Study Design 1,500 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel Commonwealth v....

Study Design

1,500 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel

Commonwealth v. Berkowitz: Alleged rape of female college student by male student acquaintance. Complainant says “no” repeatedly, but does not physically resist. Multiple subject to opposing interpretations based on competing “scripts” or templates.

Worldviews Demographic characteristics Fact Perceptions Verdict

Alternative formulations of legal definition of rape: common law, “strict liability,” “reform,” “no means no”

Sample

Vignette

Measures

Experimental Manipulation

Strongly Disagree15%

Moderately Disagree11%

Slightly Disagree17%

Slightly Agree17%

Moderately Agree16%

Strongly Agree24%

“Dave should be found guilty of rape.”

Response frequencies, all conditions (N = 1,500)

Agree: 57%Disagree: 43%

1 GUILTY

2 DEF_FACTS

3 CONSENT

4 UNFAIR

No definition -0.17 (0.15) 0.01 (0.10) 0.05 (0.15) 0.12 (0.15) No Means No 0.44 (0.15) -0.28 (0.10) -0.43 (0.15) -0.46 (0.15) Strict Liability 0.04 (0.14) -0.05 (0.10) -0.10 (0.15) -0.15 (0.15) Reform 0.16 (0.15) -0.07 (0.10) 0.02 (0.15) -0.15 (0.15) Male -0.41 (0.31) 0.46 (0.20) 0.89 (0.32) 0.45 (0.31) White 0.05 (0.17) -0.16 (0.11) -0.21 (0.17) -0.26 (0.17) Other Minority 0.04 (0.20) -0.16 (0.13) -0.04 (0.20) -0.18 (0.20) Age -0.01 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00) 0.01 (0.00) Income -0.03 (0.02) 0.00 (0.01) -0.02 (0.02) 0.00 (0.02) Education 0.07 (0.04) -0.05 (0.02) -0.13 (0.04) -0.06 (0.04) Urbanicity 0.00 (0.09) -0.01 (0.06) -0.05 (0.09) -0.01 (0.09) Jewish 0.20 (0.37) -0.06 (0.24) -0.11 (0.39) -0.15 (0.37) Protestant 0.04 (0.14) -0.08 (0.09) -0.13 (0.15) -0.12 (0.14) Catholic -0.10 (0.15) 0.05 (0.10) 0.24 (0.15) 0.07 (0.15) Other Christian 0.04 (0.16) -0.05 (0.10) 0.07 (0.16) -0.12 (0.16) Non-Judeo-Christ -0.07 (0.19) 0.01 (0.13) 0.16 (0.19) 0.04 (0.19) Northeast 0.33 (0.14) -0.21 (0.09) -0.38 (0.15) -0.44 (0.14) Midwest 0.10 (0.12) -0.07 (0.08) -0.21 (0.12) -0.21 (0.12) Farwest 0.31 (0.14) -0.12 (0.09) -0.15 (0.14) -0.33 (0.14) Mountain -0.03 (0.19) 0.04 (0.13) -0.07 (0.19) -0.21 (0.19) Libcon 0.07 (0.07) -0.06 (0.04) -0.12 (0.06) -0.15 (0.06) Democrat -0.18 (0.15) 0.17 (0.10) 0.24 (0.16) 0.17 (0.16) Other Party -0.49 (0.25) 0.33 (0.16) 0.35 (0.24) 0.46 (0.24) Independent 0.03 (0.14) -0.04 (0.09) -0.07 (0.14) -0.03 (0.14) Hierarch -0.49 (0.09) 0.40 (0.06) 0.66 (0.09) 0.50 (0.09) Individ 0.04 (0.07) 0.02 (0.05) 0.05 (0.08) 0.09 (0.07) Hierarch x Male 0.15 (0.09) -0.13 (0.06) -0.26 (0.09) -0.15 (0.09) R2 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.08 N = 1,500. Models 1, 3, and 4 are ordered logistical regression (logit coefficients). Model 2 is an OLS linear regression (unstandardized beta weight coefficients). Bolded coefficients are significant at p ≤ .05. Standard errors in parentheses. R2 for models 1, 3, and 4 are pseudo R2.

from Dan M. Kahan, Culture, Cognition, and Consent: Who Perceives What, and Why, in 'Acquaintance Rape' Cases, 158 Univ. Pa. L. Rev. 729 (2010).

http://www.culturalcognition.net/browse-papers/culture-cognition-and-consent-who-perceives-what-and-why-in.html

1. Theory: Identity-protective cognition (cf. Alicke)

2. Existing research: “token resistance” script (see Mulholland et al.)

3. Prediction: Perception that “no means yes” is identity-protective for hierarchs, particularly women, so they will favor conviction, regardless of legal formulation.

Hypotheses: Who sees what & why?

Pct

. Agr

eein

g“Dave should be found guilty of rape.”

