S., & Kaplan, M. F. (2003). The effects of racially stereotypical crimes on juror decision-making and information-processing strategies. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15324834BASP2501_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Judson, S. S., Johnson, D. M., & Perez, A. L. (2013). Perceptions of adult sexual coercion as a function of victim gender. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14, 335–344.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Kaempf, A. C., Baxter, P., Packer, I. K., & Pinals, D. A. (2015). Gender and the experience of mental health expert witness testimony. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 43, 52–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Karnoski v. Trump 2:17-cv-01297-MJP (2017).Google Scholar
  82. Kennedy, C. W., & Camden, C. (1983). Interruptions and nonverbal gender differences. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8, 91–108.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00986997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Kirshenbaum, J. M., Miller, M. K., Cramer, R. J., Neal, T. M. S., & Wilsey, C. N. (2018). Development and validation of a general legal moral disengagement scale. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society, Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
  84. Kovera, M. B., Levy, R. J., Borgida, E., & Penrod, S. D. (1994). Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 653–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Lambert, E. G., Baker, D. N., Elechi, O. O., Jiang, S., Khondaker, M. I., Pasupuleti, S., et al. (2016). Gender and cultural differences on death penalty support and views among Indian and U.S. college students. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 28, 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15377938.2015.1015195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Larson, B. A., & Brodsky, S. L. (2010). When cross-examination offends: How men and women assess intrusive questioning of male and female expert witnesses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 811–830.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00599.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Larson, B. A., & Brodsky, S. L. (2014). Assertive women as expert witnesses: A study of assertive and defensive responses in male and female experts. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 32(2), 149–163.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Lorber, J. (2007). “Night to his day”: The social construction of gender. In V. Taylor, N. Whittier, & L. J. Rupp (Eds.), Feminist frontiers (7th ed., pp. 41–56). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  89. Mackelprang, E., & Becker, J. V. (2017). Beauty and the eye of the beholder: Gender and attractiveness affect judgments in teacher sex offense cases. Sexual Abuse: Journal of Research and Treatment, 29, 375–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Maeder, E. M., McManus, L. A., McLaughlin, K. J., Yamamoto, S., & Stewart, H. (2016). Jurors’ perceptions of scientific testimony: The role of gender and testimony complexity in trials involving DNA evidence. Cogent Psychology, 3.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2016.1264657.
  91. Maeder, E. M., McManus, L. A., Yamamoto, S., & McLaughlin, K. (2018). A test of gender-crime congruency on mock juror decision-making. Cogent Psychology, 5, 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2018.1461543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Massie, T., Johnson, S. W., & Gubala, S. M. (2002). The impact of gender and race in the decisions of judges on the United States courts of appeals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  93. Mazzella, R., & Feingold, A. (1994). The effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status, and gender of defendants and victims on judgments of mock jurors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1315–1344.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb01552.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. McCall, G. J. (2006). Symbolic interaction. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 1–23). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  95. McCauley, M. R., & Parker, J. F. (2001). When will a child be believed? The impact of the victim’s age and juror’s gender on children’s credibility and verdict in a sexual-abuse case. Child Abuse and Neglect, 25, 523–539.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(01)00224-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. McCoy, M. L., & Gray, J. M. (2007). The impact of defendant gender and relationship to victim on juror decisions in a child sexual abuse case. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1578–1593.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00228.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. McKimmie, B. M., Newton, S. A., Schuller, R. A., & Terry, D. J. (2013). It’s not what she says, it’s how she says it: The influence of language complexity and cognitive load on the persuasiveness of expert testimony. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 20, 578–589.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2012.727068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. McKimmie, B. M., Newton, C. J., Terry, D. J., & Schuller, R. A. (2004). Jurors’ responses to expert witness testimony: The effects of gender stereotypes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7, 131–143.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430204043724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Mead, G. H. (1929). The philosophy of the present. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  100. Meaux, L. T., Cox, J., & Kopkin, M. R. (2018). Saving damsels, sentencing deviants and selective chivalry decision: Juror decision-making in an ambiguous assault case. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2018.1474817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Memon, A., & Shuman, D. W. (1998). Juror perception of experts in civil disputes: The role of race and gender. Law and Psychology Review, 22, 179–196.Google Scholar
