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

Figures & data

Table 1. Verdict counts and percentages (N = 200) for each experimental condition

			Verdict
Crime type	Defendant gender	Juror gender	Not guilty	Guilty
Auto Theft	Man	Men	5	20
			20.0%	80.0%
		Women	8	17
			32.0%	68.0%
	Woman	Men	7	18
			28.0%	72.0%
		Women	4	21
			16.0%	84.0%
Shoplifting	Man	Men	12	14
			46.2%	53.8%
		Women	16	8
			66.7%	33.3%
	Woman	Men	12	13
			48.0%	52.0%
		Women	15	10
			60.0%	40.0%

Table 2. Analysis of covariance (N = 200) using causal attributions as the dependent variable

Source	df	F	p	η^2partial
Social roles	1	1.61	.206	.008
Juror gender	1	.04	.853	.000
Defendant gender	1	.17	.685	.001
Crime type	1	3.34	.069	.017
Juror gender × Defendant gender	1	1.60	.208	.008
Juror gender × Crime type	1	3.36	.068	.017
Defendant gender × Crime type	1	.00	.987	.000
Juror gender × Defendant gender × Crime type	1	.85	.358	.004

Table 3. Analysis of covariance (N = 200) using defendant impressions as the dependent variable

Source	df	F	p	η^2partial
Social roles	1	4.68	.032	.024
Juror gender	1	.84	.361	.004
Defendant gender	1	2.80	.096	.014
Crime type	1	23.65	.000	.110
Juror gender × Defendant gender	1	.05	.820	.000
Juror gender × Crime type	1	5.85	.017	.030
Defendant gender × Crime type	1	.01	.934	.000
Juror gender × Defendant gender × Crime type	1	.02	.899	.000