Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite research highlighting the influence of rape attitudes and other juror traits on trial outcomes, few studies have examined such relationships within intimate partner rape trials, prioritising instead decision-making in so-called "date rape" cases. The current study, therefore, sought to investigate the relationship between juror demographic traits, their pre-trial legal attitudes, and rape myth beliefs, upon subsequent verdict decisions made in an intimate partner rape trial. METHODS: The study adopted a mock trial paradigm, with methodological enhancements aimed at increasing ecological validity. Mock jurors (N = 435) completed a series of attitudinal and demographic questions online before observing a recreation of a genuine intimate partner rape trial and subsequently rendering their verdict. RESULTS: Results revealed that ethnicity, educational attainment, and rape myth acceptance, though not varied legal attitudes, were all significant predictors of the verdict selections that jurors made. Caucasian, university-educated mock jurors and jurors who rejected rape myths to a greater extent were those most likely to find the defendant guilty. Female jurors were also significantly more likely to return a guilty verdict before, though not after, controlling for variation in rape myth beliefs. DISCUSSION: These findings offer further support to the wealth of existing literature that suggests jurors' pre-trial rape myth beliefs, alongside other demographic characteristics, appear to predispose juror judgements and decision-making, and extend upon past literature in identifying a similar trend within intimate partner rape trials. Findings highlight the need for targeted juror reforms, such as myth-debunking juror education, before such recommendations are made. Before such recommendations are made, further enhancements to mock-trial procedures to maximise ecological validity, alongside greater research among genuine trial jurors, are warranted.