  102. Mitchell, D., Hirschman, R., & Hall, G. C. N. (1999). Attributions of victim responsibility, pleasure, and trauma in male rape. The Journal of Sex Research, 36, 369–373.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499909552009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Mossière, A., & Dalby, J. T. (2008). The influence of gender and age in mock juror decision-making. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 4, 1–8.  https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v4i4.440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Mossière, A., Maeder, E. M., & Pica, E. (2016). Racial composition of couples in battered spouse syndrome cases: A look at juror perceptions and decisions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33, 2867–2890.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516632355.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. Myers, B., Lynn, S. J., & Arbuthnot, J. (2002). Victim impact testimony and juror judgments: The effects of harm information and witness demeanor. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2393–2412.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb01869.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Najdowski, C. J., & Bottoms, B. L. (2015). Effects of jurors’ gender and attitudes toward intellectual disability on judgments in cases involving disabled juvenile defendants. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 26, 407–424.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2015.1017592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Neal, T. (2014). Women as expert witnesses: A review of the literature. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 32, 164–179.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Neal, T. S., & Brodsky, S. L. (2008). Expert witness credibility as a function of eye contact behavior and gender. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1515–1526.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808325405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Neal, T. S., Guadagno, R. E., Eno, C. A., & Brodsky, S. L. (2012). Warmth and competence on the witness stand: Implications for the credibility of male and female expert witnesses. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 40, 488–497.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. Nemeth, C., Endicott, J., & Wachtler, J. (1976). From the ‘50s to the ‘70s: Women in jury deliberations. Sociometry, 39, 293–304.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3033495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Newcombe, N., & Arnkoff, D. B. (1979). Effects of speech style and sex of speaker on person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1293–1303.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.8.1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Nieva, V. F., & Gutek, B. A. (1980). Sex effects on evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 5, 267–276.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1980.4288749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1998).Google Scholar
  114. O’Neil, K. M., Patry, M. W., & Penrod, S. D. (2004). Exploring the effects of attitudes toward the death penalty on capital sentencing verdicts. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 443–470.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.10.4.443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. O’Neil, M. E. (1999). The gender gap argument: Exploring the disparity of sentencing women to death. New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement, 25, 213–244.Google Scholar
  116. Orcutt, J. D., & Harvey, L. K. (1985). Deviance, rule-breaking and male dominance in conversation. Symbolic Interaction, 8, 15–32.  https://doi.org/10.1525/si.1985.8.1.15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Osborn, K., Davis, J. P., Button, S., & Foster, J. (2018). Juror decision making in acquaintance and marital rape: The influence of clothing, alcohol, and preexisting stereotypical attitudes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518768566.
  118. Parrott, C. T., Neal, T. S., Wilson, J. K., & Brodsky, S. L. (2015). Differences in expert witness knowledge: Do mock jurors notice and does it matter? Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 43, 69–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. Peresie, J. L. (2004). Female judges matter: Gender and collegial decision making in the federal appellate courts. Yale Law Journal, 114, 1759–1793.Google Scholar
  120. Phillips v. Martin Marietta, 400 U.S. 542 (1971).Google Scholar
  121. Plumm, K. M., & Terrance, C. A. (2009). Battered women who kill: The impact of expert testimony and empathy induction in the courtroom. Violence Against Women, 15, 186–205.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801208329145.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  122. Pollak, O. (1961). The criminality of women. New York, NY: Barnes.Google Scholar
  123. Pozzulo, J. D., Dempsey, J., Maeder, E., & Allen, L. (2010). The effects of victim gender, defendant gender, and defendant age on juror decision making. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 47–63.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854809344173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989).Google Scholar
  125. Pronin, E., & Kugler, M. B. (2006). Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: The introspection illusion as a source of the bias blind spot. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(4), 565–578.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Quas, J. A., Bottoms, B. L., Haegerich, T. M., & Nysse-Carris, K. L. (2002). Effects of victim, defendant, and juror gender on decisions in a child sexual assault case. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1993–2021.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb02061.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Quinones, S. (2012, April 25). EEOC rules job protections also apply to transgender people. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/25/local/la-me-transgender-20120425.
