Perceptions of Same-sex Domestic Violence Among Crisis Center Staff

Crisis center staff help form the frontline in the fight against domestic violence. Therefore, it is important that we understand any biases they may have when addressing cases of same-sex domestic violence. In this study, 120 crisis center staff members were given a vignette depicting a domestic dispute and asked to complete a questionnaire about their perceptions of the incident and the parties involved. We manipulated the sex of the perpetrator and victim. All other aspects of the vignette remained consistent. Because gay and lesbian relationships are often perceived as less serious than heterosexual relationships, we hypothesized that participants would perceive same-sex domestic violence as such. Consistent with this hypothesis, participants rated same-sex domestic violence scenarios as less serious than opposite-sex domestic violence and as less likely to get worse over time.     

Crime Prototypes,Objective Versus Subjective Culpability,and a Commonsense Balance

Crime prototypes, which have been linked to jurors' story constructions and verdicts, were elaborated through narratives, yielding 600 detailed stories, across seven different cases, in two experiments. These stories were manipulated under conditions that explored the prototypicality of the case, she verdict outcome, and whether it was a rightful or wrongful decision; the latter two manipulations, when combined, allowed for a comparison of actual outcomes versus true outcomes, and a measure of true culpability. Three or four prototypes, rather than one, emerged for all crimes, and though extraordinary rather than typical, they were far from simplistic. While the subjective element of motive dominated the culpability determination in Experiment I, objectivity prevailed in most cases in Experiment II. A commonsense and complex balancing of objective and subjective factors is the rule, while simplism was the rare exception.     

Lay perspectives on legal conundrums

Criminal law remains divided on the question of whether objectivity or subjectivity should be its dominant basis. Does liability begin with an objective act or harm, or with, subjective intent? In the first experiment, dealing with the conundrum of impossible act cases, the question is, Will respondents convict on subjective grounds (where intent to murder is clear), even when amanifest criminal act andharmful consequences are absent? The results show that they do convict, though their subjective preference moderates and even reverses with certain types of mistakes, or when thepotential harm, though not the actual harm, is perceived as high. In the second experiment, dealing with mistaken act and self-defense cases, the question is, Will subjectivity be determinative, or will respondents weigh objectivity more as the mistake gets more unreasonable? The results show that objectivity is weighed heavily, as fears of a plunge into subjective waters prove groundless Without legal guidelines, respondents navigate these conundrums by shifting their objective vs. subjective balance point, guided by good common sense.     

Studying Pretrial Publicity Effects: New Methods for Improving Ecological Validity and Testing External Validity

Although research examining the effects of pretrial publicity (PTP) on individuals' appraisals of a defendant and verdict decision making generally has been found to be internally valid, the external validity has been questioned by some social scientists as well as lawyers and judges. It is often proposed that the verisimilitude (or ecological validity) of the research should be increased in the service of increasing external validity; however, increasing verisimilitude can be costly in terms of both time and money. It is proposed that the Internet is a viable means of conducting PTP research that allows high verisimilitude without high costs. This is demonstrated with a study in which we used the Internet to examine PTP effects in an actual trial as it was taking place. Successful use of the Internet to conduct experimental research in other areas of psychology and law is discussed, as well as the importance of future research examining whether independent variables interact with methods in ways that undermine the generalizability of research findings.