A test of gender–crime congruency on mock juror decision-making

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether jurors would be biased in favor of guilt when a defendant’s gender was congruent with stereotypes associated with certain crimes (i.e. a gender–crime congruency effect) and the role of juror gender in informing such an effect. A gender balanced sample (N = 200) of participants read a six-page fabricated grand theft of a motor vehicle or shoplifting trial transcript, in which we manipulated defendant gender. Results did not support the prediction that a woman charged with shoplifting and a man charged with auto theft would yield harsher decisions among same-gender mock jurors. However, there was a significant juror gender by crime-type interaction effect on defendant impressions. For jurors who were women, shoplifting was associated with more positive defendant impressions, with no such effect for men. While this study did not provide evidence of a gender–crime congruency effect, future researchers should consider other crime types and moderator variables.

Keywords:

• defendant gender
• juror gender
• crime-congruency
• stereotypes

Public Interest Statement

Research shows that men are most likely to be charged with personal crimes and women are most likely to be charged with minor property crimes. Gender role expectations could contribute to that difference. In this experiment, participants made decisions in response to a fictional case in which we manipulated the type of crime and whether the defendant was a man or a woman. We expected that a woman charged with shoplifting and a man charged with auto theft would produce harsher decisions among mock jurors who were the same gender as the defendant. Results did not show this pattern. However, jurors who were women had more positive impressions of a defendant in a shoplifting case as compared to an auto theft case; men did not show any such pattern. In sum, gender and crime type did not jointly influence verdict decisions, but researchers should look at patterns for other cases.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interest.

Notes

1. The initial sample consisted of 213 participants; 13 were removed from the sample because they failed one or both of our manipulation checks (i.e. they incorrectly identified the defendant’s gender or the item stolen).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Evelyn M. Maeder

Evelyn M. Maeder is the director of the Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Carleton University, and is cross-appointed with the Department of Psychology. In the Legal Decision-Making Lab, Maeder and her students—including Laura A. McManus, Susan Yamamoto, and Kendra J. McLaughlin—examine a wide array of issues in both the US and Canadian legal systems, in particular discrimination in the law. The goal of this work is to help legal practitioners, scholars, and policy-makers better understand the experiences of marginalized groups by drawing attention to extra-legal factors that can unduly influence decision-making.