  128. Reed, K., & Bornstein, B. H. (2018). Objection! Psychological perspectives on jurors’ perceptions of in-court attorney objections. South Dakota Law Review, 63, 1–43.Google Scholar
  129. Richards, T. N., Bjerregaard, B. E., Cochran, J., Smith, M. D., & Fogel, S. J. (2016). Predictors of death sentencing for minority, equal, and majority female juries in capital murder trials. Women & Criminal Justice, 26, 260–280.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454.2015.1115802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Rueckert, L., & Naybar, N. (2008). Gender differences in empathy: The role of the right hemisphere. Brain and Cognition, 67, 162–167.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2008.01.002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. Saavedra, L., Cameira, M., Rebelo, A. S., & Sebastião, C. (2017). Gender norms in Portuguese college students’ judgments in familial homicides: Bad men and mad women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32, 249–267.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515585542.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. Salerno, J. M., Phalen, H. J., Reyes, R. N., & Schweitzer, N. J. (2018). Closing with emotion: The differential impact of male versus female attorneys expressing anger in court. Law and Human Behavior, 42, 385–401.  https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000292.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  134. Sassman v. Brown and Beard, 99 F. Supp.3d 1223 (2015).Google Scholar
  135. Schuller, R. A. (1992). The impact of battered woman syndrome evidence on jury decision processes. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 597–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Schuller, R. A., & Cripps, J. (1998). Expert evidence pertaining to battered women: The impact of gender of expert and timing of testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 17–31.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025772604721.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  137. Schuller, R. A., Terry, D., & McKimmie, B. (2001). The impact of an expert’s gender on jurors’ decisions. Law and Psychology Review, 25, 59–79.Google Scholar
  138. Schuller R. A., Terry, D., & McKimmie, B. (2005). The impact of expert testimony on jurors’ decisions: Gender of the expert and testimony complexity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(6), 1266–1280.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02170.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. 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
  140. Segal, J. A. (2000). Representative decision making on the federal bench: Clinton’s district court appointees. Political Research Quarterly, 53, 137–150.  https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290005300107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Sessions v. Morales-Santana, 582 U.S. (2017).Google Scholar
  142. Shah, A. K., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008). Heuristics made easy: An effort-reduction framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 207–222.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.207.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  143. Sigal, J., Braden-Maguire, J., Hayden, M., & Mosley, N. (1985). The effect of presentation style and sex of lawyer on jury decision-making behavior. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 22, 13–19.Google Scholar
  144. Smith, R. E., Pine, C. J., & Hawley, M. E. (1988). Social cognitions about adult male victims of female sexual assault. Journal of Sex Research, 24, 101–112.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224498809551401.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  145. Sommer, S., Reynolds, J. J., & Kehn, A. (2015). Mock juror perceptions of rape victims: Impact of case characteristics and individual differences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515581907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Songer, D. R., Davis, S., & Haire, S. (1994). A reappraisal of diversification in the federal courts: Gender effects in the courts of appeals. Journal of Politics, 56, 425–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Spencer, K. B., Charbonneau, A. K., & Glaser, J. (2016). Implicit bias and policing. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 50–63.  https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Stanko, E. A., & Hobdell, K. (1993). Assault on men: Masculinity and male victimization. The British Journal of Criminology, 33(3), 400–415. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23637803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Starr, S. (2012). Estimating gender disparities in federal criminal cases. American Law and Economics Review, 17, 127–159.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aler/ahu010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Steblay, N., Hosch, H. M., Culhane, S. E., & McWethy, A. (2006). The impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 30, 469–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. Steffensmeier, D., & Hebert, C. (1999). Women and men policymakers: Does the judge’s gender affect sentencing of criminal defendants? Social Forces, 77, 1163–1196.  https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/77.3.1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Steury, E. H., & Frank, N. (1990). Gender bias and pretrial release: More pieces of the puzzle. Journal of Criminal Justice, 18, 417–432.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2352(90)90057-Id.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. Strub, T., & McKimmie, B. M. (2016). Sugar and spice and all things nice: The role of gender stereotypes in jurors’ perceptions of criminal defendants. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 23, 487–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. (1994). Identity salience and psychological centrality: Equivalent, overlapping, or complementary concepts? Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 16–35. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2786972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. Suarez, E., & Gadalla, T. M. (2010). Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis on rape myths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2010–2035.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509354503.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  156. Supriya, S., Sorensen, T., & Oaxaca, R. L. (2007). Do you receive a lighter prison sentence because you are a woman? An economic analysis of federal criminal sentencing guidelines. IZA Discussion Papers, No. 2870, 1–51.Google Scholar
