The impact of schemas on decision-making in cases involving allegations of sexual violence

Abstract

Victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) face significant barriers to having their complaints believed both when initially reporting their experiences and when giving evidence at trial. This is especially the case when they have been sexually assaulted by their partner. These barriers stem not only from misperceptions about what IPV is, but also due to a mismatch between the features of sexual assault in IPV and stereotypic expectations about what ‘real’ rape is—a violent surprise attack by a stranger in an outside location. We examine the research on schemas about sexual assault more generally and consider the way in which these schemas are structured, the functional purpose of such beliefs and the effect they have on perceptions of credibility and decisions about guilt. We review the published literature and discuss the results of some of the research currently in progress in our lab. In doing so, we propose an approach to counter-act the negative effect of these beliefs on whether victims are blamed and how their evidence is perceived, and the decisions made at various stages of the criminal justice system, such as those made by police and jurors.