The Impact of Mental Health Labels, Gender, and Relationship Type on Mock Jurors’ Perceptions and Verdicts in a Case of Intimate Partner Violence

The present study aimed to investigate the impact of gender, sexual orientation, and mental health labels on mock jurors’ verdicts and perceptions in a case of intimate partner violence (IPV). It was hypothesized that: (1) defendants with a mental health label would receive more guilty verdicts and be perceived as more guilty and less credible than those with no label, (2) male defendants would receive more guilty verdicts and be perceived as more guilty than females, and (3) heterosexual defendants would receive more guilty verdicts and be perceived as more guilty than homosexual defendants.

A sample of 314 undergraduate participants responded to a court case summary in which defendant mental health label (psychopathic traits, antisocial personality disorder [ASPD], or no label), defendant and victim gender (male or female), and sexual orientation (heterosexual or homosexual) were systematically varied.

Defendants with mental health labels (psychopathy or ASPD) were more likely to receive a guilty verdict and were perceived as more guilty and less credible than those with no label. Male defendants were perceived as more guilty than female defendants. Heterosexual male defendants with female victims were seen as more guilty than heterosexual couples with a female defendant or either same-sex pairing.

These findings suggest gender-based biases and a general labeling bias in perceptions of IPV.