See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321813131

An Examination of Aversive Heterosexism in the Courtroom: Effects of

Defendants' Sexual Orientation and Attractiveness, and Juror Gender on Legal
Decision Making

Article  in  Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity · December 2017

DOI: 10.1037/sgd0000253

CITATIONS READS
6 1,141

2 authors:

Jennifer Coons Russ Espinoza

California State University, Fullerton California State University, Fullerton
11 PUBLICATIONS   41 CITATIONS    23 PUBLICATIONS   136 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

NSF Grant? View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Russ Espinoza on 28 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity © 2017 American Psychological Association
2018, Vol. 5, No. 1, 36 – 43 2329-0382/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000253

An Examination of Aversive Heterosexism in the Courtroom: Effects of

Defendants’ Sexual Orientation and Attractiveness, and Juror Gender on
Legal Decision Making

Jennifer V. Coons Russ K. E. Espinoza

University of California, Riverside California State University, Fullerton

The current study addressed whether defendant sexual orientation, defendant attractiveness, and juror
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

gender influences juror decisions. Two competing theories were assessed as the primary mechanism for
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

any potential negative bias sexual minorities may experience in the legal system: heterosexism and
aversive heterosexism. Heterosexism is a form of bias toward gays/lesbians that appears more blatant in
displays of discrimination, whereas aversive heterosexism appears as more of an implicit form of bias,
only appearing when sexual orientation is paired with another perceived negative characteristic. Partic-
ipants were randomly assigned to receive a trial transcript of either a heterosexual or gay/lesbian and
attractive/unattractive defendant. Participants were asked to render a verdict, recommend a sentence, and
provide guilt and culpability ratings. The theory of aversive heterosexism gained partial support from the
results. When the defendant was gay/lesbian and coupled with other another negative attribute (unat-
tractive) male jurors demonstrated bias.

Keywords: aversive heterosexism, heterosexism, juror decision making, gays and lesbians

Prejudice and discrimination toward gay men and lesbians has a
long history in the United States (Lehavot & Lambert, 2007).
However, given the changing dynamics in social behavior and
demand characteristics, blatant displays of prejudice toward this
group has decreased over the last few decades (Nadal, 2013). One
area of research regarding gay men and lesbians that has been
given little attention is within the legal system. Specifically, the
effects of one particular defendant characteristic, defendant sexual
orientation, on legal outcomes has been significantly understudied.
Defendant characteristics are well researched in the psychology
and law literature because of their influence on juror decisions in
the U.S. criminal court process and the disproportionate numbers
of incarcerated minority inmates (Espinoza, 2010; Espinoza &
Willis-Esqueda, 2008). Among the more researched areas of de-
fendant characteristics contributing to juror bias have been race,
gender, socioeconomic status, and attractiveness (Mazzella & Fe-
ingold, 1994). Regarding defendant attractiveness, more attractive
defendants receive lighter sentences and are less culpable com-
pared to unattractive defendants (Patry, 2008). These findings also
hold when attractiveness and gender are combined: attractive fe-
male defendants are found guilty less often, receive lighter sen-
tences, and are less culpable compared to unattractive or male
defendants (Abwender & Hough, 2001). One area that has yet to
be thoroughly examined is the relationship among defendant sex-
ual orientation, defendant attractiveness, and juror gender to influ-
ence juror decisions on legal outcomes.
Given the current state of debate regarding gay and lesbian
rights and views toward gays and lesbians, defendant sexual ori-
entation may play a significant role in juror decision-making.
However, there has yet to be an examination if this bias toward gay
male or lesbian defendants is best explained through explicit and
blatant prejudices or implicit and subtle prejudices. In addition, if
bias toward gay male or lesbian defendants is based on the com-
bined effects of sexual orientation, attractiveness, and gender, what
theoretical explanation would best describe such biases? The pur-
pose of this study is to explore the theories of heterosexism and
aversive heterosexism to explain potential juror biases when de-
fendant sexual orientation, defendant attractiveness, and juror gen-
der varies.

This article was published Online First December 14, 2017.
Jennifer V. Coons, Department of Psychology, University of California,
Riverside; Russ K. E. Espinoza, Department of Psychology, California
State University, Fullerton.
For more information on trial transcripts and manipulations please
contact Jennifer V. Coons.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jennifer
V. Coons, Department of Psychology, University of California, Riverside,
900 University Avenue, Riverside, CA, 92521, United States. E-mail:
jennifer.duncan.coons@gmail.com
Heterosexism
Heterosexism states that society’s sexual orientation default is
heteronormativity (Neisen, 1990). Heterosexism also builds upon a
hierarchy that heterosexism is superior to homosexuality or bisex-
uality. Heterosexism is applied in everyday life and impacts indi-
viduals’ attitudes toward sexual minorities. Heterosexism does not
just allow for discrimination toward sexual minorities but pro-
motes this discrimination. Heterosexism also assumes that every
individual is heterosexual until told otherwise and expects indi-
viduals who are a sexual minority to explain and defend their
intimate relationships. In addition, since heterosexuality is as-

