The testimony of elderly victim/witnesses and their impact on juror decisions: The importance of examining multiple stereotypes

The goal of the current investigation was to determine how jurors may be influenced by elderly victim/witnesses. Stereotypes of elderly victim/witnesses were hypothesized to differentially impact jurors' perceptions and decisions. Participants (255 college and 229 community members who were jury-eligible) read a trial summary describing the aggravated assault of a man. The described case hinged on the victim's eyewitness identification of the defendant. The description of the victims was varied in order to examine five types of victim/witnesses: (1) a generic adult victim, described as being 31 years of age, (2) a generic elderly witness, described as being 66 years of age, (3) a 66-year-old senior citizen described to elicit the vulnerable-senior stereotype, (4) a 66-year-old grandfather, and (5) a 66-year-old statesman. Contrary to expectations, no significant differences were found between the college and community samples. Further, ratings of the victims' believability did not vary as a function of the different victim types. However, verdict differences were found for the different victim types. The proportion of guilty verdicts awarded in the statesman condition was significantly higher than those awarded when the victim was a generic adult, senior citizen, or grandfather. A significant difference was also found between the vulnerable senior citizen and the generic elderly case, with the generic elderly victim receiving a greater proportion of guilty verdicts than the vulnerable senior citizen.