Gender effects on individual verdicts and on mock jury verdicts in a ...

<strong>Gender</strong> <strong>effects</strong> on individual verdicts and on mock jury verdicts in a simulated
acquaintance rape trial
Date: 1997
Author: Gloria J. Fischer
Publication: Sex Roles: A Journal of Research. Volume: 36. Issue: 7-8
In an effort to understand verdicts in rape trials, research has looked at the <strong>effects</strong> of
demographic variables (e.g., juror gender and age), trial variables (e.g., offender and/or
victim characteristics and physical evidence), and cognitive or attitudinal variables (e.g.,
juror empathy with the victim). In general, research on demographic variables has shown
<strong>effects</strong> due to gender (e.g., Fischer, 1991) and to age (Scaly & Cornish, 1973), with being
female and older relating to more guilty verdicts.
Trial variables found to relate to guilty verdicts include: 1) interracial rape (Ugwuebu,
1979), 2) joining of rape and murder charges at trial (Greene & Loftus, 1985), 3) prior
conviction (Myers, 1980), 4) legal attack on the victim's account of the crime as
implausible (Visher, 1987), 5) victim attractiveness (Deitz, Littman & Bentley, 1984), 6)
victim resistance, at least for male jurors (Krulewitz & Nash, 1979; Scroggs, 1976), and
7) physical evidence (Reskin & Visher, 1986). Trial variables that have been related to
not-guilty verdicts include: 1) offender attractiveness and being employed (Reskin &
Visher, 1986), 2) low moral character of the victim, at least in male jurors (Pugh, 1983;
Fischer, 1991), including extramarital sexual activity (Visher, 1987), and 3) contributory
victim behavior [e.g., letting a casual acquaintance take her home from a bar (Fischer,
1991)]. Also, college students were much less sure of an offender's guilt if the victim who
resisted was unattractive (Deitz, et al., 1984). Lower ratings of offender responsibility
were associated with contributory victim behavior [i.e., taking a date to her apartment
(Muehlenhard & Cook, 1988)].
Cognitive or attitudinal variables that have been found to relate to guilty verdicts include
victim empathy (Deitz et al., 1984), prior jury experience (Dillehay & Nietzel, 1985) and,
independently of rape empathy, having known a rape victim (Weiner, Weiner-Feldman &
Grisso, 1989). Not guilty verdicts have been related to a tendency to blame the victim,
not to blame the male offender (i.e., blame the situation, society or the female) and
uncertainty about one's verdict (Fischer, 1991). Blaming the victim was found to correlate
negatively with victim respectability (Luginbubl & Mullin, 1981) and empathy with the
victim, and to correlate positively with belief in rape myths (Bocklin, Kilty & Sheppard,
1993).
Understanding why mock juries so seldom vote guilty in rape trials is in the interests of
justice and fairness to victims. One factor is an apparent "leniency bias" among jurors
(MacCoun & Kerr, 1988). The present study explored further the role of gender. Given
the finding that more women than men vote guilty in simulated rape trials, more guilty
verdicts would be expected when women jurors were in the majority. This hypothesis was

tested by varying the number of females on mock juries in a simulated acquaintance rape
trial. Specifically, juries were composed of 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 or 12 female college students.
A difficulty in testing the predicted gender effect using college students is that a
substantial majority of students of both genders vote guilty. To address this difficulty,
two factors cited as increasing the number of not guilty verdicts, low moral character of
the victim and letting a casual acquaintance take her home from a bar, were used in the
simulated acquaintance rape trial.
METHOD
Participants
A total of 76 mock juries were formed from college student volunteers (426 women and
398 men) from classes in Introductory Psychology. They received class credit for
participation. Most of the students were 18 (43%) or 19 (23%) years old, with males
statistically significantly older than females (mean ages = 19.3 versus 18.9). Most were
white (85%), with 4% Asian, 3.2% Black, 3.2% Hispanic and 4% "Other." Nearly all
(96%) were single, with 37% either in, or had been in a sexual relationship. Most had one
or two siblings (40% and 30%, respectively).
Procedure
Sign-up sheets with 13 spaces were posted weekly. Spaces were marked "female" or
"male" for 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 or 12 women and 13, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3 or 0 men, respectively.