36
 DEFENDANT SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN THE COURTROOM
sumed and extremely prevalent in society many gay males, lesbi-
ans, and bisexual individuals internalize this phenomenon and may
experience inner conflict such as depression or alcoholism (Ama-
dio, 2006).
Heterosexism is seen through the argumentation and support of
laws as well. One can look at the legalization of gay marriage and
employment status laws by state to see that views toward homo-
sexual individuals can be highly discriminatory. In the United
States of America an individual cannot be hired or fired based on
gender, age, ethnicity, pregnancy, national origin, disability, mil-
itary service, genetic information, or religious affiliation, however,
this does not include sexual orientation or gender identity at the
federal law level. Even when companies possess policies which
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
protect sexual minorities, discrimination continues to occur. In
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
addition, some states have enacted laws regarding serving homo-
sexual customers ensuring the rights of employers to refuse service
to homosexual patrons. Research on discrimination in the work-
place has found that sexual minorities are discriminated against
regarding suitability for a job. Particularly, heterosexual males
indicate a lower level of job suitability for potential employees
who are gay males (Pichler, Varma, & Bruce, 2010).
Heterosexism may therefore be extended to understand how
gays and lesbians may be blatantly discriminated against as de-
fendants in a criminal court case. Because heterosexuality is the
default and accepted sexual orientation, heterosexism would indi-
cate that no matter what other circumstances exist, gays and
lesbians would be judged more harshly in a criminal court case
than heterosexual defendants. Because this form of bias would be
based on the aspect of sexual orientation alone, heterosexism may
only account for explicit or blatant bias toward gays and lesbians
as this way of thinking openly accepts and champions individuals
who exclude gay men and lesbians as a part of the “normal”
society.
One study examined differences between subtle biases and
blatant biases toward gay men and lesbians. Hong, Woodford,
Long, and Renn (2016) examined subtle and blatant heterosexist
discrimination experienced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer
(LGBQ) college students in the United States. LGBQ students
reported experiencing both subtle, microaggressions and blatant
forms of discrimination on college campuses, demonstrating a
culture of heteronormativity by college students. Though these
researchers did not specifically examine the holders of the bias
(they examined the recipients of the bias), they did distinguish
between two different types of bias the recipients perceived the
holders were displaying—subtle, microaggressions and blatant
displays of discrimination and prejudice. The interesting notion of
these findings was that Hong et al. (2016), described these subtle,
microaggressions as somewhat unconscious acts by perpetrators,
and blatant displays of discrimination as conscious acts toward
LGBQ students. The authors did not examine the implicit nature of
these biases by the perpetrators, nor compare the cognitive differ-
ences of these two biases. However, if the microaggressions, as
Hong et al. (2016) explained, are sometimes subtle and even
unconscious manifestations of bias, then there appears to be two
types of cognitive functioning going on— one for subtle displays
(or implicit) and one for blatant displays (or explicit) of bias.
Results of the Hong et al. (2016) study suggests that at the very
least, LGBQ students report that they are the recipients of two
types of discrimination: heterosexism guided bias (overt/explicit
37
bias) and a subtler (implicit) bias. Little research has focused on
this second aspect of cognitive functioning, implicit bias, as it
pertains to homosexual defendants. One such theory that may help
to explain the subtle/implicit bias LGBQ students reported expe-
riencing is aversive heterosexism.
Aversive Heterosexism
As our society leans toward acceptance of gays and lesbians
perhaps there is still an undercurrent of implicit bias that is
occurring. One that exists out of conscious awareness of the
perpetrator of this bias. What occurs when people hold generally
egalitarian values and are explicitly not biased toward gays and
lesbians? A modified version of the aversive racism theory may be
appropriate here. Aversive racism states that because blatant rac-
ism is unacceptable by today’s society individuals internalize their
racism. Aversive racists act outwardly accepting, hold egalitarian
values, and go out of their way to not appear racist. Those who fall
in this category often feel uncomfortable finding fault with racial
minorities and subsequently will only show bias to these persons
when another perceived negative variable is apparent (Dovidio &
Gaertner, 1986).
Because Dovidio and Gaertner’s (1986) conception of contem-
porary prejudice toward African Americans by egalitarian Euro-
pean Americans the theory of aversive racism has been used to
explain prejudice toward Latinos (Mastro, Behm-Morawitz, &
Kopacz, 2008), toward the disabled (Deal, 2007), and in applied
settings such as employment (Gilbert & Lownes-Jackson, 2005)
and the legal system (Espinoza & Willis-Esqueda, 2008; Minero &
Espinoza, 2016; Willis-Esqueda, Espinoza, & Culhane, 2008).
However, little research has examined if aversive prejudice is
applicable to gay men and lesbians in the legal system.
The current study aims to expand the theory of aversive preju-
dice to gay men and lesbians in the legal setting. Sexual orientation
has been a popular topic in recent years in both the media and legal
settings (e.g., gay marriage). This popularity has led to increased
acceptance of gay males and lesbians within society and less
acceptability of blatant bias and discrimination toward gays and
lesbians (although it still occurs frequently). Because aversive
racism concerns the internalization of racism due to the unaccept-
ability of outward racism by society it is proposed that aversive
heterosexism is the implicit bias toward gays and lesbians because
explicit bias is unacceptable by the more recent (and future)
leaders who create and uphold society’s standards. Following
Dovidio and Gaertner’s (2000) protocol, Aberson (2003) assessed
the effects of sexual orientation during the hiring process. Aberson
used gay males or heterosexual males as job candidates rather than
Black or Caucasian males (and did not include the racism scales).
Participants were asked how appropriate a job candidate was for an
HIV/AIDS awareness program (who had been tested for but did
not contract HIV) with the job candidate’s sexual orientation and
qualifications manipulated. Results showed the predicted main
effect of job qualification on job appropriateness, however, there
was no interaction of job qualification and candidate sexual ori-
entation. Results also indicated no significant differences between
heterosexual males and gay males on appropriateness of fit for the
current job (Aberson, 2003).
Although these results seem positive for gay males there is one
flaw in the design: the job position created was for an HIV/AIDS
 38 COONS AND ESPINOZA
awareness educator which may have significantly confounded the
study. As Aberson (2003) stated, the gay male candidates may
have received more positive job recommendations due to the
historical tie between gay men and HIV/AIDS. Therefore, it is
important to evaluate other scenarios that may be influenced by an
individuals’ sexual orientation in relation to life changing out-
comes. Of interest in the current study are the effects of sexual
orientation in the courtroom. It is assumed, through the lens of
aversive heterosexism, that gay and lesbian defendants will not be
blatantly viewed negatively by individuals when they adhere to
other acceptable standards of society (e.g., attractive). Only when
sexual orientation is coupled with other negative characteristics
will this bias emerge.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Attractiveness and Gender
No secondary negative characteristics are needed to evaluate
heterosexism in the legal system, however, to evaluate aversive
heterosexism in the legal system jurors need other perceived
negative variables to justify any biases toward gay men and
lesbians. One such variable that has been documented as leading to
positive or negative perceptions in the legal system is defendant
attractiveness. Attractive defendants are treated less punitively in
juror decisions than unattractive defendants, and attractive victims
are given more credibility compared with unattractive victims
(Mazzella & Feingold, 1994). For example, Vrij and Firmin (2001)
found that attractive victims of rape are given higher credibility
ratings and lower responsibility ratings. Furthermore, when the
defendant was attractive, the perceived evidence was considered
weaker for unattractive female victims. In addition, attractive
defendants are given more lenient sentences compared to their
counterparts (Desantts & Kayson, 1997). DeSantis and Kayson
proposed that this effect may have been observed because attrac-
tive individuals are assessed to have more socially desirable traits
and that they may have more to lose than unattractive individuals.
Evaluating the combined effects of attractiveness and gender for
juror decisions Ahola, Hellstrom, and Christianson (2010) as-
sessed the extent to which written and/or visual information of a
crime scene, defendant gender, and defendant appearance im-
pacted criminal court outcomes. In those cases where a photograph
was included in the crime description harsher bias was elicited to
the crime itself and to the defendant. Furthermore, harshest pun-
ishment was given for male defendants overall and attractive
female defendants were given the shortest sentencing.
Juror gender may also play a key role in the juror decision
making process when defendant attractiveness is varied. To assess
the interaction of juror gender, defendant attractiveness, juror race,
and defendant race on verdict and sentencing decisions, Abwender
and Hough (2001) conducted a study in which an intoxicated
woman (Black or Caucasian and attractive or unattractive) hit and
killed a pedestrian while driving. Male participants gave a longer
sentence for attractive defendants whereas women gave longer
sentences to unattractive defendants. Pozzulo, Dempsey, Maeder,
and Allen (2010) found that male defendants receive higher guilt
ratings but additionally found that female jurors gave higher guilt
