In this study, the perceptions of victim intoxication and the drinking context (i.e., who purchased the drinks) were investigated. Men and women mock jurors (N = 158) read a rape trial summary in which the victim was intoxicated or sober, and either the victim or the perpetrator purchased the drinks. Overall, participants who perceived a victim as intoxicated were less likely to render guilty verdicts and made lower ratings of victim credibility. In addition, when the perpetrator purchased the drinks, participants were more likely to render guilty verdicts and made more negative judgments about the defendant than when the victim bought the drinks. Mediation analyses explained the relationship between the independent variables and verdict. The results are discussed in terms of the factors that influence juror perceptions of rape cases in court.

Two experiments investigated mock-juror perceptions of intimate stalking using Kentucky's (United States) anti-stalking legislation. Experiment 1 used a mock-juror methodology in which 177 undergraduates (87 men and 90 women) from a large southeastern US university read a stalking trial summary and rendered individual judgments as mock jurors. The main research question of Experiment 1 was how participant gender impacted trial judgments (e.g., verdict) when the gender of both the defendant and victim were manipulated. Overall, the results showed that men rendered significantly fewer guilty verdicts than women, particularly in conditions that included the prototypical type of intimate stalking (female victim/male defendant). In Experiment 2, also using a mock-juror methodology, 129 undergraduates (51 men and 78 women) from a large southeastern U.S. university read a stalking trial summary (involving a female victim and male defendant) and rendered individual judgments as mock jurors. The main research question of Experiment 2 focused on whether victim fear (high or low) impacted trial judgments (e.g., verdict). The results yielded an interaction of participant gender and victim fear. Specifically, whereas different levels of fear did not impact women, men yielded fewer guilty verdicts in the low victim fear condition compared to the high victim fear condition. The results of the present experiments are discussed in terms of the implications of stalking allegations brought to trial.

The present research used a mock juror experiment (N = 360) to assess two primary goals: (1) to examine the direct and indirect effects of participant gender, stalking myth acceptance, and gender role stereotyping on guilt ratings in a stalking trial; and (2) to examine the role of perceived victim fear and distress, and defendant intended danger on perceptions of a stalking trial. Using structural equation modeling, we found an indirect effect of participant gender, and both direct and indirect effects of stalking myth acceptance and gender role stereotyping on guilt ratings. Men and participants who endorsed more traditional gender role stereotypes were associated with adherence to stalking myth acceptance beliefs. Endorsement of particular stalking myth acceptance beliefs offers a partial explanation for why women and men differed on perceptions of the defendant's intent to cause danger and the victim's perceived fear and distress. Results provide insight into the efficacy of current anti-stalking legislation that relies on a juror's capacity to evaluate an 'objective' interpretation (i.e., 'reasonable person') standard of fear for intimate partner stalking.

The present study examined legal perceptions of lesbian intimate partner violence (IPV) in an experimental context. Undergraduate women and men from the Southeastern United States ( N = 217) read a trial summary in which the defendant was charged with physically assaulting her same-sex partner. The trial varied as to whether the victim and defendant were depicted via images as either feminine or masculine. Participants rendered verdicts and made judgments about the victim and defendant (e.g., credibility). Results indicated that the victim's and defendant's masculine or feminine appearance affected these judgments. Female participants viewed a masculine victim as more credible than a feminine victim when the defendant was masculine. When the victim was masculine, they viewed a masculine defendant as more responsible for the victim's injuries than a feminine defendant. Male participants had higher sympathy for a masculine versus feminine victim overall, but had more anger toward a masculine defendant versus a feminine defendant accused of assaulting a feminine victim. Finally, fewer participants mentioned the defendant's history of violence as a reason for a guilty of felony verdict for a feminine victim with a feminine defendant versus all other combinations of victim and defendant masculine/feminine appearance. Results are discussed in terms of gender stereotypes influencing legal decision-making in IPV cases among lesbian couples.

Four hundred fifteen undergraduate students in an Introduction to Psychology course voluntarily reported their use of flashcards on three exams as well as answered other questions dealing with flashcard use (e.g., when did a student first use flashcards). Almost 70% of the class used flashcards to study for one or more exams. Students who used flashcards for all three exams had significantly higher exam scores overall than those students who did not use flashcards at all or only used flashcards on one or two exams. These results are discussed in terms of retrieval practice, a specific component of using flashcards.