(There was an extra space for a male, as they were less likely than females to sign up and
to show up). The order of posting groups (number of females on the jury) was random,
with the restriction of 10 total sign-up sheets per group. Usually, two to three groups were
run at the same time of day. First, all student participants were given a packet composed
of a cover letter, trial and computer scantron. For the purpose of matching surveys and
scantrons, each packet had the same group number and subject number written on both
the survey and coded on the scantron.
Acquaintance Rape Trial
Following Pugh (1983) and Fischer (1991), students first read summary versions of the
alleged crime by the prosecuting attorney and by the defense. Briefly, the prosecutor's
version was that the plaintiff and some female friends went to a local restaurant and bar.
As there were no vacant tables, they accepted the invitation of a male stranger to share his
table. The friends left subsequently, and when the plaintiff was ready to leave, the
accused offered to accompany her home. Once there, he requested to come in to use the
bathroom, thereafter forcing his attentions on her, and she asked him to leave. Instead, the
accused got a knife from the kitchen and, under threats of violence, forced the victim to
undress and have sexual intercourse with him. The defense alleged that the plaintiff was a
willing participant in sex and, as a result of fear of discovery by her roommate or
boyfriend or by feelings of guilt, together with the accused's insistence on remaining and
a subsequent quarrel, charged him with rape and invented the story of threatening her

with a knife.
Next, students read excerpts from the trial transcript. These included questioning of the
victim by the prosecutor and cross examination by the defense attorney. The victim's
"low" moral character was suggested on cross examination by having her admit to having
invited her boyfriend and men she met at the pub to her apartment, but hesitating, then
refusing to answer the question: "Other than your boyfriend, have you had intercourse
with any of these other men?" until instructed to answer by the Judge and then answering
"Yes." Third, students read the Doctor's medical report, which indicated: "Patient was
treated for minor bruises and lacerations of the face and neck which were the result of an
alleged rape. Evidence of sexual intercourse was found." The medical report also said that
the patient was in a state of shock, but able to talk about the incident in some detail, and
that the patient was given a mild sedative injection, released to her roommate, with
recommendations of rest and referral to a Rape Crisis Center. Fourth, students read the
Judge's instructions to the jury. Briefly, the latter described the jurors' task, explained the
terms "credibility" and "corroboration" and directed that "the evidence of the two
scratches on the neck of the complainant, as observed by friends, the police officer, and
the doctor, was evidence capable of amounting to corroboration, but whether or not it did
corroborate her story is up to members of the jury to decide." The judge's instructions
also included the need for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant did rape Nancy Lawrence and, "in the end vote in accordance with your
conscience."(2) Lastly, students answered anonymously five demographic items, then a
6-item survey of their opinions about the trial.
Trial Survey
Part I of the trial-opinion survey were the five demographic items: marital status
[married, divorced, single, but am (or was) in a relationship or single], ethnicity [Native
American Indian, Black American, Hispanic American, Asian American, Anglo
American or Caucasian (White) or Other], number of full siblings, age and gender. Part II
consisted of the following seven questions: (1) "In your opinion, is the defendant guilty
or not guilty?" (2) "How certain are you about your verdict?" (very certain, fairly certain,
not very certain, or very uncertain), (3) If you were the judge at the trial, and the jury
found the defendant guilty, which of the following sentences would you choose?
(Probation, less than one year, 1-5 years, 5-10 years, 10-20 years, more than 20 years), (4)
"How important do you think the behavior of the victim was in contributing to the alleged
assault?" (very important, somewhat important, not sure, somewhat unimportant, very
unimportant), (5) "How would you rate the degree to which the alleged assault was the
victim's own fault?" (not at all, somewhat, as much her fault as his, mostly, totally), (6)
"How would your rate the fault or responsibility of the defendant in committing the
assault?" (totally, mostly, somewhat, neutral, not at all), and (7) "How important do you
think the consumption of alcohol was in contributing to the alleged assault?" (very
important, somewhat important, not sure, somewhat unimportant, very unimportant).
