Rape Perpetrator Gender Shapes Liability Judgments: Implications for Disgust and Moral Outrage
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Translational Issues in Psychological Science © 2017 American Psychological Association 2017, Vol. 3, No. 2, 153–166 2332-2136/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tps0000108 Rape Perpetrator Gender Shapes Liability Judgments: Implications for Disgust and Moral Outrage Evan W. McCracken Margaret C. Stevenson University of Nebraska-Lincoln University of Evansville We explored the impact of defendant and plaintiff gender in a sexual assault civil trial as well as the possible mediating role of emotion (i.e., disgust and moral outrage) on liability outcomes. Participants were 229 community members (61% women; M age ϭ 36) who read a civil trial depicting an alleged prison rape in which an inmate was allegedly sexually assaulted by a prison guard. Plaintiff and defendant gender were manipulated in a fully crossed between-subjects design, resulting in 4 conditions. Specifically, participants read about either a male or female plaintiff (i.e., Mr./Ms. Roberson) and about either a male or female defendant (i.e., Mr./Ms. Shaw). Partici- pants subsequently rendered liability outcomes and completed a series of case judg- ments (i.e., perceived disgust toward the defendant, moral outrage toward the defen- dant, and the belief that the crime is common). A series of path analyses supported our theoretically derived hypotheses regarding defendant gender. Participants were more disgusted by a male versus female defendant, which, in turn, predicted greater moral outrage toward the male defendant, which, in turn, predicted defendant liability. Although there were fewer effects or interactions involving plaintiff gender, partici- pants were more morally outraged and more likely to believe the crime was common when the plaintiff was female than male. Finally, when the defendant was female, participants were less likely to believe the crime was common when the plaintiff was male than female. What is the significance of this article for the general public? Although jurors are required to remain emotionally neutral, this study suggests that emotions, disgust and moral outrage, influence the relationship between defendant gender and liability outcomes in a civil sexual assault case. Keywords: emotion, disgust, moral outrage, rape Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tps0000108.supp Sexual assault is an unfortunate reality that al., 2011). Within the prison system, however, persists within the United States (Black et al., experiencing sexual assault is more common, 2011). Approximately 18.3% of American particularly for men (Struckman-Johnson, This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. women and 1.4% of American men in the gen- Struckman-Johnson, Rucker, Bumby, & Don- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individualeral user and is not to be disseminatedpopulation broadly. are victims of attempted or com- aldson, 1996). For instance, 22% of men report pleted rape at some point in their lives (Black et being sexually assaulted while imprisoned, with prison staff perpetrating 18% of the time (Struckman-Johnson et al., 1996). Still, it is Evan W. McCracken, Department of Psychology, Uni- exceptionally difficult to determine the exact versity of Nebraska-Lincoln; Margaret C. Stevenson, De- number of adult victims, particularly adult male partment of Psychology, University of Evansville. victims, because of low disclosure rates Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- (Walker, Archer, & Davies, 2005). Some theo- dressed to Evan W. McCracken, Department of Psychology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1400 R Street, Lincoln, rize that current estimates are conservative, es- NE 68588. E-mail: [email protected] pecially among men (e.g., Walker et al., 2005). 153 154 MCCRACKEN AND STEVENSON Indeed, much like female victims, men tend not al., 1988). Prevalent, long-standing cultural ex- to report sex crime victimization because of the pectations about gender and sexuality (e.g., social stigma associated with being labeled as a Allgeier & McCormick, 1983) likely result in a rape victim (Walker et al., 2005). That is, men reluctance to categorize men as victims or are stereotypically considered to be sexually dom- women as rapists. Indeed, in a study in which inant, whereas women are stereotyped as submis- perpetrator and victim gender were fully manip- sive and passive (e.g., Hosoda & Stone, 2000). In ulated, participants believed that all gender turn, people have difficulty accepting the idea that combinations constituted rape, except when the someone could coerce an unwilling man to engage perpetrator was female and the victim was male in sexual activity or to attempt or completely rape (Hannon, Hall, Nash, Formati, & Hopson, a man (e.g., Chapleau, Oswald, & Russell, 2008). 