No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Jurors Evaluations of a High School Bullying Case in which the Victim Attempted Suicide
Abstract
Given the large number of criminal trials that occur annually, it is important to understand jurors' verdict choices and punishment preferences. Recently, legislators have begun moving to criminalize school bullying, and therefore more such cases will likely be tried in courtrooms in the future. In the current study, undergraduates (N = 170; 75% female) evaluated a criminal trial involving bullying. We manipulated the victim's age (14 or 18 years old) and the harm level (emotional distress that led to academic problems or a suicide attempt). We hypothesized that greater harm would produce more pro-victim judgments for the younger but not the older victim, and that this effect would be mediated by jurors' inferences about each individual's degree of responsibility. As predicted, when the victim was younger, a higher versus lower level of harm led to a greater proportion of guilty verdicts, higher probability of guilt estimates, and harsher sentence recommendations. In contrast, when the victim was older, an increase in harm significantly decreased probability of guilt estimates and did not affect verdicts or sentences. Jurors seem to interpret harm in a complex way, taking into account the victim's apparent capacity to deal with his or her mistreatment. © 2016 by the Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
... Before examining the impact of psychological injury schemas on jurors' legal decisions, we must initially address whether jurors actually have psychological injury schemas. The relatively scant research on this issue suggests that they do (Gentry & Pickel, 2016;Pickel & Gentry, 2017;Popovich et al., 1995;Vallano & McQuiston, 2018; but see Hart et al., 1997 for little existence of psychological injury schemas in negligence/tort cases). Generally speaking, a substantial percentage of mock jurors (~25%+) report that civil plaintiffs will suffer some form of psychological injury due to tortious conduct (Popovich et al., 1995;Vallano & McQuiston, 2018). ...
... Consistent with these theoretical frameworks, more relevant empirical studies have specifically found that jurors' injury schemas affect their perceptions of trial evidence, and indirectly or directly affect their liability and damage determinations Huntley & Costanzo, 2003;Vallano et al., 2012). Specific research on psychological injury schemas further finds that the (in)consistency between jurors' schemas and the actual injuries adduced by plaintiffs affect their legal decisions, particularly by lowering the plaintiff's perceived credibility (Gentry & Pickel, 2016;Pickel & Gentry, 2017;Vallano et al., 2012). Generally speaking, the more closely the details of the alleged assault align with jurors' legal schemas, the more legal fact-finders will view the victim as credible (Ellison & Munro, 2009a, b;Krahe, Temkin, & Bieneck, 2007;McKimmie, Masser, & Bongiorno, 2014). ...
Psychological injury evidence is at the heart of many civil claims. Due to the recent burgeoning of sexual harassment and assault claims which predominantly involve psychological distress, it is especially important to understand how jurors process this evidence at the most basic (or schema) level, and how these preconceived notions influence processing of trial evidence and subsequent legal judgments. As a result, the present paper explores rarely addressed—but fundamental—issues regarding how jurors perceive psychological injury evidence. Specifically, do jurors have psychological injury schemas? And if so, what injuries do these schemas contain, how stable are they, how are they evaluated, and how do they affect jurors’ case perceptions and legal decisions? A review of relevant theory and empirical research reveals that jurors have psychological injury schemas, but they are often poorly developed and susceptible to the influence of prompts used to retrieve these schemas (e.g., questions posed by attorneys during voir dire, the actual injuries adduced by the plaintiff). Also interesting is that despite the relative importance of psychological injury evidence, tremendous gaps remain regarding what actual types of psychological injuries jurors believe typically result in civil cases, how stable these injury schemas are, and precisely how they affect jurors’ decisions. This paper addresses these important issues to help organize and direct future research on the subject, including proposing a model for how psychological injury schemas interact with jurors’ perceptions of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries to affect their legal decisions.
... Detrimental effects of bullying reflect negatively on students' academic achievements, their social life, and mental health (Rothon et al., 2011;Schwerdt & West, 2013). If bullying is not identified and promptly addressed, it may lead to extreme consequences such as crime and suicide (Gentry & Pickel, 2016). The phenomenon is pervasive and hardly new, but it is still far from being effectively addressed (Horton, 2016;Olweus, 1993;Thornberg, 2018). ...
