Myths about myths? A commentary on Thomas (2020) and the question of jury rape myth acceptance

View author details View Less
  • 1 Anglia Ruskin University, , UK
  • | 2 Loughborough University, , UK
  • | 3 Durham University, , UK
  • | 4 London School of Economics, , UK
  • | 5 Glasgow University, , UK
  • | 6 University of Edinburgh, , UK
  • | 7 Middlesex University, , UK
  • | 8 Glasgow University, , UK
  • | 9 London Metropolitan University, , UK
  • | 10 University of Warwick, , UK
  • | 11 Manchester Metropolitan University, , UK
Restricted access
Get eTOC alerts
Rights and permissions Cite this article

This commentary responds to claims that research by Cheryl Thomas ‘shows’ no problem with rape myths in English and Welsh juries. We critique the claim on the basis of ambiguous survey design, a false distinction between ‘real’ jurors and other research participants, the conflation of attitudes in relation to abstract versus applied rape myths, and misleading interpretation of the data. Ultimately, we call for a balanced appraisal of individual studies by contextualising them against the wider literature.

  • Adler, Z. (1987) Rape on Trial, London: Routledge.

  • Baruch, Y. and Holtom, B.C. (2008) Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research, Human Relations, 61(8): 113960. doi: 10.1177/0018726708094863

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chalmers, J. and Leverick, F. (2016) How should we go about jury research in Scotland?, Criminal Law Review, 2016(10): 697713.

  • Chalmers, J., Leverick, F. and Munro, V.E. (2021) Why the jury is, and should still be, out on rape deliberation, Criminal Law Review, 2021(9): 75371.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Conaghan, J. and Russell, Y. (2014) Rape myths, law, and feminist research: myths about myths?, Feminist Legal Studies, 22(1): 2548. doi: 10.1007/s10691-014-9259-z

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cook, C., Heath, F. and Thompson, R.L. (2000) A Meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6): 82136. doi: 10.1177/00131640021970934

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Daly, E. (2021) Court Observations in England and Wales: An Intersectional Analysis, PhD Thesis, Cambridge: Anglia Ruskin University.

  • De Vries, R.G. (2004) How can we help? From ‘sociology in’ to ‘sociology of’ bioethics, Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 32(2): 27992.  doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2004.tb00475.x

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dinos, S., Burrowes, N., Hammond, K. and Cunliffe, C. (2015) A systematic review of juries’ assessment of rape victims: do rape myths impact on juror decision-making?, International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 43(1): 3649. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlcj.2014.07.001

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ellison, L. and Munro, V.E. (2010) Getting to (not) guilty: examining jurors’ deliberative processes in, and beyond, the context of a mock rape trial, Legal Studies, 30(1): 7497. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-121X.2009.00141.x

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Field, C., Archer, V. and Bowman, J. (2019) Twenty years in prison: reflections on conducting research in correctional environments, The Prison Journal, 99(2): 13549. doi: 10.1177/0032885519825489

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fisher, J.A. (2013) Expanding the frame of ‘voluntariness’ in informed consent: structural coercion and the power of social and economic context, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 23(4): 35579. doi: 10.1353/ken.2013.0018

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Höhne, J. and Krebs, D. (2018) Scale direction effects in agree/disagree and item-specific questions: a comparison of question formats, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(1): 91103.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Holleman, G.A., Hooge, I.T., Kemner, C. and Hessels, R.S. (2020) The ‘real-world approach’ and its problems: a critique of the term ecological validity, Frontiers in Psychology, 2020(11): 72132.  doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00721

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Jann, B., Krumpal, I and Wolter, F. (2019) Social desirability bias in surveys: collecting and analyzing sensitive data, Journal for Quantitative Methods and Survey Methodology, 13(1): 37.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Johns, R. (2005) One size doesn′t fit all: selecting response scales for attitude items, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 15(2): 23764. doi: 10.1080/13689880500178849

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Johns, R. (2010) Likert items and scales, Survey Question Bank: Methods Fact Sheet, 1(March): 111.

  • Krumpal, I. (2013) Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review, Quality & Quantity, 47(4): 202547.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lees, S. (1996) Carnal Knowledge: Rape on Trial, London: Women’s Press.

  • Leverick, F. (2020) What do we know about rape myths and juror decision making?, The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 24(3): 25579. doi: 10.1177/1365712720923157

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lonsway, K.A. and Fitzgerald, L. (1994) Rape myths, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(2): 13364. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb00448.x

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lüke, T. and Grosche, M. (2018) What do I think about inclusive education? It depends on who is asking. Experimental evidence for a social desirability bias in attitudes towards inclusion, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(1): 3853.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McMahon, S. and Farmer, L.G. (2011) An updated measure for assessing subtle rape myths, Social Work Research, 35(2): 7181. doi: 10.1093/swr/35.2.71

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Munro, V.E. (2019) Judging juries: the common-sense conundrums of prosecuting violence against women, New Zealand Women’s Law Journal, 2019(3): 1334. 

