Effect of Rape Myth Acceptance and Empathy Priming on Juror Decisions in a Mock Sexual Assault Trial

Abstract

The purpose of the current study was to examine the impact of rape myth acceptance (RMA), as measured by a relatively new ‘subtle’ RMA scale, and an experimental empathy manipulation on juror verdicts in a mock sexual assault trial. A sample of 260 Canadian citizens/permanent residents were recruited through Qualtrics, where they were randomly assigned to read a fictional sexual assault trial transcript that either contained an empathy inducing statement or asked participants to remain objective. As hypothesised, scores on the subtle measure of RMA predicted participants' likelihood to provide not guilty verdicts. However, the empathy prime was ineffective in inducing more empathy for the complainant. Importantly, participants whose open-ended answers contained evidence of RMA also scored higher on the self-report RMA scale, demonstrating the validity of the subtle measure. Our findings advance the literature on RMA measurement and provide evidence for the continued impact of RMA on juror verdicts.