Sugar and Spice and All Things Nice: The Role of Gender Stereotypes in Jurors’ Perceptions of Criminal Defendants

Abstract

Female defendants in criminal trials have been evaluated both more harshly and less harshly than their male counterparts. This variation in treatment may be a function of the stereotype (offender or gender) against which the defendant is compared. This study manipulated congruence with offender stereotypes by varying the gender of the defendant (male or female), and congruence with gender stereotypes by varying the defendant's traits (feminine or masculine). The participants (n = 137) read a fictional transcript of a murder case and then gave a verdict and evaluated the case. Male defendants were more likely to be found guilty, and the case for a female defendant was viewed less positively when she was described in masculine (compared to feminine) terms. The findings suggest that male defendants are compared to offender stereotypes while female defendants are compared, at least to some extent, to gender-based stereotypes.

Keywords:

• defendant gender
• jury decision-making
• social cognition
• stereotypes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Barbara Masser and Faye Nitschke for comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Australian Research Council Discovery Projects [grant no. DP0556473].