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Page, A. (2010) True colors: police officers and rape myth acceptance, Feminist Criminology, 5(4): 31534. doi: 10.1177/1557085110384108

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Queensland Law Reform Commission (2020) Review of Consent Laws and the Excuse of Mistake of Fact, Report No 78, Brisbane: Queensland Law Reform Commission.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Roberts, L. and Indermaur, D. (2008) The ethics of research with prisoner, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 19(3): 30926. doi: 10.1080/10345329.2008.12036436

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rogelberg, S.G. and Stanton, J.M. (2007) Understanding and dealing with organizational survey nonresponse, Organizational Research Methods, 10(2): 195209. doi: 10.1177/1094428106294693

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Rozenberg, J. (2020) Belief by juries in rape myths is a myth according to the only researcher who has asked the jurors themselves, A Lawyer Writes, 27 November, https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/belief-by-juries-in-rape-myths-is. 

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Shaw, J., Campbell, R., Cain, D. and Feeney, H. (2017) Beyond surveys and scales: how rape myths manifest in sexual assault police records, Psychology of Violence, 7(4): 60214. doi: 10.1037/vio0000072

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Smith, O. (2018) Rape Trials in England and Wales: Observing Justice and Rethinking Rape Myths, Cham: Springer Palgrave.

  • Smith, O., Daly, E., Herriott, C. and Willmott, D. (2021) State compensation as rapejustice: are public attitudes a legitimate foundation for reform of the UK’s criminal injuries compensation scheme?, Journal of Gender Based Violence. doi: 10.1332/239868020X16057277095797

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Summan, K. (2020) New research finds jurors do not subscribe to rape myths and casts doubt on mock jury studies, Scottish Legal News, 1 December, https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/new-research-finds-jurors-do-not-subscribe-to-rape-myths-and-casts-doubt-on-mock-jury-studies. 

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Temkin, J., Gray, J.M. and Barrett, J. (2018) Different functions of rape myth use in court: Findings from a trial observation study, Feminist Criminology, 13(2): 20526. doi: 10.1177/1557085116661627

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Thiara, R. and Roy, S. (2020) Reclaiming Voice: Minoritised Women and Sexual Violence, London: Imkaan.

  • Thielo, A.J., Cullen, F.T., Cohen, D.M. and Chouhy, C. (2016) Rehabilitation in a red state: public support for correctional reform in texas, Criminology and Public Policy, 15(1): 13770.  doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12182

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Thomas, C. (2020) The 21st century jury: contempt, bias and the impact of jury service, Criminal Law Review, 2020(11): 9871011. 

  • Venema, R.M. (2018) Police officers’ rape myth acceptance: examining the role of officer characteristics, estimates of false reporting, and social desirability bias, Violence and Victims, 33(1): 176200.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Webster, K., Diemer, K., Honey, N., Mannix, S., Mickle, J., Morgan, J., Parkes, A., Politoff, V., Powell, A., Stubbs, J. and Ward, A. (2018) Australians’ Attitudes to Violence Against Women and Gender Equality. Findings from the 2017 National Community Attitudes Towards Violence against Women Survey, Research report, 03/2018, Sydney, NSW: Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety [ANROWS].

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Winship, C. and Mare, R.D. (1992) Models for sample selection bias, Annual Review of Sociology, 18(1): 32750. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.18.080192.001551

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zidenberg, A.M., Wielinga, F., Sparks, B., Margeotes, K. and Harkins, L. (2021) Lost in translation: a quantitative and qualitative comparison of rape myth acceptance, Psychology, Crime & Law, doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2021.1905810.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 1 Anglia Ruskin University, , UK
  • | 2 Loughborough University, , UK
  • | 3 Durham University, , UK
  • | 4 London School of Economics, , UK
  • | 5 Glasgow University, , UK
  • | 6 University of Edinburgh, , UK
  • | 7 Middlesex University, , UK
  • | 8 Glasgow University, , UK
  • | 9 London Metropolitan University, , UK
  • | 10 University of Warwick, , UK
  • | 11 Manchester Metropolitan University, , UK

Content Metrics

May 2022 onwards Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 52 52 48
Full Text Views 56 56 16
PDF Downloads 68 68 17

Altmetrics

Dimensions