The Influence of Jurors’ Sexual Abuse Severity on Their Child Sexual Abuse Case Judgments: Meta-Analyses

Jurors with sexual abuse experience are more pro-child victim in child sexual abuse cases than are those without sexual abuse experience: They are more likely to empathize with a child victim, and in turn, more likely to find the victim credible and vote guilty (Jones, Bottoms, & Stevenson, 2020). I extended this finding in the current study by investigating the effect of the severity of jurors’ sexual abuse experiences on their child victim empathy and case judgments. Data is derived from seven mock jury studies including 361 (82% women) introductory psychology students who were sexually abused as a child or an adult and who reported the severity of their experiences. Meta-analyses were implemented to examine the effect of four separate severity indices: (a) victim’s relationship to the perpetrator, (b) frequency of the sexual abuse, (c) age sexual abuse began, and (d) self-report of emotional scarring from the sexual abuse on child victim empathy and case judgments of victim credibility and degree of guilt. I further tested a mediational model of jurors’ abuse severity, child victim empathy, and case judgments. Meta-analyses revealed that more severe sexual abuse experiences were, the more empathy victims had for child victims of sexual abuse (regardless of how sexual abuse severity was defined). Direct effects of severity on case judgments (perceptions of victim credibility and guilt judgments) and the full mediational model, however, failed to reach significance. Implications for clinical psychology, social psychology, and jury selection are discussed.