The focus of this paper is to highlight and review the evidence surrounding common intimate partner rape (IPR) myths, their prevalence in society, and identify those who are most likely to endorse such beliefs. Six core IPR myths are discussed related to misconceptions surrounding (1) women’s decisions to remain in abusive relationships, (2) why women delay or never report IPR, (3) women’s perceived motivations when an IPR report is made, (4) a perceived lack of trauma that occurs as a consequence of this type of rape, (5) male sexual entitlement within intimate relationships, and (6) whether it is even possible to rape a marital partner. This article draws together a wealth of studies and research that evidence why such IPR myths are indeed factually inaccurate and examines how victims, justice professionals, police practitioners, and legal decision-makers endorsement of false beliefs pertaining to intimate partner rape serve to hinder various justice pathways. We discuss the consequences of rape mythology in so far as they create social barriers that prohibit the reporting of rape, impact the progression of an allegation through the criminal justice system and ultimately, obstruct rape victims’ access to justice. The review concludes by considering evidence regarding the possible benefits of education interventions in reducing the problematic influence of rape myths.

Introduction: Trial by jury is a longstanding legal tradition used in common law jurisdictions to try the most serious of criminal cases. Yet, despite hearing the same trial evidence, individual jurors often arrive at different verdict decisions, indicating that they may be impacted by more than the evidence presented at trial. This study therefore sought to investigate the role of jurors’ psychopathology, attitudinal, experiential, and demographic characteristics upon individual verdict decisions.Methods: Adopting an improved mock trial paradigm, 108 jury-eligible participants took part in one of nine identical 12-person mock trial simulations depicting a videotaped recreation of an intimate partner rape trial. Pre-trial, mock-jurors completed a psychosocial survey capturing their psychopathic personality traits (affective and cognitive responsiveness, interpersonal manipulation; egocentricity), rape myth beliefs, victimization experiences and demographics. Post-trial, jurors deliberated to reach a collective group decision and individual verdict decisions were recorded pre- and post-deliberation.Results: Binary logistic regression analyses revealed rape myth beliefs and juror ethnicity were significantly related to verdict decisions both pre- and post-deliberation. Post-deliberation, decreased affective responsiveness (empathy) and experience of sexual victimization werealsofound to be significant predictors of guilty verdict selections.Discussion: These findings indicate for the first time that within an intimate-partner rape trial, certain psychosocial traits, crime-specific attitudes, and experiences of sexual victimization appear to predispose juror judgments and decision-making even after group-deliberation. This study therefore has important implications for understanding how individual differences among jurors may impact rape trial verdict outcomes and the need for targeted juror reforms.

Introduction: Despite research highlighting the influence of rape attitudes and other juror traits on trial outcomes, few studies have examined such relationships within intimate partner rape trials, prioritising instead decision-making in so-called “date rape” cases. The current study, therefore, sought to investigate the relationship between juror demographic traits, their pre-trial legal attitudes, and rape myth beliefs, upon subsequent verdict decisions made in an intimate partner rape trial. Methods: The study adopted a mock trial paradigm, with methodological enhancements aimed at increasing ecological validity. Mock jurors ( N = 435) completed a series of attitudinal and demographic questions online before observing a recreation of a genuine intimate partner rape trial and subsequently rendering their verdict. Results: Results revealed that ethnicity, educational attainment, and rape myth acceptance, though not varied legal attitudes, were all significant predictors of the verdict selections that jurors made. Caucasian, university-educated mock jurors and jurors who rejected rape myths to a greater extent were those most likely to find the defendant guilty. Female jurors were also significantly more likely to return a guilty verdict before, though not after, controlling for variation in rape myth beliefs. Discussion: These findings offer further support to the wealth of existing literature that suggests jurors' pre-trial rape myth beliefs, alongside other demographic characteristics, appear to predispose juror judgements and decision-making, and extend upon past literature in identifying a similar trend within intimate partner rape trials. Findings highlight the need for targeted juror reforms, such as myth-debunking juror education, before such recommendations are made. Before such recommendations are made, further enhancements to mock-trial procedures to maximise ecological validity, alongside greater research among genuine trial jurors, are warranted.