Abstract
In an experimental study, mock jurors heard a 50-minute audiotape of a rape trial and saw pictures of the victim and defendant. The factors in the design were sex of the defense attorney, age of the victim (early 20s or 60s), attractiveness of the victim, and sex of the juror. The most striking finding was a higher acquittal rate under the female defense attorney condition (71%) than under the male defense attorney condition (49%). This may be an instance of the recently described “talking platypus” phenomenon. Main effects for juror's sex, age of the victim, and attractiveness of the victim were not significant, but these factors showed complex interactions. Internal-external scores did not predict decisions. The most frequent reasons given for acquittals were reasonable doubt and the victim's not resisting.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Abramson, R. P., Goldberg, P. A., Greenberg, J. H., & Abramson, L. M. The talking platypus phenomenon: Competency ratings as a function of sex and professional status. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 1977, 2, 114–124.
Amir, M. Patterns of forcible rape. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971.
Brownmiller, S. Against our will: Men, women, and rape. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1975.
Davis, J. H., Kerr, N. L., Atkin, R. S., Holt, R. W., & Meek, D. The decision processes of 6- and 12-person juries assigned unanimous and two-thirds majority rules. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 1–14.
Davis, J. H., Kerr, N. L., Strasser, G., Meek, D., & Holt, R. W. Victim consequences, sentence severity, and decision processes in mock juries. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1977, 18, 346–365.
Davis, J. H., Spitzer, C. E., Nagao, D., & Strasser, D. The nature of biases in social decisions by individuals and groups: An example from mock juries. In H. Grandstatter, J. H. Davis, & H. Schuler (Eds.), Social decision processes. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1979.
Davis, J. H., Strasser, G., Spitzer, C. E., & Holt, R. W. Changes in group members' decision preferences during discussion: An illustration with mock juries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 1177–1187.
Everitt, B. S. The analysis of contingency tables. London: Chapman & Hall, 1977.
Feild, H. S. Attitudes toward rape: A comparative analysis of police, rapists, crisis counselors, and citizens. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978, 36, 156–179.
Goldberg, P. A. Are women prejudiced against women? Transaction, 1968, 5, 28–30.
Hadden, S. C. Social dimensions of jury decision-making. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1973, 1, 269–277.
Hoiberg, B. C., & Stires, L. K. The effect of several types of pretrial publicity on the guilt attributions of simulated jurors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1973, 3, 267–275.
Jones, C., & Aronson, E. Attribution of fault to a rape victim as a function of the respectability of the victim. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 26, 415–419.
Kerr, N. L., Atkin, R. S., Strasser, D., Meek, D., Holt, R. W., & Davis, J. H. Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: Effects of concept definition and assigned decision rule on the judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 282–294.
Kerr, N. L., & Turner-Kurtz, A. Effect of a victim's suffering and respectability on mock juror judgments: Further evidence on the just world theory. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 1977, 8, 42–56.
Landy, D., & Aronson, E. The influence of the character of the criminal and his victim on the decision of simulated jurors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1969, 5, 141–152.
Lerner, M. Evaluation of performance as a function of performer's reward and attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 355–360.
Lerner, M., & Simmons, C. Observer's reaction to the “innocent victim”: Compassion or rejection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 203–210.
Phares, E. J. Locus of control in personality. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1976.
Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80(1, Whole No. 609).
Scroggs, J. R. Penalties for rape as a function of victim provocativeness, damage, and resistance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1976, 4, 360–368.
Shaver, K. G. An introduction to attribution processes. Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop, 1975.
Smith, R. E., Keating, J. P., Hester, R. K., & Mitchell, H. E. Role and justice considerations in the attribution of responsibility to a rape victim. Journal of Research in Personality, 1976, 10, 246–257.
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. The Attitudes toward Women Scale. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 1972, 2, 66.
Walster, E., Aronson, E., & Abrahams, D. On increasing the persuasiveness of a low prestige communicator. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1966, 2, 325–342.
Ward, C. Prejudice against women: Who, when, and why? Sex Roles, 1981, 7, 163–171.
Weis, K., & Borges, S. S. Victimology and rape: The case of the legitimate victim. Issues in Criminology, 1973, 8, 71–115.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Villemur, N.K., Hyde, J.S. 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 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289961
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289961