ratings for all defendants than male jurors in a sexual assault of a
child case indicating that juror gender interacts with crime com-
mitted on decision making. Based on the somewhat inconsistent
results from these studies, defendant attractiveness was used as a
secondary characteristic to assess if heterosexism or aversive het-
erosexism was the driving force behind juror decision making. In
addition, because gender plays a role in juror decision making it
was included in the current study.
Defendant Sexual Orientation
To understand the implicit and/or subtle link between specific
stereotypes, Deaux and Lewis (1984) examined how one stereo-
type can connect to others and how one piece of information can
overrule gender identification. In a series of studies, they found
participants were more likely to ascribe gay male or lesbian labels
to persons who were described as having traits that contradicted
the typical masculine and feminine traits. They also found that
judgments of male sexuality are more harshly adhered to. If traits
are inconsistent for males, there is a higher likelihood they are
labeled as a gay male. Because of these findings, the authors
stipulate that once people are given one piece of information they
will develop/create other gender related information and attribute
it to that person, specifically toward higher likelihoods of certain
occupation and sexual orientation.
To examine the different views toward differing types of gay
males, Laner and Laner (1979) conducted a study which included
three different types of gay males: effeminate (hypomasculine),
noneffeminate (masculine), and hypermasculine who were rated
on general likability. The highest overall likability rating was for
the gay male who had a “standard masculine” appearance, indi-
cating that acceptability for gay males is most likely when they
appear like any other man rather than the extreme effeminate or
hypermasculine. This study shows that when gay males try to
blend in they would be viewed more favorably by heterosexuals
and less likely to be judged harshly.
People tend to use consistency among information to render
judgments of people; therefore, inconsistency creates a problem. If
females and their sexual orientation is judged differently (i.e., less
static) than male’s sexuality it may indicate less conflict in fe-
male’s gender roles. Without this conflict females may be more
favorably viewed in the legal system. However, male sexual ori-
entation is more rigid and conflict may lead to harsher outcomes in
the legal system if they appear to be gay.
Some individuals believe that homosexuality is a learned be-
havior and therefore may be judged more harshly because they
believe that gay males and lesbians can change their sexual ori-
entation. Aguero, Bloch, and Byrne (1984) examined if there were
different attitudes and behaviors exhibited toward gay males de-
pendent on whether people believed that homosexuality is learned
or physiological in nature. Participants completed the Sexual Opin-
ion Survey, which measures restrictions of sex roles, participants’
sexual behavior, attitudes and beliefs about homosexuality, and
assessment of reaction to research on sexuality. Surprisingly, re-
sults showed that males reported a more liberal view of sexuality
(although this may be a sign of the times in which these female
participants were unable to express their potential openness toward
sexuality) but that males had more dislike toward gay males and
lesbians. In general, however, those with higher negative affect
scores and believed homosexuality was a learned behavior had the
highest scores of dislike toward gay males and lesbians. Further-
more, males who believed homosexuality is a learned behavior
reported lower levels of acceptance of a friend who was a gay
 DEFENDANT SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN THE COURTROOM
male. This study indicates that males have a higher disapproval of
homosexuality, especially within males who believe that homo-
sexuality is a learned behavior and can therefore be unlearned.
Though the Aguero et al. (1984) article was over 30 years ago,
the results are still applicable today. Joslyn and Haider-Markel
(2016) examined genetics as an explanation for homosexuality and
found that when homosexuality is explained through genetics, and
that this sexual orientation cannot be changed, persons felt less
prejudice toward homosexuals. However, if persons did not attri-
bute homosexuality to genetics, then prejudice toward this group
increased. What these two articles demonstrate is that prejudice
toward gay men and lesbians has not changed for a large percent-
age of society, regardless of any scientific, genetic evidence ex-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
plaining the orientation as unchangeable.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
What has changed may be the outward response to gay men and
lesbians. As acceptability of gay and lesbians increases in our
society blatant prejudice should be decreasing. If blatant prejudice
is decreasing it can either be disappearing altogether or hidden
under the surface of acceptance. If prejudice toward gay men and
lesbians is not disappearing altogether but is in hiding at an
implicit level this may lend support to aversive heterosexism. This
study attempts to compare two theories (heterosexism and aversive
heterosexism) to explain potential discriminatory practices toward
gays and lesbians in the legal system.
Research Questions
The effect of stigma, or these observed negative biases, on
defendants radically affects their guilt outcomes and sexual mi-
norities face a strong reaction by individuals who may practice
sexual prejudice, which may still be prevalent today (Herek, 2000).
If heterosexism is the primary explanation for bias toward gay
males and lesbians in the courtroom, then we would expect only
sexual orientation of the defendant to predict harsher punishment
(more guilty verdicts, longer sentencing lengths, greater culpabil-
ity, and more negative characteristics assessments). However, if
aversive heterosexism is the primary explanation for this bias then
we would expect these harsher punishments to occur only when
defendant sexual orientation is coupled with other negative, but
socially acceptable variables (unattractiveness), or influenced by
social roles of gender. For example, jurors are expected to rate the
unattractive gay/lesbian defendant more harshly than all other
conditions (i.e., attractive gay/lesbian defendants). The purpose of
the current study is to assess the unique effects of these stigmata,
individually as well as collectively, on defendant outcomes.
Method
Participants
Using a format similar to previous research (Espinoza & Willis-
Esqueda, 2008; Willis-Esqueda et al. 2008), a total of 494 Cali-
fornia State University, Fullerton students acted as mock jurors
and read a trial transcript (219 males and 275 females; mean age ⫽
19.20 years, SD ⫽ 2.12). Participants identified themselves as
European American (30%), Latino American (29.1%), or Asian
American (28.5%).
39
Materials and Procedure
Participants were instructed to read a criminal court case, render
a verdict, provide sentencing length, and answer other questions
regarding the case and the defendant. Participants were randomly
assigned to receive a trial transcript of either an attractive/unat-
tractive and heterosexual or gay/lesbian defendant who was being
tried for the murder of their significant other.
The trial transcript’s front page included a 2” ⫻ 3” black and
white photograph to garner attention to the defendants’ attractive-
ness level. The pictures were piloted (n ⫽ 31 unique participants
from the same university as those who completed the study) and
chosen out of 50 total photographs for the most attractive and
unattractive photographs. The photographs were rated on a 1–9
point Likert-scale, ranging from 1 (being unattractive) to 9 (being
attractive). The photograph chosen for the attractive male defen-
dant had a mean attractiveness rating of 7.94 (SD ⫽ 1.12) and the
photograph chosen for the unattractive male defendant had a mean
attractiveness rating of 1.15 (SD ⫽ 1.51) in the pilot study. The
photograph chosen for the attractive female defendant had a mean
attractiveness rating of 7.77 (SD ⫽ 1.12) and the photograph
chosen for the unattractive female defendant had a mean attrac-
tiveness rating of 1.61 (SD ⫽ 1.02) in the pilot study. Although
these photographs were used to manipulate attractiveness partici-
pants perceived attractiveness was used for the analyses. In the
current study, the overall attractiveness rating for the attractive
male defendants was 5.25 (SD ⫽ 2.21, n ⫽ 129), the unattrac-
tive male defendant was 3.70 (SD ⫽ 1.77, n ⫽ 125), the attractive
female defendant was 5.76 (SD ⫽ 2.021, n ⫽ 121), and the
unattractive female defendant was 2.61 (SD ⫽ 1.59, n ⫽ 119).
The trial transcript included a description of the charges brought
to the defendant (murder of their significant other), summaries of
the prosecution and defense, defendant background information,
eye-witness testimony, and the California state capital case infor-
mation regarding verdict and sentencing process. The only differ-
ences between the trial transcripts were the photo of the defendant
(to manipulate attractiveness and gender), the name of the defen-
dant and victim, the pronouns used throughout (to manipulate
gender and sexual orientation) and defendant background infor-
mation (to ensure that the manipulation of sexual orientation
would not be ignored); all other information was identical.
After rendering a verdict, participants were asked to recommend
sentencing length, if applicable, of life in prison with the possi-
bility of parole after 20 years, life in prison without parole, or
death by lethal injection. Regardless of the participant’s dichoto-
mous Guilty/Not Guilty verdict and the three provided sentencing
length options, participants were asked to indicate on a 1 to 7
Likert-scale how guilty they thought the defendant was, ranging
from 1 (not guilt at all) to 7 (completely guilty) and how culpable
for the crime (responsibility for crime, belief in the defendant’s
version of the crime [reverse-scored], blame, and intentionality of
the crime committed) the defendant was on a 7-point Likert-type
rating scale. In addition, participants were asked to indicate how
attractive the defendant was on a 7-point Likert-type rating scale.
Attractiveness was included here to serve two purposes: as a
manipulation check and to include participant rated attractiveness
in the statistical analyses rather than ascribe perceived defendant
attractiveness based off pilot data. Only participants who passed
the manipulation check (correctly identifying defendant sexual
 40 COONS AND ESPINOZA

