The Effect of Heuristic Cues on Jurors' Systematic Information Processing in Rape Trials

There is concern that jurors' decisions in rape trials might be influenced by misleading cues (e.g., victim stereotypes) potentially explaining disproportionately low conviction rates. We investigated the bias hypothesis from the heuristic-systematic model as an explanation for how jurors may be influenced by misleading stereotypes even while they are effortfully processing rape trial evidence. We expected that when case evidence was ambiguous, stereotypes would guide motivated participants' effortful information processing, but not when case evidence was strong. Mock jurors (N = 901) were asked to make decisions about a rape trial with either ambiguous or strong evidence in which the complainant was either stereotypically distressed or unemotional giving evidence. Participants were either placed under high motivation conditions to encourage effortful information processing or in a control condition with low motivation instructions to encourage less effortful processing as a comparison. Participants' information processing and case decisions were measured as key dependent variables. We found partial support for the hypothesized interaction and the bias hypothesis, suggesting that the types of evidence participants attended to in decision-making were influenced by misleading stereotypical cues. Our findings have implications for interventions to reduce the effect of misleading stereotypes on decisions in rape trials.