My research lab and I conducted an experimental study looking at the perceptions that mock/potential jurors have of IPV, particularly when the victim has a disability.

1. Juror Perceptions of Intimate Partner Violence
Cases Involving Victims with Disabilities
Amanda L. Langley, Abbie R. Levinson, Hailey E. Calderone, & Kristin M. Purnell
(Mentor: Nesa E. Wasarhaley)
Bridgewater State University Department of Psychology
Introduction
One in three women have been victims of physical violence by an intimate partner in
their lifetime1. Women with disabilities are particularly likely to be victims of intimate
partner violence (IPV) than those without disabilities2. Victims with disabilities also
have shown higher odds of contacting a police- or court-based victim service3. Court
intervention can play a part in ending IPV and beginning victims’ recovery, yet there is
a lack of research of IPV victims with disabilities in a legal context4.
The present study examined how the type of disability (physical or intellectual) affects
mock jurors’ perceptions of an IPV scenario. We tested the following hypotheses:
1. Victims with a physical disability will lead to more guilty verdicts and high pro-
victim ratings compared to the no disability condition.
2. Victims with an intellectual disability will be less likely to lead to guilty verdicts and
will have lower pro-victim rating than in the no disability condition.
3. Women will be more likely to render guilty verdicts and have higher pro-victim
ratings than men.
Procedure
Participants individually read the trial summary via Qualtrics. Then they answered
the trial questionnaire and completed various individual difference measures (e.g.,
empathy, acceptance of domestic violence myths).
Results
1. Participants viewed a victim with a physical disability as more typical than a
victim with an intellectual disability (see Figure 1). However, physical disability
did not significantly influence participants’ verdicts (see Table 1).
2. There was not a significant difference between guilty verdicts and pro-victim
ratings in the intellectual disability condition compared to the no disability
condition (see Table 1).
3. Female participants were less likely to blame the victim compared to male
participants (see Figure 2 and Table 2).
Discussion
The present study suggests that people may view women with a physical disability
as more typical victims of IPV compared to women with intellectual disabilities.
However, victim disability did not directly affect verdict judgments. The results also
support prior research findings that women are more likely to empathize with
abuse victims, thus blaming the victim less than men.
The current study helps understand the influence of stereotypes of IPV on
perceptions of victimization. Further, these results can help educate justice system
personnel and inform public policy decisions regarding this vulnerable yet
understudied group.
Method
Participants
259 community members (59% women) recruited online via Mechanical Turk;
18 to 76 years old; a mean age of 39.6 (SD=12.82); approximately 86%
White; U.S. citizens.
Design
3 (Victim Disability: physical, intellectual, none) x 2 (Participant Gender)
between-participants design.
Materials
Trial summary. Participants read a fictional summary of an IPV case in which
the victim either had a physical disability, an intellectual disability, or no
disability.
Trial questionnaire. Participants indicated their verdict (guilty or not guilty) and
rated various aspects of the trial (e.g., victim/defendant credibility and
typicality; 1 = not at all, 7 = completely).
References
1 Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G., Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T.,
Chen, J. & Stevens, M. (2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence
survey: 2010 summary report. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf
2 Smith, D. L. (2008). Disability, gender and intimate partner violence: Relationships
from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Sexuality and Disability, 26(1),
15-28.
3 Brownridge, D. A. (2009). Violence against women: Vulnerable populations. New
York and London: Routledge.
4Bell, M.E., Perez, S., Goodman, L.A., & Dutton, M. (2011). Battered women’s
perceptions of civil and criminal court helpfulness: The role of court outcome and
process. Violence Against Women, 17(1), 71-88.
This research was generously funded by Bridgewater State University’s Office of
Undergraduate Research.Figure 2. Mean Ratings for Male and Female Participants.
Figure 1. Mean Ratings By Victim Disability Condition.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Victim Blame Victim Typicality Defendant Blame Defendant Typicality
MeanRating
Physical (n=83)
Intellectual (n=87)
None (n=89)
[ p = .039 ]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Victim Blame Victim Typicality Defendant Blame Defendant Typicality
MeanRating
Male (n=106)
[ p = .037 ]
Ratings Physical Intellectual None
(n = 83) (n =87 ) (n = 89)
Guilty Verdict 63.9% 71.3% 66.3%
Victim Credibility 5.14(1.35) 5.19(1.35) 5.06(1.31)
Victim Blame 2.01(1.09) 2.19(1.21) 2.43(1.30)
Victim Typicality 4.73(1.64) 5.19(1.20) 5.11(1.19)
Defendant Credibility 3.29(1.49) 3.45(1.39) 3.65(1.44)
Defendant Blame 4.80(1.48) 5.11(1.38) 4.98(1.27)
Defendant Typicality 4.61(1.59) 4.61(1.48) 4.61(1.30)
Ratings Male Female
(n = 106) (n = 152)
Guilty Verdict 63.2% 69.7%
Victim Credibility 4.95(1.29) 5.25(1.42)
Victim Blame 2.41(1.20) 2.09(1.21)
Victim Typicality 4.89(1.37) 5.09(1.36)
Defendant Credibility 3.68(1.30) 3.32(1.52)
Defendant Blame 4.67(1.26) 5.17(1.42)
Defendant Typicality 4.50(1.31) 4.69(1.54)
Table 1. Mean Ratings by Victim Disability Condition
Table 2. Mean Ratings by Participant Gender