Mock Juries

After completing the trial survey, each student was asked to move to a circle of chairs
with others in their preassigned (number of females) group, to be a juror. This was not
always the group they had signed up for. For example, only 8 men may have signed up
for a group of 2 women and 10 men. A second group on the same day, at the same time,
was 8 women and 4 men, and a third group was 4 women and 8 men. If a total of 17 men
and 13 women showed up, we ran two real groups as best we could, e.g., 2 women and 9
men and 4 women and 8 men. The remaining 7 women sat as a jury, but were not counted
as a jury. (The smallest sized jury counted was 10, e.g., 10 men). The first person to
finish in each group was asked by the experimenter to be the foreperson on the jury. (This
was done to save time and to maximize the time available to jurors to try to reach a
verdict). They were told this would involve their telling the group that they would have to
try to reach a unanimous verdict, like a jury. First, the foreperson would ask everyone to
write their verdict on a piece of paper, fold it and pass it to her/him. If not unanimous,
then the foreperson was asked to announce the vote, and then lead a discussion
preliminary to a second ballot and, if necessary, a third. The foreperson was given a copy
of the trial and told to consult it if jurors couldn't recall, recalled incorrectly or disagreed
about facts in the case.
If, after three ballots, there was no unanimous verdict, and there was no change from the
second to third ballots, then the experimenter asked the jurors if anyone voting "guilty"
would, no matter how long the jury took, never change their vote; and the same was
asked of those voting "not guilty." If at least one person in each category indicated they
would never change their vote, the jury was judged to be hung. Otherwise, they were
asked to engage in another discussion and vote, which was the last vote. When the verdict
either was unanimous or hung, then written feedback as to the purpose of the experiment
was passed around to be read and discussed.
RESULTS
<strong>Gender</strong>
Based on the finding that more females than males vote guilty in simulated rape trials
(Fischer, 1991), it was hypothesized that the number of guilty verdicts would increase as
a function of the number of women on the jury, at least once women were a majority. As
a first test of this hypothesis, the expected gender effect on individual verdicts was
assessed. This was done using a logistic regression of five demographic variables
(gender, marital status, ethnicity, age, and number of siblings) and their second order
interactions on guilty verdicts. This model classified only 66.8% of verdicts correctly,
with gender and the gender by siblings interaction the only statistically significant <strong>effects</strong>
(logl = 3.15, SE = 1.45, p [less than] .05; logl = 0.34, SE = 0.06; p [less than] .05,
respectively). As expected, more women than men voted guilty, i.e., 86% of the 426
females versus 66% of the 398 males. Also, males (but not females) from smaller families
(e.g., 2 or fewer siblings) were somewhat more likely to vote guilty than males from
larger families.
Table I summarizes data relating to the hypothesis that the number of guilty verdicts

would increase when females on a jury were in the majority. As can be seen in Table I, a
linear hypothesis can be rejected. Guilty verdicts did not increase significantly until
females either were an overwhelming majority (i.e., 10 out of 12) or the entire jury was
female. [The percent of guilty verdicts for the 0 through 6 females on the jury, taken
together, did not differ significantly from the 8 female group. However. the percent of
guilty verdicts for the 0 through 8 female groups, taken together (.21) was significantly
less than the percent guilty verdicts for both the 10 and 12 female groups [(e.g., for 0-8
females versus 12 females: [[Chi].sup.2](1) = 5.33; p [less than] .05]. In Table I, the
bottom row indicates the number of hung juries in which a majority voted not guilty.
Note that when women were a majority of jurors, there ceased to be even one case in
which a majority of jurors in a "hung" jury voted not guilty.
Though gender had an effect on jury verdicts (i.e., a very large majority of women or an
all female jury increased the probability of a guilty jury verdict), the probability of a
guilty jury verdict (.58 and .55, respectively) was not very high (see Table I). Indeed,
these probabilities are substantially [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE I OMITTED]
lower than expected probabilities based on individual female and male percentages of
guilty verdicts (i.e., 86% and 66% in women and men, respectively). For 10 female and
all female juries, for example, the expected probability of guilty verdicts would be .83
and .86, respectively. One reason obtained probabilities were so much lower than these
expected probabilities probably was that, more often than not, the one or more individuals
on a jury voting not guilty (mostly males), stuck with it.
As a first approximation of why gender related to guilty verdicts, intercorrelations
(Pearsons rs) among gender, guilty verdict and the six trial survey variables were
calculated. Table II shows only the statistically significant correlations that were found.
As can be seen from Table II, correlations between gender and trial variables were
uniformly smaller than correlations between (guilty) verdict and trial variables,
suggesting that gender would not add significantly to prediction of verdicts over use of
trial variables alone.
