1. This study examined how mock jurors perceive sex trafficking cases based on the defendant's gender (male or female) and type of force used (physical abuse or coercion). 2. Results showed that male defendants and cases involving physical abuse were seen as more typical of sex trafficking. Male defendants also increased the likelihood of a guilty verdict. 3. The type of force used indirectly affected verdicts, as physical abuse led to lower perceptions of defendant credibility and higher chances of a guilty verdict. This suggests jurors may be unclear on defining sex trafficking versus domestic violence.

1. The Effect of Defendant Gender and Type of Force on Perceptions of Sex Trafficking
Nesa E. Wasarhaley1, Claire M. Renzetti2, Amanda L. Langley1, Dominic Locantore1, & Seth Schwartz1
Bridgewater State University Department of Psychology
2University of Kentucky Department of Sociology, Center for Research on Violence Against Women
Introduction
Sex trafficking (ST) is a complex crime involving enticing, harboring,
transporting, providing or obtaining an adult for commercial sex by
force, fraud, or coercion, or a juvenile for the same purpose
regardless of the means1. Law enforcement and community members
have expressed confusion about defining and identifying ST, and may
mistake ST for crimes such as domestic violence2. Based on pilot
findings exploring prototypical ST factors3, the present experiment
examined the effect of the trafficking defendant’s gender
(male/female) and type of force (physical abuse/coercion) on mock-
juror decision-making.
We generally expected to find more favorable perceptions of the victim
in scenarios that seemed more typical of ST4. We tested the following
hypotheses:
1.Main effects: mock jurors would rate a male trafficker and the use of
physical abuse as more typical and these factors would each lead to
more pro-victim ratings and guilty verdicts (compared to a female
trafficker and coercion, respectively).
2.Moderation: a male trafficker using physical abuse would lead to the
highest rate of guilty verdicts (as jurors may find this combination
more stereotypical).
3. Mediation: typicality ratings would moderate the effects of trafficker
gender and type of force on verdict.
Method
Participants
261 U.S. citizens (60% women) recruited online via MTurk; 18 to 86
years old; mean age of 39.5 (SD = 14.0); approximately 84% White.
Design
2 (Type of Force) x 2 (Defendant Gender) between-participants design
with two additional control conditions (see Table 1).
Materials
Trial summary. Participants read a fictional summary of an ST trial in
which the defendant either used coercion or physical abuse to compel
the victim to have sex with various strangers.
Trial questionnaire. Participants indicated their verdict (guilty or not
guilty) and rated various aspects of the trial (e.g., victim/defendant
credibility and typicality; similarity to typical sex trafficking case,
similarity to typical domestic violence case).
Discussion
Our findings suggest that jury-eligible individuals may be unclear about
what sex trafficking is, and may perceive and make decisions about an
ST case based on its similarity to domestic violence.
To our knowledge, no there is no existing research on juror perceptions
of ST. The current study therefore contributes to the growing literature
on human trafficking5, and could potentially influence the way
prosecutors handle ST cases. Future research should examine the
effect of other ST case factors (e.g., victim characteristics) and employ
a variety of methods (e.g., include juror deliberations) to further our
understanding of perceptions of ST.
References
1Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-386, § 103, 114 Stat.
1464 (2000).
2 Bales, K., & Lize, S. (2005). Trafficking in persons in the United States. NCJ
211980. United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
Washington, D.C.
3Wasarhaley, N. E., Renzetti, C. M., Locantore, D. (2016, March). Public perceptions
of human sex trafficking: What is the prototype? Poster to be presented at the
Annual Conference of the American Psychology-Law Society, Atlanta, GA.
4McKimmie, B. M., Masser, B. M., and Bongiorno, R. (2014). What counts as rape?
The effect of offense prototypes, victim stereotypes, and participant gender on how
the complainant and defendant are perceived. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29,
2273-2303.
5Picarelli, J. T. (2015). Science versus slavery: The National Institute of Justice and
the future directions of knowledge put to the service of the anti-trafficking movement.
Journal of Human Trafficking, 1(1), 39-55.
This research was generously funded by Bridgewater State University’s Center for
the Advancement of Research and Scholarship.
Procedure
Participants completed the study
online using Qualtrics.com. They
first answered a questionnaire
containing demographic and legal
attitude questions. A week later,
participants who volunteered for
the mock-juror study were asked to
read the trial summary and answer
the trial questionnaire.
nesa.wasarhaley@bridgew.edu
Trafficker
Gender
Trafficker-Victim
Relationship
Type of
Force
Male Romantic Coercion
Male Romantic Physical Abuse
Female Romantic Coercion
Female Romantic Physical Abuse
Female Maternal Coercion
Female Maternal Physical Abuse
Results
1. Participants rated a male defendant as a more typical trafficker and
rated the scenario as more similar to domestic violence (see Table
2). For physical abuse (vs. coercion) participants rated lower
defendant credibility, and rated the scenario as more similar to
domestic violence (see Table 3).
2. There was no significant interaction between trafficker gender and
type of force on trial ratings or verdict.
3. Defendant gender indirectly affected verdict via defendant typicality;
the male defendant’s typicality increased the likelihood of rendering
guilty verdicts (See Figure 1). Physical abuse had an indirect effect
on verdict via defendant credibility; lower defendant credibility
decreased the likelihood of rendering guilty verdicts (see Figure 2).
Rating Male Trafficker Female Trafficker β t p
Victim credibility
Defendant credibility
Victim typicality
Defendant typicality -.16 -2.58 .010
Similarity to typical ST
Similarity to typical
domestic violence
-.20 -3.35 .001
Rating Physical Abuse Coercion β t p
Victim credibility
Defendant credibility -.17 -2.76 .006
Victim typicality
Defendant typicality
Similarity to typical ST
Similarity to typical
domestic violence
.18 2.94 .004
Table 1. Experimental Conditions
Table 2. Trial Ratings by Defendant Gender Condition
Table 3. Trial Ratings by Type of Force Condition
Note. Analyses conducted with combined female trafficker conditions.
Figure 1. Indirect Effect of Defendant Gender on Verdict
* p < .05 ** p < .001 (95% CI: -.95 to -.10)
Defendant Typicality Guilty Verdicts
Defendant Gender
(Male vs. Female)
ß = .22* OR = 1.76**
Figure 2. Indirect Effect of Type of Force on Verdict
* p < .05 ** p < .001 (95% CI: .05 to .80)
Defendant Credibility Guilty Verdicts
Type of Force
(Physical Abuse
vs. Coercion
ß = .22* OR = 1.76**