orientation) were included in the analyses. The trial transcript of
the study was 12 pages and took no longer than 30 min to
complete.
Results
The current study expected that less attractive gay/lesbian de-
fendants would be given harsher outcomes as compared to their
counterparts and that this would be different for male and female
mock jurors. If only the main effects of sexual orientation and/or
attractiveness were significant, and there was an absence of an
interaction, this would lend support to heterosexism as the best
explanation for juror bias toward homosexual defendants. How-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Sexual Orientation, Perceived Attractiveness, and
Defendant Outcomes
The first step assessed how sexual orientation and perceived
attractiveness were related to verdict, recommended sentencing
length, perceived guilt, and perceived culpability. Sexual orienta-
tion was not related to verdict, ␹2(1) ⫽ 2.56, p ⫽ .110, ␸ ⫽ .072
nor to recommended sentencing length, ␹2(2) ⫽ 2.82, p ⫽ .244.
Heterosexual defendants were perceived as significantly less guilty
(M ⫽ 4.03, SD ⫽ 1.89) than gay/lesbian defendants (M ⫽ 4.45,
SD ⫽ 1.70), t(492) ⫽ 2.60, p ⫽ .010, d ⫽ .233. Heterosexual
defendants were also perceived as significantly less culpable (M ⫽
4.21, SD ⫽ 1.78) than gay/lesbian defendants (M ⫽ 4.60, SD ⫽
1.64), t(492) ⫽ 2.52, p ⫽ .012, d ⫽ .228, for the crime.

