Perceptions of elder financial abuse in the courtroom.

In the present study, male and female community members (N = 194) read a fictional civil or criminal trial summary describing an 80-year-old female victim of a lottery scam (losing $10,000 or $100,000). The results yielded a significant main effect of amount stolen: Higher (vs. lower) amounts stolen led to more plaintiff decisions/guilty verdicts and higher pro-victim rating scores. This was qualified by a three-way interaction between type of trial, amount of money, and participant gender. Follow-up analyses showed no differences between conditions for women, but a type of trial x amount stolen interaction for men. Men rendered the most plaintiff decisions/guilty verdicts and higher pro-victim rating scores in civil cases that involved a high amount of money. Analyses on the verdict/decision data revealed that reasons for pro-victim decisions/verdicts centered around a "scam" taking place. Reasons for a verdict/decision supporting the defendant focused on "not enough evidence."