77% 75%64% 61%

56% 52% 50%45%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

≤30 y.o.Female

Egalitarian

≤30 y.o.Male

Egalitarian

≥60 y.o. Male

Egalitarian

≥60 y.o.Female

Egalitarian

≤30 y.o.Female

Hierarch

≥60 y.o Male

Hierarch

≤30 y.o Male

Hierarch

≥60 y.o.Female

Hierarch

Responses for subjects defined by gender, age, & cultural worldview

1 GUILTY

2 DEF_FACTS

3 CONSENT

4 UNFAIR


4%

1%

4%

-3%

-23%

-8%

4%

4%

1%

-7%

-12%

1%

-3%

-19%

-27%

11%

-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%4%

1%

4%

-3%

-23%

-8%

4%

4%

1%

-7%

-12%

1%

-3%

-19%

-27%

11%

-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%

Pct. Point Change in Likelihood of Agreeing

Common Law vs. No Def.

Strict Liab. vs. Common Law

Reform vs. Common Law

Female vs. Male

Hierarch vs. Egalitarian

South vs. Northeast

Repub. vs. Democrat

Conservative vs. Liberal

Egal. Female vs. Egal. Male

60 y.o. Egal. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Egal. Male

60 y.o. Hier. Fem. vs. 21 y.o. Hier. Male

Hierarch Female vs. Hierarch Male

Hierarch Male vs. Egal. Male

Hierarch Female vs. Egal. Female

White v. Black


0%

28%

8%

11%

-6%

-3%

21%

34%

-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%

Female vs. Male








“Despite what she said or might have felt after, Lucy really did consent to sexual intercourse with Dave.”


4%

1%

4%

-3%

-23%

-8%

4%

4%

1%

-7%

-12%

1%

-3%

-19%

-27%

11%

-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%

Pct. Point Change in Likelihood of Agreeing“Dave should be found guilty of rape.”




Female vs. Male


South vs. Northeast

Repub. vs. Democrat








White v. Black

4%

1%

4%

-3%

-23%

-8%

4%

4%

1%

-7%

-12%

1%

-3%

-19%

-27%

11%

-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%

4%

1%

4%

-3%

-23%

-8%

4%

4%

1%

-7%

-12%

1%

-3%

-19%

-27%

11%

-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%





4%

1%

4%

-3%

-23%

-8%

4%

4%

1%

-7%

-12%

1%

-3%

-19%

-27%

11%

-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%





No means No vs. Common Law

Female vs. Male

Hierarch vs. Egalitaraian

South vs. Northeast

Repub. vs. Democrat





Hiearch Female vs. Hierarch Male

Hiearch Male vs. Egal. Male

Hiearch Female vs. Egal. Female

White v. Black

4%

1%

4%

-3%

-23%

-8%

4%

4%

1%

-7%

-12%

1%

-3%

-19%

-27%

11%

-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%






Female vs. Male


South vs. Northeast

Repub. vs. Democrat








White v. Black

4%

1%

4%

-3%

-23%

-8%

4%

4%

1%

-7%

-12%

1%

-3%

-19%

-27%

11%

-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%






4%

1%

4%

-3%

-23%

-8%

4%

4%

1%

-7%

-12%

1%

-3%

-19%

-27%

11%

-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%



4%

1%

4%

-3%

-23%

-8%

4%

4%

1%

-7%

-12%

1%

-3%

-19%

-27%

11%

-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%





Female vs. Male


4%

1%

4%

-3%

-23%

-8%

4%

4%

1%

-7%

-12%

1%

-3%

-19%

-27%

11%

-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%






Female vs. Male


South vs. Northeast

Repub. vs. Democrat








White v. Black

2%

23%

-3%

-4%

-4%

-11%

-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%

“It would be unfair to convict Dave of a crime as serious as rape.”

4%

1%

4%

-3%

-23%

-8%

4%

4%

1%

-7%

-12%

1%

-3%

-19%

-27%

11%

-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%





4%

1%

4%

-3%

-23%

-8%

4%

4%

1%

-7%

-12%

1%

-3%

-19%

-27%

11%

-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%






Female vs. Male


South vs. Northeast

Repub. vs. Democrat








White v. Black

4%

1%

4%

-3%

-23%

-8%

4%

4%

1%

-7%

-12%

1%

-3%

-19%

-27%

11%

-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%






Female vs. Male


South vs. Northeast

Repub. vs. Democrat








White v. Black

4%

1%

4%

-3%

-23%

-8%

4%

4%

1%

-7%

-12%

1%

-3%

-19%

-27%

11%

-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%






4%

1%

4%

-3%

-23%

-8%

4%

4%

1%

-7%

-12%

1%

-3%

-19%

-27%

11%

-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%



4%

1%

4%

-3%

-23%

-8%

4%

4%

1%

-7%

-12%

1%

-3%

-19%

-27%

11%

-45% -30% -15% 0% 15% 30% 45%

1 GUILTY

2 DEF_FACTS

3 CONSENT

4 UNFAIR


from Maggie Wittlin, Results of Deliberation, CCP Working Paper No. 67 (June 15, 2011)

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1865031




But maybe Berkeley would be closer to this if the simulation reflected the “venire” members’ cultural outlooks & not just their demographic characteristics.

What to make of all this?

1. Theory debate: feminism vs. conventionalism

2. Efficacy of law reform

3. Social norms & law

4. Alternatives to criminal law

Study Design 1,500 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel Commonwealth v....

Documents

Transcript of Study Design 1,500 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel Commonwealth v....