Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, Vol 31(3), Aug 2025, 246-253; doi:10.1037/law0000444
Sexual assault case attrition is significant during the judicial process, necessitating a better understanding of how juror-level factors, such as personal connection to sexual assault, impact rape myth beliefs and conviction decisions. Our study examined the differential influence of mock jurors’ degree of personal connection to sexual assault—via their own assault histories, having a close other with a sexual assault history, or no connection—on their false rape reporting estimates and conviction propensity in cases designed to align with various rape myth beliefs. A representative sample of 483 registered voters in the southeastern United States (49.7% White, 67.3% female, M = 62.5 years, SD = 14.4) was recruited to complete a telephone survey. Participants estimated that 26.1% of rape reports are false, but conviction likelihood was greater than expected across hypothetical cases (M = 6.30–8.27 out of 10 [the highest conviction likelihood]). False rape reporting estimates did not differ by personal connection to sexual assault after accounting for sex, age, and race, F(2, 256) = 1.63, p = .20. A multivariate analysis of covariance controlling for sex, age, and race indicated that participants’ propensity to convict a defendant in sexual assault cases in which the victim knew the perpetrator, F(2, 334) = 6.28, p = .002, did not physically resist, F(2, 334) = 4.14, p = .017, and was using substances, F(2, 334) = 3.45, p = .033, differed by personal connection to sexual assault (Pillai’s trace = 0.06, p = .017). Results indicate mock jurors with close others with sexual assault histories are no more biased—toward victim or defendant—than those with sexual assault histories or those without a personal connection to sexual assault, highlighting the importance of their inclusion as jury members in sexual assault trials. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)