A jury simulation paradigm was employed for two studies exploring levels of victim blame in a case of bias-motivated assault based on sexual orientation. In the first study, participants were grouped according to their score on the Index of Homophobia (IHP) scale as either reporting high or low support for gay and lesbian community members. The label of the crime (i.e., bias-motivated assault versus first-degree assault) as well as the gender of the victim were systematically varied. Results indicated that attributions of blame against the victim varied as a function of participants' attitudes toward minority sexual orientation. As extra-legal factors likely contribute to victim blame in these cases, the second study explored such factors as location and "provocation." Jurors in the second study read a transcript depicting an attack on a gay man by a man in either a local bar (i.e., not a gay bar) or a gay bar. Within location conditions, jurors were presented with either "provocation" by the victim (i.e., asking the perpetrator to dance and putting his arm around him) or alternatively no provocation was presented. Results revealed significant differences of victim blame depending on condition. Participants in both the local bar and provocation present conditions were more likely to blame the victim for the attack than those in the gay bar or provocation-absent conditions. Implications for hate crime law and attribution theory within the courtroom are discussed.

No abstract

Mock jurors (N = 312) viewed a simulated trial involving a woman, charged with the murder of her abusive husband, entering a plea of not guilty by reason of self-defense. Expert testimony was varied using battered woman syndrome, social agency framework, or no expert testimony. Within expert testimony conditions, jurors were presented with opening and closing statements either including or not including instructions aimed at inducing empathy. Results indicate differences in gender and expert testimony for ratings of guilt as well as differences in gender, expert testimony, and empathy induction for perceptions of the defendant.

The current study explored hate crime in a nontypical scenario. Label of the crime (first-degree assault vs. bias-motivated assault) and gender of the victim were varied within the context of an attack perpetrated within other gender dyads (i.e., when the victim was female, the perpetrator was male, and vice versa). Results indicated that participants in the assault condition were more likely to find the defendant guilty than those in the hate crime condition. Participants also made differential attributions of victim blame, such that those in the assault condition found the victim to be more mentally unstable than those in the hate crime condition.Hate crimes have been the topic of much debate among

The present study investigated whether altering how certain social policies were framed would alter how many participants valued and/or discounted those policies and also whether discounting of the policies would be related to several measures of the participants' religiousness and their political party affiliation. Five hundred ninety-seven university undergraduates were randomly divided into two groups and completed a delay-discounting task that involved one monetary and five social-policy outcomes. The phrasing of the policies differed between groups (e.g., affirmative action vs. equal rights). Results showed that framing the policies in different ways altered (a) the number of participants who indicated that the policy held value and (b) how participants discounted the policies. Levels of discounting were also related to measures of religiousness and/or political party affiliation for all but one outcome. The present results highlight the potential value of studying how individuals discount delayed outcomes pertaining to social issues.