The present experiment investigated the role of gender stereotypes in cases in which a battered person kills his or her abuser. Regression analysis revealed an overall gender bias such that mock jurors were more likely to convict a man defendant who had killed his abusive wife than they were when a woman defendant who had killed her husband. Mediational analyses indicated that the relationship between abuser gender and verdict was partially mediated by sympathy toward the victim, and fully mediated by sympathy toward the defendant. Regression analysis also revealed an effect of abuser height, such that conviction rates were higher when an abuser was taller than his or her partner, regardless of abuser gender. Though not significant, trends suggested the act of killing an abusive partner was perceived as a protective act toward the child. Overall, the present study provides evidence that gender biases exist in cases in which a battered person kills his or her abuser.

Emerging research has shown that women and men perceive criminal stalking differently, yet there is little research addressing why these differences exist. For example, mock juror research on intimate stalking has found that men are more likely than women to render lenient judgments (e.g., not-guilty verdicts). Understanding the underlying attitudes associated with differences in how men and women interpret whether certain behaviors would cause reasonable fear is crucial to an evaluation of current anti-stalking legislation. The primary goals of this research were: (1) to examine the extent to which beliefs that support stalking (i.e., stalking myth acceptance – SMA victim blame, SMA flattery, and SMA nuisance) predicted individual trial judgments of men and women, and (2) to test whether endorsement of SMA can be predicted from particular attitudinal correlates (e.g., hostility toward women). Overall, women were more likely than men (N = 360) to render trial judgments (e.g., guilty verdicts) supportive of the victim and were less likely to endorse SMA beliefs. Results also indicated that endorsement of particular SMA beliefs and personal experience (being the victim of and/or knowing a victim) explained why women and men differed on some trial judgments. For example, the odds of rendering a guilty verdict were less for participants who endorsed SMA flattery beliefs. In addition, participants who reported knowing someone who had been a victim were at greater odds of rendering a guilty verdict. Finally, participants who endorsed more traditional gender-role stereotypes were more likely to adhere to SMA beliefs. Results provide insight into the efficacy of current anti-stalking legislation that relies on a juror’s capacity to evaluate an “objective” interpretation (i.e., “reasonable person”) standard of fear for intimate stalking.

Homophobic attitudes pervade our society and specifically our justice system, which negatively impact legal protection for lesbian victims of intimate partner violence (IPV). Juror stereotypes about IPV victims and perpetrators as well as their biases based on sexual orientation may be a hindrance to IPV cases being reported and successfully prosecuted. The primary goal of this study was to investigate the impact that mock jurors’ attitudes toward homosexuals and gender roles, and their acceptance of myths about domestic violence had on their perceptions of lesbian IPV. Heterosexual undergraduate students (N = 259) read a trial summary in which the defendant was charged with physically assaulting her same-sex partner. The trial varied as to whether the victim and defendant were depicted via images as feminine or masculine and thus were either stereotypical or counter-stereotypical. Participants rendered verdicts and made judgments about the victim and defendant (e.g., credibility, sympathy). Results indicated that a masculine victim indirectly increased the likelihood of rendering guilty verdicts by increasing anger toward the defendant. Participants with negative attitudes toward lesbians rated the defendant as low in credibility, and when the victim was masculine, these participants had more anger toward the defendant than participants with more positive attitudes. Participants high on hostile sexism (i.e., attitudes that justify male power) or domestic violence myth acceptance (i.e., endorsement of false beliefs that justify physical aggression against intimate partners) minimized the seriousness of the incident, which decreased the likelihood of rendering guilty verdicts. Participants low in benevolent sexism (i.e., feelings of protectiveness toward women that support traditional gender roles) rated the incident as lower in seriousness and had less anger toward the defendant for a feminine victim paired with a masculine defendant. Participants high in benevolent sexism rated the incident as less serious when the victim and defendant were both feminine, and had more anger toward the defendant when the victim was masculine and the defendant was feminine. Results provide insight into the relationships between victim and defendant stereotypicality and individual differences in attitudes on mock juror decision-making in lesbian IPV cases.

Although rape is prevalent in the United States, conviction rates for perpetrators are low. Before developing a solution for low conviction rates in rape cases, researchers must examine factors that influence juror decisions in rape trials. The current study investigated the influence of complainant substance use and juror education about rape myths and sexual consent laws. Mock jurors were randomly assigned to one of twelve conditions and after reading the rape trial summary were asked to rate defendant guilt and complainant and defendant blameworthiness and credibility. Mock jurors in the education condition rated the defendant as significantly guiltier and more to blame for the sexual assault than did mock jurors in the no education condition.