Does ambivalent sexism influence verdicts for heterosexual and homosexual defendants in a self-defense case?

Brenda L. Russell, Laurie L. Ragatz, Shane W. Kraus

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The current research examined the role of defendant and participant sex, presence or absence of expert testimony of the "battered person syndrome", and sexual orientation of the defendant on perceptions of guilt in a self-defense case. The role of sexism in judgments of culpability was also examined. A sample of 442 participants read a self-defense case scenario and responded to questions pertaining to verdict, defendant culpability, legal element ratings, and sexist attitudes. Results revealed a four-way interaction, showing female participants prescribed the lowest guilt ratings to heterosexual female and homosexual male defendants who received expert testimony of the battered person syndrome. When heterosexual male defendants received expert testimony, ratings of guilt significantly increased. A multiple regression was conducted to determine whether legal and extra-legal factors predicted defendant culpability. Sexist attitudes (benevolent sexism towards men and women) and certain legal elements were predictive of defendant culpability. Limitations and implications are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)145-157
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of Family Violence
Volume24
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2009

Fingerprint

Sexism
self-defense
Guilt
sexism
Heterosexuality
Expert Testimony
guilt
homosexuality
testimony
rating
expert
legal factors
human being
sexual orientation
Sexual Behavior
scenario
regression
interaction
Research
Sexual Minorities

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Clinical Psychology
  • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Law

Cite this

@article{86b5f392416b4a6b8c86f62b796110d8,
title = "Does ambivalent sexism influence verdicts for heterosexual and homosexual defendants in a self-defense case?",
abstract = "The current research examined the role of defendant and participant sex, presence or absence of expert testimony of the {"}battered person syndrome{"}, and sexual orientation of the defendant on perceptions of guilt in a self-defense case. The role of sexism in judgments of culpability was also examined. A sample of 442 participants read a self-defense case scenario and responded to questions pertaining to verdict, defendant culpability, legal element ratings, and sexist attitudes. Results revealed a four-way interaction, showing female participants prescribed the lowest guilt ratings to heterosexual female and homosexual male defendants who received expert testimony of the battered person syndrome. When heterosexual male defendants received expert testimony, ratings of guilt significantly increased. A multiple regression was conducted to determine whether legal and extra-legal factors predicted defendant culpability. Sexist attitudes (benevolent sexism towards men and women) and certain legal elements were predictive of defendant culpability. Limitations and implications are discussed.",
author = "Russell, {Brenda L.} and Ragatz, {Laurie L.} and Kraus, {Shane W.}",
year = "2009",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10896-008-9210-7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "145--157",
journal = "Journal of Fluorescence",
issn = "1053-0509",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "3",

}

Does ambivalent sexism influence verdicts for heterosexual and homosexual defendants in a self-defense case? / Russell, Brenda L.; Ragatz, Laurie L.; Kraus, Shane W.

In: Journal of Family Violence, Vol. 24, No. 3, 01.04.2009, p. 145-157.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Does ambivalent sexism influence verdicts for heterosexual and homosexual defendants in a self-defense case?

AU - Russell, Brenda L.

AU - Ragatz, Laurie L.

AU - Kraus, Shane W.

PY - 2009/4/1

Y1 - 2009/4/1

N2 - The current research examined the role of defendant and participant sex, presence or absence of expert testimony of the "battered person syndrome", and sexual orientation of the defendant on perceptions of guilt in a self-defense case. The role of sexism in judgments of culpability was also examined. A sample of 442 participants read a self-defense case scenario and responded to questions pertaining to verdict, defendant culpability, legal element ratings, and sexist attitudes. Results revealed a four-way interaction, showing female participants prescribed the lowest guilt ratings to heterosexual female and homosexual male defendants who received expert testimony of the battered person syndrome. When heterosexual male defendants received expert testimony, ratings of guilt significantly increased. A multiple regression was conducted to determine whether legal and extra-legal factors predicted defendant culpability. Sexist attitudes (benevolent sexism towards men and women) and certain legal elements were predictive of defendant culpability. Limitations and implications are discussed.

AB - The current research examined the role of defendant and participant sex, presence or absence of expert testimony of the "battered person syndrome", and sexual orientation of the defendant on perceptions of guilt in a self-defense case. The role of sexism in judgments of culpability was also examined. A sample of 442 participants read a self-defense case scenario and responded to questions pertaining to verdict, defendant culpability, legal element ratings, and sexist attitudes. Results revealed a four-way interaction, showing female participants prescribed the lowest guilt ratings to heterosexual female and homosexual male defendants who received expert testimony of the battered person syndrome. When heterosexual male defendants received expert testimony, ratings of guilt significantly increased. A multiple regression was conducted to determine whether legal and extra-legal factors predicted defendant culpability. Sexist attitudes (benevolent sexism towards men and women) and certain legal elements were predictive of defendant culpability. Limitations and implications are discussed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=59849099302&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=59849099302&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10896-008-9210-7

DO - 10.1007/s10896-008-9210-7

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:59849099302

VL - 24

SP - 145

EP - 157

JO - Journal of Fluorescence

JF - Journal of Fluorescence

SN - 1053-0509

IS - 3

ER -