  157. Swenson, R. A., Nash, D. L., & Roos, D. C. (1984). Source credibility and perceived expertness of testimony in a simulated child-custody case. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 15, 891–898.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.15.6.891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. Szmer, J. J., Kaheny, E. B., Sarver, T., & DeCamillis, M. (2013). The impact of attorney gender on decision making in the United States Courts of Appeals. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 34, 72–100.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2013.747898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. Szmer, J. J., Sarver, T. A., & Kaheny, E. B. (2010). Have we come a long way, baby? The influence of attorney gender on Supreme Court decision making. Politics & Gender, 6.  https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x09990493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975).Google Scholar
  161. Terpstra, D., Honorée, A., & Friedl, J. (2013). The influence of the gender and race of the judge and the type of discrimination charge on court case outcomes. International Journal of Law and Management, 55, 318–328.  https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-01-2012-0006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. Terrance, C. A., Matheson, K., & Spanos, N. P. (2000). Effects of judicial instructions and case characteristics in a mock jury trial of battered women who kill. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 207–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. The American Bench. (2018). 2018 U.S. state court women judges. National Association of Women Judges. Forester-Long, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.nawj.org/statistics/2018-us-state-court-women-judges
  164. The Florida Bar. (2016). How to write and use jury instructions in criminal cases. In The Florida Bar Continuing Legal Education (Ed.), Florida standard jury instructions in criminal cases. New York: LexusNexis.Google Scholar
  165. Tillyer, R., Hartley, R. D., & Ward, J. T. (2015). Differential treatment of female defendants: Does criminal history moderate the effect of gender on sentence length in federal narcotics cases? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 703–721.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814560624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. United States Census Bureau. (2000). Section 13: Labor force, employment, and earnings. Statistical abstract of the United States: 2000 (120th Edition). Retrieved from https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2001/compendia/statab/120ed/tables/sec13.pdf.
  167. United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996).Google Scholar
  168. Vasterling, C. G. (1989). Child custody modification under the uniform marriage and divorce act: A statute to end the tug-of-war? Washington University Law Review, 67, 923–948.Google Scholar
  169. Villemur, N. K., & Hyde, J. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. Visher, C. A. (1983). Gender, police arrest decisions, and notions of chivalry. Criminology, 21(1), 5–28.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1983.tb00248.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. Vondergeest, L., Honts, C. R., & Devitt, M. K. (1993). Effects of juror and expert witness gender on jurors’ perceptions of an expert witness. Modern Psychological Studies, 1, 1–6. https://scholar.utc.edu/mps/vol1/iss2/2.
  172. Voss, J. F., & Van Dyke, J. A. (2001). Narrative structure, information certainty, emotional content, and gender as factors in a pseudo jury decision-making task. Discourse Process, 32, 215–243.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2001.9651599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. Vrij, A., & Firmin, H. R. (2001). Beautiful thus innocent? The impact of defendants’ and victims’ physical attractiveness and participants’ rape beliefs on impression formation in alleged rape cases. International Review of Victimology, 8, 245–255.  https://doi.org/10.1177/026975800100800301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. Wilczynski, A. (1997). Mad or bad? Child-killers, gender and the courts. The British Journal of Criminology, 37, 419–436.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a014178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. Williams, M. R., Demuth, S., & Holocomb, J. E. (2007). Understanding the influence of victim gender in death penalty cases: The importance of victim race, sex-related victimization, and jury decision making. Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 45, 865–891.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2007.00095.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. Witt, G. M., & Wood, W. (2010). Self-regulation of gendered behavior in everyday life. Sex Roles, 62, 635–646.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9761-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. Witt, S. D. (2000). The influence of peers on children’s socialization to gender roles. Early Child Development and Care, 162, 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443001620101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. Wuensch, K. L., & Moore, C. H. (2004). Effects of physical attractiveness on evaluations of a male employee’s allegation of sexual harassment by his female employer. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 207–217.  https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.144.2.207-217.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  180. Yamamoto, S., & Maeder, E. M. (2017). A case of culture: Defendant gender and juror decision-making. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32, 3090–3110.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515596976.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  181. Youngquist, J. (2009). The effect of interruptions and dyad gender combination on perceptions of interpersonal dominance. Communication Studies, 60, 147–163.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970902834874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tyler N. Livingston
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peter O. Rerick
    • 1
  • Monica K. Miller
    • 2
  1. 1.Interdisciplinary Social Psychology Ph.D. ProgramUniversity of NevadaRenoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Criminal Justice and Interdisciplinary Social Psychology Ph.D. ProgramUniversity of NevadaRenoUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options