Juror Perception of Intimate Partner Violence Cases Involving Victims with Disabilities
1
Juror Perceptions of Intimate Partner Violence Cases Involving Victims with Disabilities Amanda L. Langley, Abbie R. Levinson, Hailey E. Calderone, & Kristin M. Purnell (Mentor: Nesa E. Wasarhaley) Bridgewater State University Department of Psychology Introduction One in three women have been victims of physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime 1 . Women with disabilities are particularly likely to be victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) than those without disabilities 2 . Victims with disabilities also have shown higher odds of contacting a police- or court-based victim service 3 . Court intervention can play a part in ending IPV and beginning victims’ recovery, yet there is a lack of research of IPV victims with disabilities in a legal context 4 . The present study examined how the type of disability (physical or intellectual) affects mock jurors’ perceptions of an IPV scenario. We tested the following hypotheses: 1. Victims with a physical disability will lead to more guilty verdicts and high pro-victim ratings compared to the no disability condition. 2. Victims with an intellectual disability will be less likely to lead to guilty verdicts and will have lower pro-victim rating than in the no disability condition. 3. Women will be more likely to render guilty verdicts and have higher pro-victim ratings than men. Procedure Participants individually read the trial summary via Qualtrics. Then they answered the trial questionnaire and completed various individual difference measures (e.g., empathy, acceptance of domestic violence myths). Results 1. Participants viewed a victim with a physical disability as more typical than a victim with an intellectual disability (see Figure 1). However, physical disability did not significantly influence participants’ verdicts (see Table 1). 2. There was not a significant difference between guilty verdicts and pro-victim ratings in the intellectual disability condition compared to the no disability condition (see Table 1). 3. Female participants were less likely to blame the victim compared to male participants (see Figure 2 and Table 2). Discussion The present study suggests that people may view women with a physical disability as more typical victims of IPV compared to women with intellectual disabilities. However, victim disability did not directly affect verdict judgments. The results also support prior research findings that women are more likely to empathize with abuse victims, thus blaming the victim less than men. The current study helps understand the influence of stereotypes of IPV on perceptions of victimization. Further, these results can help educate justice system personnel and inform public policy decisions regarding this vulnerable yet understudied group. Method Participants 259 community members (59% women) recruited online via Mechanical Turk; 18 to 76 years old; a mean age of 39.6 (SD=12.82); approximately 86% White; U.S. citizens. Design 3 (Victim Disability: physical, intellectual, none) x 2 (Participant Gender) between-participants design. Materials Trial summary. Participants read a fictional summary of an IPV case in which the victim either had a physical disability, an intellectual disability, or no disability. Trial questionnaire. Participants indicated their verdict (guilty or not guilty) and rated various aspects of the trial (e.g., victim/defendant credibility and typicality; 1 = not at all, 7 = completely). References 1 Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T., Chen, J. & Stevens, M. (2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey: 2010 summary report. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010- a.pdf 2 Smith, D. L. (2008). Disability, gender and intimate partner violence: Relationships from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Sexuality and Disability, 26(1), 15-28. 3 Brownridge, D. A. (2009). Violence against women: Vulnerable populations. New York and London: Routledge. 4 Bell, M.E., Perez, S., Goodman, L.A., & Dutton, M. (2011). Battered women’s perceptions of civil and criminal court helpfulness: The role of court outcome and process. Violence Against Women, 17(1), 71-88. This research was generously funded by Bridgewater State Figure 2. Mean Ratings for Male and Female Participants. Figure 1. Mean Ratings By Victim Disability Condition. Victim Blame Victim Typic... Defendant ... Defendant Typi... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Physical (n=83) Mean Rating [ p = .039 ] Victim Blame Victim Typica... Defendant B... Defendant Typica... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Male (n=106) Mean Rating [ p = .037 ] Table 1. Mean Ratings by Victim Disability Condition Table 2. Mean Ratings by Participant Gender Ratings Male Female (n = 106) (n = 152) Guilty Verdict 63.2% 69.7% Victim Credibility 4.95(1.29) 5.25(1.42) Victim Blam e 2.41(1.20) 2.09(1.21) Victim Typicality 4.89(1.37) 5.09(1.36) D efendantCredibility 3.68(1.30) 3.32(1.52) DefendantBlam e 4.67(1.26) 5.17(1.42) D efendantTypicality 4.50(1.31) 4.69(1.54)
-
Upload
amanda-langley -
Category
Data & Analytics
-
view
42 -
download
0
Transcript of Juror Perception of Intimate Partner Violence Cases Involving Victims with Disabilities
Juror Perceptions of Intimate Partner Violence Cases Involving Victims with Disabilities
Amanda L. Langley, Abbie R. Levinson, Hailey E. Calderone, & Kristin M. Purnell(Mentor: Nesa E. Wasarhaley)
Bridgewater State University Department of PsychologyIntroduction
One in three women have been victims of physical violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime1. Women with disabilities are particularly likely to be victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) than those without disabilities2. Victims with disabilities also have shown higher odds of contacting a police- or court-based victim service3. Court intervention can play a part in ending IPV and beginning victims’ recovery, yet there is a lack of research of IPV victims with disabilities in a legal context4.