The purpose of this study was to develop a new arts-based measure assessing school bullying and to test it within a pilot study involving 19 schoolchildren (mean age = 15.4; range = 1.00). The researchers designed the new methodological tool (referred to as graphic vignettes) as a set of incomplete comic strips, which participants were asked to complete in a creative way. Researchers then invited participants to engage in follow-up interviews using completed comic strips as individualized interview prompts. The authors detail the design and administration of the graphic vignettes and discuss their efficacy, limitations, and potential applications. The researchers argue that studies on sensitive topics can benefit from a wider dissemination of this arts-based research method. They also assert that the use of creatively co-constructed interview prompts individualizes participant–researcher interactions, placing the power in the hands of participants. The article aims to inspire further development of graphic vignettes.
We examined mock jurors? judgments in a rape case that was either prototypical (late-night assault by a stranger in a public place) or non-prototypical (daytime assault by an acquaintance in a private home). We also varied the psychological harm experienced by the victim as a result of the rape (mild anxiety or PTSD). We hypothesized that participants? expectations regarding the level of harm the victim is likely to experience would mediate the effect of harm level on ratings of the victim?s credibility, and this indirect effect would be contingent on the prototypicality of the case. In a pilot experiment we demonstrated that people expect prototypical rape cases to be more traumatic for victims than non-prototypical cases. In the main experiment, and as predicted, participants in the Prototypical condition expected the victim to develop PTSD more than mild anxiety, but Non-Prototypical condition participants expected the opposite. In addition, a level of harm that was consistent rather than inconsistent with their expectations led participants to rate the victim as more credible; they also rated her as less responsible for what happened, and they thought the defendant was more likely guilty and that he should be incarcerated for a longer period of time.
To investigate slut shaming (condemnation aimed at presumably sexually active females) as a form of bullying, we asked 142 U.S. college students acting as disciplinary committee members to decide a case involving two female high school students. We manipulated the victim’s self-presentation (sexually available, control) and the level of harm she suffered (mild anxiety, PTSD). Although evaluators typically make more pro-victim judgments when the level of harm is higher rather than lower, we expected participants to ignore harm when the victim self-presented as sexually available. As predicted, participants in the control condition made higher probability of guilt estimates and harsher sentence recommendations when the victim experienced PTSD versus mild anxiety. In contrast, harm level did not influence participants’ judgments in the sexually available condition. Additional analyses demonstrated that participants attributed relatively more responsibility to the sexually available than to the control victim, and the effect of the victim’s self-presentation on guilt estimates was mediated by attributions about the cause of the harm. The results correspond with previous findings that evaluators blame bullying victims whom they believe made themselves targets. We suggest that school districts revise their policies as necessary to avoid encouraging slut shaming and that evaluators receive training to help them apply the legal definition of bullying to specific situations.
We examined middle school students' attitudes and perceptions of bullying during their middle school years. Participants were categorized along the bully/victim continuum as bullies, victims, bully-victims, and no-status students based on their self-nomination from a survey that queries students about their experiences with bullying (either as a bully, victim, or both), their observations of bullying, and their attitudes toward bullying. The majority of participants were classified as bullies, victims, and bully-victims as 70% of the participants reported involvement with bullying and/or victimization during their middle school years. Participants' perceptions about bullying and attitudes toward bullying were examined at three points in time. Participants' attitudes toward bullying became more supportive of bullying as students
School counselors responded to an Internet survey con- taining vignettes describing physical, verbal, and rela- tional bullying. Respondents rated relational bullying the least serious of the three types, they had the least empathy for victims of relational bullying, and they were least like- ly to intervene in relational bullying incidents. Counsel- ors with anti-bullying training rated relational bullying as more serious and were more likely to intervene in rela- tional bullying incidents than were those without train- ing. Implications for counselor education are discussed.