Delayed Reporting of Sexual Assault in Sports: The Impact of Decade-Long Delays on Mock-Jurors' Perceptions and Decision-Making.

Following recent social movements such as the #MeToo movement, there has been an increase in media reports of sexual assault across a range of sports (e.g. hockey, gymnastics, and swimming). In many of these cases, victims have reported the alleged assault years or decades later. The current research sought to examine the effect of delayed reporting of sexual assault, as well as defendant and victim gender, on mock-jurors' decisions in a sexual assault in sports case. Participants (N = 736) read a mock-trial transcript depicting a sexual assault in sports case in which a swim coach allegedly abused an athlete. The trial transcript varied defendant gender (male or female), victim gender (male or female), and the length of time that it took the victim to report the alleged sexual assault (1-, 10-, or 20-years). Mock-jurors provided ratings of the defendant and victim, as well as continuous and dichotomous (i.e. guilty, not guilty) ratings of defendant guilt. Participants also responded to a questionnaire assessing personal belief in rape myths. Results indicated that delayed reporting and mock-jurors' belief in rape myths influenced mock-jurors' perceptions and decisions. Specifically, mock-jurors assigned higher guilt ratings, rendered more guilty verdicts, and perceived the victim more favourably when there was a short delay (1-year) compared to a longer delay (10- or 20-years). Additionally, higher endorsement of rape myths was associated with lower guilt ratings, a lower likelihood of rendering a guilty verdict, more favourable perceptions of the defendant, and less favourable perceptions of the victim. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.