The present study examined how the type of disability (physical or intellectual) affects mock jurors’ perceptions of an IPV scenario. We tested the following hypotheses:
1. Victims with a physical disability will lead to more guilty verdicts and high pro-victim ratings compared to the no disability condition.
2. Victims with an intellectual disability will be less likely to lead to guilty verdicts and will have lower pro-victim rating than in the no disability condition.
3. Women will be more likely to render guilty verdicts and have higher pro-victim ratings than men.
ProcedureParticipants individually read the trial summary via Qualtrics. Then they answered the trial questionnaire and completed various individual difference measures (e.g., empathy, acceptance of domestic violence myths).
Results
1. Participants viewed a victim with a physical disability as more typical than a victim with an intellectual disability (see Figure 1). However, physical disability did not significantly influence participants’ verdicts (see Table 1).
2. There was not a significant difference between guilty verdicts and pro-victim ratings in the intellectual disability condition compared to the no disability condition (see Table 1).
3. Female participants were less likely to blame the victim compared to male participants (see Figure 2 and Table 2).
DiscussionThe present study suggests that people may view women with a physical disability as more typical victims of IPV compared to women with intellectual disabilities. However, victim disability did not directly affect verdict judgments. The results also support prior research findings that women are more likely to empathize with abuse victims, thus blaming the victim less than men.
The current study helps understand the influence of stereotypes of IPV on perceptions of victimization. Further, these results can help educate justice system personnel and inform public policy decisions regarding this vulnerable yet understudied group.
MethodParticipants259 community members (59% women) recruited online via Mechanical Turk; 18 to 76 years old; a mean age of 39.6 (SD=12.82); approximately 86% White; U.S. citizens.
Design3 (Victim Disability: physical, intellectual, none) x 2 (Participant Gender) between-participants design.
MaterialsTrial summary. Participants read a fictional summary of an IPV case in which the victim either had a physical disability, an intellectual disability, or no disability.
Trial questionnaire. Participants indicated their verdict (guilty or not guilty) and rated various aspects of the trial (e.g., victim/defendant credibility and typicality; 1 = not at all, 7 = completely).
References1 Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T., Chen, J. & Stevens, M. (2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey: 2010 summary report. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf2 Smith, D. L. (2008). Disability, gender and intimate partner violence: Relationships from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Sexuality and Disability, 26(1), 15-28. 3 Brownridge, D. A. (2009). Violence against women: Vulnerable populations. New York and London: Routledge.4Bell, M.E., Perez, S., Goodman, L.A., & Dutton, M. (2011). Battered women’s perceptions of civil and criminal court helpfulness: The role of court outcome and process. Violence Against Women, 17(1), 71-88.
This research was generously funded by Bridgewater State University’s Office of Undergraduate Research.Figure 2. Mean Ratings for Male and Female Participants.
Figure 1. Mean Ratings By Victim Disability Condition.Victim Blame Victim Typicality Defendant Blame Defendant Typicality
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Physical (n=83)Intellectual (n=87)None (n=89)
Mea
n Ra
ting
[ p = .039 ]
Victim Blame Victim Typicality Defendant Blame Defendant Typicality1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Male (n=106)
Mea
n Ra
ting
[ p = .037 ]
Ratings Male Female (n = 106) (n = 152) Guilty Verdict 63.2% 69.7% Victim Credibility 4.95(1.29) 5.25(1.42) Victim Blame 2.41(1.20) 2.09(1.21) Victim Typicality 4.89(1.37) 5.09(1.36) Defendant Credibility 3.68(1.30) 3.32(1.52) Defendant Blame 4.67(1.26) 5.17(1.42) Defendant Typicality 4.50(1.31) 4.69(1.54)
Table 1. Mean Ratings by Victim Disability Condition
Table 2. Mean Ratings by Participant Gender