ever, if a significant interaction is found this would signify support

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

for aversive heterosexism. The outcome variables of interest were
overall verdict, recommended sentencing length, perceived guilt,
and perceived culpability ratings. The four culpability measures
(responsibility, belief in defendant’s version of the crime [reverse-
scored], blame, and intentionality) were combined to create a
single item to measure culpability (alpha ⫽ .90). Sexual orienta-
tion was effect coded (⫺1 ⫽ heterosexual defendants) and per-
ceived attractiveness was mean centered. The interaction term was
created by multiplying the effect coded sexual orientation variable
by the mean centered perceived attractiveness variable.
The total sample consisted of 494 participants who were ran-
domly assigned to one of four conditions: heterosexual and attrac-
tive, heterosexual and unattractive, gay/lesbian and attractive, and
gay/lesbian and unattractive. Two-hundred forty-four mock jurors
received a trial packet with a heterosexual defendant and 250 mock
jurors received a trial packet with an attractive defendant. Mock
jurors, regardless of trial packet received, rated the defendants as
moderately attractive (M ⫽ 4.35, SD ⫽ 2.78, range ⫽ 1–9).
Two-hundred and 75 mock jurors found the defendant guilty; of
these, 152 recommended a sentencing length of parole after 20
years (109 recommended life without parole). Mock jurors per-
ceived all defendants as moderately guilty (M ⫽ 4.24, SD ⫽ 1.79,
range ⫽ 1–7) and culpable (M ⫽ 4.41, SD ⫽ 1.72, range ⫽ 1–7)
for the crime regardless of the verdict or sentencing length.
Perceived attractiveness was significantly different for those
found guilty (M ⫽ 4.76, SD ⫽ 2.17) versus not guilty (M ⫽ 4.02,
SD ⫽ 2.31), t(492) ⫽ 3.63, p ⬍ .001, d ⫽ .330, but not regarding
sentencing length, F(2, 272) ⫽ .649, p ⫽ .523, partial ␩2 ⫽ .005.
Perceived attractiveness was significantly correlated with per-
ceived guilt, r(492) ⫽ ⫺.210, p ⬍ .001, and perceived culpability,
r(492) ⫽ ⫺.239, p ⬍ .001. Finally, perceived attractiveness did
not differ significantly between heterosexual (M ⫽ 4.30, SD ⫽
2.24) and gay/lesbian defendants (M ⫽ 4.39, SD ⫽ 2.32), t(492) ⫽
.452, p ⫽ .651, d ⫽ 039.
Guilt Ratings
The next set of analyses assessed how sexual orientation and
perceived attractiveness predicted perceived guilt ratings for the
full sample and then by mock juror gender. Sexual orientation was
effect coded (⫺1 reflecting heterosexual defendants) and per-
ceived attractiveness was mean centered before creating the inter-
action term (the product of sexual orientation and perceived at-
tractiveness). The multiple regression analysis included sexual
orientation, perceived attractiveness, and the interaction between
sexual orientation and perceived attractiveness. Table 1 summa-
rizes the regression analysis results which indicates that there is a
main effect of sexual orientation and perceived attractiveness,

