Mock Jurors’ Perceptions of Sexual Assault on a University Campus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine how defendant gender, victim gender, location of sexual assault (professor’s office vs. fraternity party), and whether the defendant was intoxicated influenced mock jurors’ decisions in a sexual assault case. Mock jurors ( N = 503) read a mock trial transcript depicting an alleged sexual assault and were asked to render a dichotomous verdict, continuous guilt rating, and rate their perceptions of the victim and defendant. There was no influence on mock jurors’ dichotomous verdicts. However, the presence of intoxication did influence continuous guilt ratings; intoxicated defendants elicited higher guilt ratings compared to sober defendants. Whether the defendant was intoxicated and the location of the crime were found to impact mock jurors’ perceptions of the defendant (e.g., believability, credibility); whereas the gender of the defendant affected the perceived control the defendant had over the situation. Victim gender was found to impact mock jurors perceptions of the victim, such that female victims were perceived more favorably than male victims; this may support the idea that male victims of sexual assault are generally perceived more negatively than female victims. These results, and more, are discussed in terms of the current study and the larger implications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".