Guided by the rape schema: the influence of event order on how jurors evaluate the victim’s testimony in cases of rape

ABSTRACT

Jurors are less likely to believe a victim of rape when the events she describes are inconsistent with the rape stereotype and appear more consistent with what occurs in consensual sex. This research investigated whether presenting stereotype-consistent events early in a victim’s testimony can lead jurors to evaluate the other events described as depicting rape. In Study 1, a convenience sample recruited at a university (N = 217) watched a video testimony in which the assault was presented first or last. Participants also evaluated the degree to which the events described depicted rape or consensual sex as they heard them unfold. Results showed that participants who watched the assault-first testimony categorised most of the testimony as depicting rape. However, there were no differences between conditions in participants’ rating of guilt. In Study 2, we aimed to replicate the findings of Study 1 using community members (N = 225) and investigate whether varying the order of events impacted memory of the testimony and organisation of the events into a coherent story. The results of Study 1 replicated and those presented with the assault first remembered fewer details and took longer to create a story. Recommendations for trial interventions are discussed.

KEYWORDS:

• Rape
• rape schemas
• consensual sex schemas
• trial interventions
• juror decision making

Open Scholarship

This article has earned the Center for Open Science badges for Open Data, Open Materials, and Preregistered. The data and materials are openly accessible at https://osf.io/2w5gr/ (data: Study 1) and https://osf.io/axjru/ (data: Study 2), https://osf.io/6mwnx/ (materials: Study 1) and https://osf.io/zqsd6/ (materials: Study 2), and https://osf.io/64ng7 (preregistration: Study 1) and https://osf.io/krzqx (preregistration: Study 2).

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Paul Jackson who provided technical expertise for Study 2 and Lachlan Brown who assisted with the content analysis for Study 2.

CRediT author statement

Harrison Lee: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Software, Formal analysis, Project administration, Writing–Original Draft.

Blake McKimmie: Supervision, Resources, Conceptualisation, Methodology, Software, Writing–Review & Editing.

Barbara Masser: Supervision, Resources, Conceptualisation, Methodology, Writing–Review & Editing.

Jason Tangen: Supervision, Conceptualisation, Methodology, Software, Writing–Review & Editing.

Declaration of interest statement

We declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability statement

The data presented in this research can be found at https://osf.io/2w5gr/ (Study 1) and https://osf.io/axjru/ (Study 2).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship awarded to Harrison Lee. A narrative interpretation of this research was included in a recently published review article (see McKimmie et al., 2020).