Table 1
Multiple Regression Predicting Perceived Guilt

Variable b (SE) ␤ t p

Constant 4.277 (.078) 54.635 ⬍.001

Sexual orientation .197 (.078) .111 2.519 .012
Perceived attractiveness ⫺.170 (.034) ⫺.217 ⫺4.961 ⬍.001
SO ⫻ Perceived attractiveness .075 (.034) .096 2.154 .029
Male jurors (n ⫽ 219)
Constant 4.143 (.120) 34.479 ⬍.001
Sexual orientation .331 (.120) .180 2.758 .006
Perceived attractiveness ⫺.176 (.056) ⫺.207 ⫺3.129 .002
SO ⫻ Perceived attractiveness .121 (.056) .142 2.145 .033
Female jurors (n ⫽ 275)
Constant 4.380 (.104) 42.271 ⬍.001
Sexual orientation .106 (.144) .061 1.021 .308
Perceived attractiveness ⫺.180 (.043) ⫺.243 ⫺4.154 ⬍.001
SO ⫻ Perceived attractiveness .054 (.043) .073 1.232 .219
Note. SO ⫽ Sexual orientation and is effect coded (heterosexual ⫽ ⫺1, gay/lesbian ⫽ 1). Perceived
Attractiveness is mean centered, N ⫽ 494. Average guilt rating for the full sample was 4.24 (SD ⫽ 1.79), for
male jurors it was 4.17 (SD ⫽ 1.84), and for female jurors it was 4.30 (SD ⫽ 1.74).
 DEFENDANT SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN THE COURTROOM 41

specifically, heterosexual and attractive defendants are perceived
as less guilty. However, there was also a significant interaction
term, indicating that attractive, heterosexual defendants are per-
ceived as the least guilty, R ⫽ .260, F(3, 490) ⫽ 11.853, p ⬍ .001
(see Table 1).
Next, we ran two additional multiple regression models to
determine if this model was different for male and female mock
jurors. The multiple regression model with sexual orientation,
perceived attractiveness, and the interaction between sexual orien-
tation and perceived attractiveness for male mock jurors predicting
guilt ratings was significant, R ⫽ .288, F(3, 215) ⫽ 6.483, p ⬍
.001 (see Table 1). The multiple regression model with sexual
orientation, perceived attractiveness, and the interaction term for
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
conducted. The multiple regression model with sexual orientation,
perceived attractiveness, and the interaction term for male mock
jurors predicting culpability was significant, R ⫽ .315, F(3,
215) ⫽ 7.890, p ⬍ .001 (see Table 2). The multiple regression
model with sexual orientation, perceived attractiveness, and the
interaction term for female mock jurors was also significant, R ⫽
.309, F(3, 271) ⫽ 9.529, p ⬍ .001 (see Table 2). Again, results
from the male mock jurors were like the full sample model and the
results from the female mock jurors were different from the overall
and male mock juror models. Specifically, sexual orientation and
the interaction between sexual orientation and perceived attrac-
tiveness are no longer significant predictors of sentencing ratings
for female mock jurors.

