Child victim empathy mediates the influence of jurors' sexual abuse experiences on child sexual abuse case judgments: Meta-analyses

Abstract

Using meta-analyses, we examined the effect of mock jurors' own sexual abuse experiences (i.e., whether they were victimized sexually as a child or adult or knew other victims) on child sexual abuse case judgments from 9 separate studies. We also examined the relation of abuse experience to jurors' child victim empathy, testing our theory that empathy would mediate (explain) the influence of abuse experience on case judgments. Participants were 2,447 psychology students who assumed the role of mock juror, reported their empathy for child victims, considered a hypothetical case of child sexual abuse, and made case-related judgments (ratings of the victim's credibility and the degree of guilt they assigned to the defendant). The sample included 404 participants who reported being victims of adult or child sexual abuse (17% of sample) and 961 participants who reported knowing other victims (39% of sample). Meta-analyses revealed that, compared with others, mock jurors with abuse experience (sexually abused themselves or knew other victims) had higher levels of child victim empathy and, in turn, perceived the victim to be more credible and assigned more guilt to defendants. These findings are important for advancing theory about the influence of sexual abuse experiences on jurors' perceptions of sexual assault victims and decisions in child sexual abuse cases. The research also has practical implications for making jury selection fairer and more representative in cases involving sexual assault by including individuals with sexual abuse experience on juries.