2000). In addition, people have traditionally It is possible that the rape of a woman is perceived believed that men are sexually dominant, as more plausible and more morally outrageous whereas women should be sexually submissive and disgusting than the rape of a man. Yet women (e.g., Hosoda & Stone, 2000). Furthermore, do perpetrate rape: 35.8% of male rape victims men are stereotyped as sex driven, such that any were raped by women (e.g., Thoennes & Tjaden, sexual encounter is perceived to have been de- 2000). sired and enjoyed by the men involved (e.g., Although it is clear that adult men are victims Hosoda & Stone, 2000). Stereotypic beliefs of rape and adult women perpetrate rape, rela- about the gendered nature of rape are so prev- tively little research has explored the role of per- alent in society that it was not until 2013 that the petrator and victim gender on mock jurors’ deci- Department of Justice implemented a new def- sions in sexual assault cases (e.g., Smith, Pine, & inition of rape for the Uniform Crime Report, Hawley, 1988). No research to date has explored officially allowing for the inclusion of men as the possibility that the emotions of disgust and victims and women as perpetrators (Federal Bu- moral outrage mediate effects of perpetrator and reau of Investigation, 2013). Although there is victim gender on case judgments in a rape context. tentative support for the notion that perpetrator This is a legally relevant question because jurors and victim gender might affect case outcomes, are required by law to base their case decisions on existing research has largely neglected the pos- fact and be uninfluenced by emotion, prejudice, sible underlying emotional determinants of and sympathy. Can emotionally compelling case these effects (see Chapleau & Oswald, 2014). decisions, such as sexual assault, be unaffected by We explore disgust and moral outrage as poten- emotion? Do extralegal characteristics of the per- tial underlying psychological determinants of petrators and victims involved (e.g., gender) pre- perpetrator and victim gender on case out- dict the extent to which case decisions are influ- comes. enced by prejudicial emotions? We explore these possibilities within the context of a civil trial be- Understanding Main Effects of Perpetrator cause mock jury research appears to emphasize and Victim Gender criminal cases while neglecting civil cases. Yet civil case filings far outnumber criminal filings Some research suggests that participants re- (United States Courts, 2013). Next, we review act more punitively toward male than female research related to the effects of perpetrator and perpetrators and are more likely to render guilty victim gender on case judgments, followed by a verdicts in sexual assault cases when the perpe- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. review of research and theory exploring the rela- trator is male than female (e.g., Russell, Os- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. tionship between emotion (i.e., disgust, moral out- wald, & Kraus, 2011). For instance, Smith et al. rage) and rape-related case judgments. (1988) fully manipulated perpetrator and victim gender in a rape case in which two perpetrators Research Exploring Effects of Perpetrator (both male or both female) raped a single victim and Victim Gender (either male or female). Although the unambig- uous nature of the case produced a ceiling effect Although the body of literature remains such that, regardless of the perpetrators’ gen- small, emerging research suggests that perpetra- ders, participants almost always voted guilty tor and victim gender affect how people per- and prescribed longer sentences to male than ceive the circumstances of a rape (e.g., Smith et female rapists. Furthermore, participants be- DISGUST DRIVES LIABILITY OUTCOMES 155 lieved that the male victim was less likely to Understanding Interactions Between have been coerced than the female victim, and Perpetrator and Victim Gender participants were significantly more likely to believe that the victim encouraged the rape Participants might be more punitive when the when he was male and the perpetrators were perpetrators are portrayed as gay versus straight female than in any other perpetrator-victim gen- or lesbian because some research has revealed der condition. Moreover, more enjoyment and in contexts involving alleged child abuse or less stress were attributed to male victims of relatively trivial forms of juvenile sex offenses female rape than to victims in all other condi- (e.g., Wiley & Bottoms, 2009). More directly tions. More recently, Oswald and Russell