This study examined how male rape myths, racial biases, and sexuality stereotypes influence verdicts in male-on-male rape trials—an area that is currently under-researched. A sample of 463 participants read a mock rape trial, where both the defendant and complainant were male, with defendant ethnicity (White, Black, Asian) and complainant sexuality (homosexual, heterosexual) manipulated across conditions. Participants completed the Male Rape Myth Acceptance Scale (MRMAS) before the trial and the Juror Decision Scale (JDS) afterwards. Results showed that defendant and complainant believability (subscales of the JDS) mediated the relationship between rape myth acceptance and verdicts, indicating that pre-trial biases shape jurors’ story formation and decision-making. Qualitative data demonstrates divergent narrative logics between high and low MRMA participants. Further, it was also found that both defendant ethnicity and complainant sexuality did not significantly influence verdicts. Findings highlight how underlying biases affect juror judgments and underscore the implications of this research are considered in the context of jury-reform initiatives already underway across the UK. Limitations and future research discussed within.
Curley et al. (Fri,) studied this question.