Let’s Get Prototypical: The Role of Complainant/Defendant Gender and Form of Sexual Act on Mock Jurors’ Decisions in Sexual Assault Trials

Abstract

My thesis serves as a first examination of participants' perceived prototypicality of a SA (sexual assault) scenario to ascertain if SA prototypes are one of the mechanisms behind participants' decisions. My thesis offers an initial examination of the impact of the SA form and complainant (tied to defendant) gender on participants' SA prototypes and, in turn, their decisions. The results suggest that because the male complainant-female defendant was perceived as counter-prototypical, the male complainant was blamed more and seen as less credible, and the female defendant was perceived more favourably, resulting in fewer guilty verdicts. Simultaneously, for fixed levels of prototypicality, the female complainant was blamed more and seen as less credible, and the male defendant was perceived more favourably, resulting in fewer guilty verdicts. My results suggest that participants' SA prototypes are one of the mechanisms behind their decisions; accounting for this bias can help ensure fairer SA trials.