When myths shape verdicts: A theory and intervention for jury biases against victim-survivors in rape trials

This paper examines a trio of studies which examine the role and malleability of rape myths in juror's victim evaluations and their verdict decisions. The first two studies aimed to identify and test a newly-developed theoretical model to understand how rape myths impact juror verdict decisions. Utilizing a trial transcript methodology, Study 1 examined the proposed model using structural equation modelling, and Study 2 tested the validity of the model when the level of rape-myth-congruent information in the trial was varied experimentally. Results found that the proposed model showed good fit to the data, supporting the theory that rape myth factors influence credibility, responsibility and empathy judgements, which subsequently impact verdicts. Study 2 demonstrated that the theoretical model was robust to changes in the trial content, with the high rape-myth-congruency condition resulting in significantly fewer guilty verdicts. The final study aimed to assess whether the impact of rape myths on jurors' evaluations of the victim could be reduced. Based on the theoretical model, an educational intervention video was developed and tested. Results from Study 3 suggested that the intervention was successful in reducing the influence of rape myths on credibility judgements and verdict decisions. Overall, these studies provide a coherent model which identifies how rape myths influence juror decisions, as well as a successful intervention which can reduce their impact. These resources provide opportunities for further research, including expanding the theoretical model and utilizing the intervention to reduce rape myths biases in jurors and other criminal justice decision-makers.