female mock jurors was also significant, R ⫽ .266, F(3, 271) ⫽

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

6.860, p ⬍ .001 (see Table 1). Results from the male mock jurors
were like the full sample model, however, results from the female
mock jurors are rather different from the overall and male mock
juror models. Specifically, sexual orientation and the interaction
between sexual orientation and perceived attractiveness are no
longer significant predictors of sentencing ratings for female mock
jurors.
Culpability Ratings
The final set of analyses assessed how sexual orientation and
perceived attractiveness predicted perceived culpability ratings for
the full sample and then by mock juror gender. The multiple
regression analysis included sexual orientation, perceived attrac-
tiveness, and the interaction between sexual orientation and per-
ceived attractiveness. Table 2 summarizes the regression analysis
results which indicates that there is a main effect of sexual orien-
tation and perceived attractiveness, specifically, heterosexual and
attractive defendants are perceived as less culpable. However,
there is also a significant interaction term, indicating that attrac-
tive, heterosexual defendants are perceived as the least culpable,
R ⫽ .288, F(3, 490) ⫽ 14.735, p ⬍ .001 (see Table 2).
To determine if this model was different for male and female
mock jurors two additional multiple regression analyses were
Discussion
The current study was conducted to determine how bias toward
gay men and lesbians occurs in the legal system. Minority defen-
dants experience bias in the legal system regarding verdict and
culpability (Espinoza & Willis-Esqueda, 2008); however, sexual
minority defendants is a minority group that has not been well
researched in the literature. Previous literature that evaluated the
role of sexual orientation focused on only gay men or on chal-
lenging topics related specifically to sexual orientation, for exam-
ple, gay men assaulting heterosexual men or gay men sexually
assaulting a child (Hill, 2000; Wiley & Bottoms, 2009). Although
bias toward gay men in the legal system has been somewhat
documented, bias toward lesbians in the legal system has been
sparse. Most of the previous literature indicates a strong bias
toward gay men by male participants and about an equal amount of
bias toward both gay men and lesbians by female participants. The
results of this study adds to this area of research by offering results
important to both gay and lesbian members of society.
Two competing theories were examined to explain bias toward
gay men and lesbians within the legal system; heterosexism and
aversive heterosexism. Heterosexism holds that society’s view of
the world is heterosexual in nature; heterosexuality is the norm for
individuals or is the default in how individuals think about the

