The ‘casting couch’ scenario: Impact of perceived employment benefit, reporting delay, complainant gender, and participant gender on juror decision-making in rape cases

Abstract

Recent media reports of contemporary and historical rape and sexual assault cases have focused on the entertainment industry, particularly around the notion of the ‘casting couch’. This scenario in which a powerful figure obtains sexual acts from subordinate actors in exchange for employment was used to explore the influence of rape myths and Sexual Economic Theory on mock-juror decision-making. Participant-jurors (n = 907) viewed video and written testimony of a male or female complainant, accusing a male producer of rape. Delay before reporting the incident to the police (immediately, six months, ten years), and whether the complainant secured the acting role or not were varied. Females (79.7%) were significantly more likely than males (62.7%) to deliver a guilty verdict and to recommend longer prison sentences. When the complainant did not secure the acting role, and they delayed reporting the incident for six months, there was a trend for guilty verdict rates to be slightly higher when the complainant was male (80.5%) than female (64.5%). Defendant guilt attributions to the male and female complainant were also differently influenced by rape myth belief levels and homophobic attitudes, but not beliefs in a just world. The casting couch has a worldwide context, and these results have important implications for any occupational setting in which men in positions of power may sexually exploit junior staff.