Judge, jurors, and gendered instructions to disregard evidence: stereotype-congruent judicial instructions increase compliance

Abstract

ABSTRACT An umbrella study, consisting of two university samples (N = 196), examined mock jurors’ decisions after being presented with a trial summary (and accompanying audio) about the murder of the defendant’s wife and neighbor. As part of the simulated trial, jurors were asked to disregard incriminating, but unreliable, wiretap evidence from a judge who was male or female. When the judge simply admonished jurors to disregard the evidence, participants in the female judge condition were more likely to rate the defendant as guilty compared to the male judge condition, suggesting the former considered the inadmissible evidence more. However, this pattern was reversed when, in addition to the disregard instruction, an collaborative explanation for why one should disregard the evidence was provided: specifically, participants in the female judge condition rated the defendant as less guilty than those in the male judge condition. These findings suggest that gender-congruent behaviors (i.e. female judge providing a collaborative explanation) by an individual occupying an incongruent social role may elevate that individual’s level of authority.