Attitudinal and Trial Variables
Fischer (1991) found attitudinal variables, such as the juror's certainty of verdict, and,
especially, blaming of the victim, were better predictors of [TABULAR DATA FOR
TABLE II OMITTED] not-guilty verdicts than either their sexual attitudes and
experience and/or demographics. To assess the role of these and other attitudinal and trial
variables measured here, (i.e., certainty of verdict, sentence, victim fault, offender fault,
victim behavior as contributory to the rape and alcohol use as contributory to the rape) a
second logistic regression model, with classification table, regressed these six variables
and all second order interactions on not-guilty verdicts. This model classified 85% of
individual student verdicts correctly. When gender and its interactions with the six
variables were added to the model, 87% of cases were classified correctly. However,
neither gender nor any of its interaction <strong>effects</strong> was statistically significant. Statistically
significant components of the model were: Certainty of Verdict, CER (logl = 5.38, SE =
1.38, p [less than] .01); CER x Victim Fault, VF (logl = 1.02, SE = 0.30. p [less than]

.01), VF x Victim Behavior Contributory, VB (logl = 0.37, SE = 0.18, p [less than] .05),
VB x Offender Fault, OF (logl = -0.46, SE = 0.20, p [less than] .05), and VB x Sentence
(logl = 0.22, SE = 0. 11, p [less than] .05). As found previously (Fischer, 1991),
uncertainty about a verdict increased the probability of a not guilty verdict (i.e., very
certain = .03, fairly certain = .29, fairly uncertain = .42, and very uncertain = .50). The
nature of the CER x VF (certainty of verdict by victim fault) interaction was that students
voting guilty were most likely to blame the victim somewhat or not at all, and they were
fairly- to very certain of their verdict. Students voting not guilty, on the other hand, were
more likely to blame the victim more (i.e., somewhat or as much as the offender) and to
be less certain (fairly certain to somewhat uncertain) of their verdict.
To understand the VB x VF interaction note, first of all, that no student who judged the
contribution of the victim's behavior to the alleged assault to be unimportant blamed the
victim as much as, or more than the male. That is, such combinations simply did not
occur. As noted previously, most students judged the victim's behavior to have been an
important contributor to what happened. When these students also blamed the victim as
much as, or more than the male, a not guilty verdict was very much more likely than
when they blamed the victim somewhat or not at all. Indeed, among students who were
"not sure," or who considered the victim's behavior an important contributor to the
alleged assault, 68% voted not guilty if they also blamed the victim as much as, or more
than the male, while only 20% voted not guilty if they judged the victim to be no more
than somewhat at fault.
The nature of the VB x OF (victim's behavior contributory by offender fault) interaction
was as follows: The probability of blaming the offender totally was .80, and most others
who voted guilty blamed the offender mostly. Most of these students judged the victim's
behavior to have been a somewhat important, or even a very important contributor to
what happened. Most students voting not guilty, on the other hand, judged the offender
mostly at fault, rather than totally, and tended to judge the victim's behavior to have been
a more important contributor to the alleged assault, (i.e., a very important, or, at least, a
somewhat important contributor). In other words, not-guilty votes were associated with
blaming the offender less than the victim's behavior was judged contributory, while guilty
votes were associated with blaming the offender more, irrespective of how contributory
victim's behavior was judged. The nature of the VB x SEN (victim behavior contributory
by sentence) interaction was that students voting guilty tended to choose a 5-10 year
sentence if they judged the victim's behavior to have been unimportant in the alleged
assault, but chose a lighter sentence (i.e., 1-5 years) if they judged the victim's behavior to
have been an important contributor. Students voting not-guilty, on the other hand, chose a
lighter sentence, regardless of how contributory they judged the victim's behavior.
DISCUSSION
Even though substantially more females (86%) than males (66%) voted guilty
individually, the number of guilty mock jury verdicts increased significantly and
substantially only if the number of females on the jury were a huge majority (i.e., 10
females to 2 males) or if the jury was all female. Even in the latter two groups, however,

only 56% of mock jury verdicts were guilty verdicts. Though p = .56 was more than twice
the mean percent guilty votes in other mock jury groups, taken together (p = .24), p = .56
is substantially less than expected frequencies, based on individual guilty and not guilty
verdicts (i.e., .82 in the 10 females to 2 males group and .86 in the all female jury group).
A likely reason is that, some students voting guilty, were not "very certain" of their
verdict and thus could be influenced by other jurors, accordingly. Also, much more often
than not, at least one of the persons voting not guilty, who were mostly male, held out,
resulting in a hung jury. In addition to the finding that an overwhelming majority of
women jurors increased the probability of a guilty mock jury verdict, another gender
effect occurred when females were a majority of jurors. Specifically, when women jurors
were in the majority, no "hung" jury had a majority of jurors voting not guilty. In
contrast, all hung juries composed of six or fewer women jurors had at least one jury in
which a majority voted not guilty. Thus, present findings suggest that a majority of
women on a jury may obviate a not guilty jury verdict, at least, whereas a very large
majority may be needed to increase the likelihood of a guilty jury verdict, even though
these guilty verdicts still occur only a little more than half the time.
Tending not to blame the victim and tending to blame the offender were stronger
predictors of guilty verdicts than being female, because the former included most
females, but was not restricted to them. The implication is that guilty jury verdicts in a
rape trial are more likely if individual jurors tend not to blame the victim and tend to
blame the offender. If such information is not available, however, then gender alone (i.e.,
at least half of the jury female) may decrease the likelihood of a not guilty verdict, but
may not increase the likelihood of a guilty verdict, unless women are an overwhelming
majority (i.e., 10 out of 12 or all 12). Of course, present findings and suggested
interpretations may be limited to the rape scenario used here and, perhaps to similar
scenarios.
2 The packet given to students (i.e., cover letter, trial transcript, medical report, judge's
instructions to the jury, and Parts I and II of the trial survey) will be provided, upon
request.
REFERENCES
Bocklin, A., Kilty, M. & Sheppard, J. A. (1993, April). Predictors and consequences of
victim blaming. Paper presented at the meetings of the Midwestern Psychological
Association, Chicago, IL.
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.
Dillehay, R. C., & Nietzel, M. T. (1985). Juror experience and jury verdicts. Law and
Human Behavior, 9, 179-191.
Fischer, G. J. (1991). Cognitive predictors of not-guilty verdicts in a simulated

acquaintance rape trial. Psychological Reports, 68, 1199-1206.
Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1985). When crimes are joined at trial. Law and Human
Behavior, 2, 193-207.
Krulewitz, J. E., & Nash, J. E. (1979). Effects of rape victim resistance, assault outcome,
and sex of observer on attributions about rape. Journal of Personality, 47, 558-574.
Luginbuhl, J., & Mullin, C. (1981). Rape and responsibility: How and how much is the
victim blamed? Sex Roles, 7, 547-559.
MacCoun, R. J., & Kerr, N. L. (1988). Asymmetric influence in mock jury deliberation:
Juror's bias for leniency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 21-33.
Muehlenhard, C. L., & Cook, S. W. (1988). Men's self-reports of unwanted sexual
activity. Journal of Sex Research, 24, 58-72.
Myers, M. A. (1980). Social contexts and attributions of criminal responsibility. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 43, 405-419.
Pugh, M.D. (1983). Contributory fault and rape convictions: Loglinear models for
blaming the victim. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 233-242.
Reskin, B. F., & Visher, C. A. (1986). The impacts of evidence and extralegal factors in
jurors' decisions. Law and Society Review, 9, 423-437.
Scroggs, J. R. (1976). Penalties for rape as a function of victim provocativeness, damage,
and resistance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6, 360-368.
Sealy, A., & Cornish, W. (1973). Jurors and their verdicts. Modern Law Review, 36,
496-508.
Ugwuebu, D.C. E. (1979). Racial and evidential factors in juror attribution of legal
responsibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 133-146.
Visher, C. (1987). Juror decision making: The importance of evidence. Law and Human
Behavior, 11, 1-17.
Weiner, R. L., Weiner-Feldman, A. T., & Grisso, T. (1989). Empathy and biased
assimilation of testimonies in cases of alleged rape. Law and Human Behavior, 13,
343-355.
Weir, J. A., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1988, April). The determinants of mock jurors' verdicts
in a rape case. Paper presented at meetings of the Midwestern Psychological Association,
Chicago, IL.