Table 2
Multiple Regression Predicting Perceived Culpability

Variable b (SE) ␤ t p

Constant 4.447 (.075) 59.439 ⬍.001

Sexual orientation .182 (.075) .106 2.439 .015
Perceived attractiveness ⫺.186 (.033) ⫺.249 ⫺5.690 ⬍.001
SO ⫻ Perceived attractiveness .082 (.053) .109 2.504 .013
Male jurors (n ⫽ 219)
Constant 4.312 (.114) 37.919 ⬍.001
Sexual orientation .330 (.114) .188 2.900 .004
Perceived attractiveness ⫺.174 (.053) ⫺.214 ⫺3.255 .001
SO ⫻ Perceived attractiveness .151 (.053) .186 2.829 .005
Female jurors (n ⫽ 275)
Constant 4.556 (.099) 45.887 ⬍.001
Sexual orientation .087 (.009) .052 .879 .380
Perceived attractiveness ⫺.213 (.042) ⫺.295 ⫺5.108 ⬍.001
SO ⫻ Perceived attractiveness .044 (.042) .062 1.050 .295
Note. Sexual orientation is effect coded (heterosexual ⫽ ⫺1, gay/lesbian ⫽ 1). Perceived attractiveness is
mean centered, N ⫽ 494. Average culpability rating for the full sample was 4.41 (SD ⫽ 1.72), for male jurors
it was 4.34 (SD ⫽ 1.76), and for female jurors it was 4.46 (SD ⫽ 1.69).
 42 COONS AND ESPINOZA
world and that people who do not conform to heterosexuality are
engaging in deviant behaviors and deserve to be punished. If
heterosexism best explained biases toward gay men and lesbian
defendants then sexual orientation would predict overt, negative
bias toward gay men and lesbians as it would be considered
acceptable by society. The current study did find support for
heterosexism; mock jurors did find the sexual minority defendants
(gay male or lesbian) guilty more often than heterosexual defen-
dants. However, the current study also found that there was a
significant interaction between sexual orientation and perceived
attractiveness and that this relationship is different for male and
female mock jurors. Female jurors did not perceive gay/lesbian
defendants guiltier or more culpable for the crime in question.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Based on these results, the theory of heterosexism does not appear
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
to be a sufficient explanation for the biases that may exist for gay
men and lesbian defendants.
Evidence for Aversive Heterosexism
The theory of aversive heterosexism, on the other hand, postu-
lates that society’s views on acceptance of negative bias toward
gay men and lesbians are diminishing and people generally hold
egalitarian views toward gay men and lesbians. This is especially
true for younger and educated individuals (Andersen & Fetner,
2008). As applied to the legal system, this theory holds that jurors
will not demonstrate blatant bias toward minority defendants based
on sexual orientation alone. Only when sexual orientation is cou-
pled with another perceived negative variable (e.g., unattractive)
will jurors show bias because the implicit aversiveness they may
feel will no longer be based solely on sexual orientation (Espinoza
& Willis-Esqueda, 2008; Minero & Espinoza, 2016).
Evidence in support of aversive heterosexism was found in the
current study. Attractiveness was included to act as catalyst for
aversive heterosexism. For the full sample sexual orientation,
perceived attractiveness, and the interaction between sexual orien-
tation and perceived attractiveness significantly predicted per-
ceived guilt and culpability ratings. However, perceived guilt and
culpability models were different for male and female mock jurors.
Only for male mock jurors did the interaction between sexual
orientation and perceived attractiveness predict greater guilt and
culpability ratings (evidence for aversive heterosexism) along with
significant main effects for both (evidence for heterosexism). Only
perceived attractiveness predicted greater perceived guilt and cul-
pability ratings for female mock jurors. This suggests that males
may be experiencing both heterosexism and aversive heterosexism
as they had a greater issue with the gay/lesbian defendants than
females did which agrees with prior work (Deaux & Lewis, 1984).
One reason this may have occurred is that females may be more
accepting of gay/lesbians since they have less rigid gender roles in
our changing society than males do (Kray, Howland, Russell, &
Jackman, 2017).
These results partly discredit heterosexism as the sole explana-
tory theory for bias toward gay men and lesbians within the legal
system and partially support, at least for males, aversive hetero-
sexism. Results of the guilt ratings and culpability ratings indicate
that, regardless of verdict, gay male and lesbian defendants are
receiving greater perceived guilt and culpability when coupled
with other negative characteristics for male mock jurors. These
results indicate that negative bias toward gay men and lesbians
exists today even with greater acceptance toward homosexuality
(Andersen & Fetner, 2008). Although the end result, bias and
discrimination, is similar for both theories (either explicit— het-
erosexism— or implicit—aversive heterosexism), these results
suggest that we may want to try different intervention strategies to
reduce both the explicit and implicit negative views toward gays/
lesbians such as increased contact between heterosexual and ho-
mosexual individuals.
Limitations and Future Research
One major limitation of the current study is that the participants
came from a liberal college population. Attitudes toward gay men
and lesbians are correlated with age and educational level; older
and less educated individuals possess more negative attitudes
toward gay men and lesbians (Herek, 1994). Therefore, because of
the sample used in the current study, future research should com-
pare these findings with a general population. A second limitation
was the lack of overall guilty ratings. To truly determine the
differences in guilt and culpability ratings between gay men,
lesbian, and heterosexual defendants the defendant should have
been found guilty more often than seen in this study. Had the
defendant been found overwhelmingly guilty, detecting the driving
force (i.e., heterosexism or aversive heterosexism) for bias toward
gay men and lesbians may have been more fully understood. One
way to ensure that most participants would have rendered a guilty
decision would have been to create a criminal case where the
evidence was staggering against the defendant (e.g., surveillance
videotape, DNA evidence, etc.).
In conclusion, it may be that neither heterosexism nor aversive
heterosexism adequately explains bias toward gay men and lesbian
defendants in the U.S. legal system. Perhaps the shifting standards
and views toward gay men and lesbian individuals have yet to be
clearly articulated— especially in the legal decision-making liter-
ature. It was the attempt of this research to explore these shifting
standards as they apply in the legal system and how the intertwin-
ing effects of sexual orientation, attractiveness, and gender effect
juror decision making. Results showed that explicit and implicit
biases toward gays and lesbians in the legal system do exist, and
that given the combined effects of sexual orientation, gender and
attractiveness, aversive heterosexism may best explain these im-
plicit biases. Only future examination will help clarify the potential
biases gay men and lesbians may face in the United States criminal
justice system.
References
Aberson, C. L. (2003). Aversive bias toward gay men? Current Research
in Social Psychology, 8, 266 –274.
Abwender, D. A., & Hough, K. (2001). Interactive effects of characteristics
of defendant and mock juror on U.S. participants’ judgment and sen-
tencing recommendations. The Journal of Social Psychology, 141, 603–
615. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224540109600574
Ahola, A. S., Hellstrom, A., & Christianson, S. A. (2010). Is justice really
blind? Effects of crime descriptions, defendant gender, and appearance,
and legal practitioner gender on sentences and defendants evaluations in
a mock trial. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 17, 304 –324. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1080/13218710903566896
Amadio, D. M. (2006). Internalized heterosexism, alcohol use, and
alcohol-related problems among lesbians and gay men. Addictive Be-
haviors, 31, 1153–1162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.08.013
 DEFENDANT SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN THE COURTROOM
Andersen, R., & Fetner, T. (2008). Cohort differences in tolerance of
homosexuality: Attitudinal change in Canada and the United States,
1981–2000. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 311–330. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1093/poq/nfn017
Aguero, J. E., Bloch, L., & Byrne, D. (1984). The relationships among
sexual beliefs, attitudes, experience, and homophobia. Journal of Ho-
mosexuality, 10(1-2), 95–107.
Deal, M. (2007). Aversive disablism: Subtle prejudice toward disabled
people. Disability & Society, 22, 1–14.
Deaux, K., & Lewis, L. L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes: Inter-
relationships among components and gender label. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 46, 991–1004. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.46.5.991
Desantts, A., & Kayson, W. A. (1997). Defendants’ characteristics of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
attractiveness, race, and sex and sentencing decisions. Psychological
Reports, 81, 679 – 683. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1997.81.2.679
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1986). Prejudice, discrimination and
racism. Orlando, FL: Academic.
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Aversive racism and selection
decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychological Science, 11, 315–319. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00262
Espinoza, R. K. E. (2010). Juror bias in the U.S. legal system: Examining
problems and solutions. Saarbrücken, Germany: Lambert Academic
Publishing.
Espinoza, R. K. E., & Willis-Esqueda, C. (2008). Defendant and defense
attorney characteristics and their effects on juror decision making and
prejudice against Mexican Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 14, 364 –371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012767
Gilbert, J. A., & Lownes-Jackson, M. (2005). Blacks, whites, and the new
prejudice: Does aversive racism impact employee assessment? Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1540 –1553. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1559-1816.2005.tb02183.x
Herek, G. M. (1994). Assessing heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians
and gay men: A review of empirical research with the ATLG scale. In
B. Greene, G. M. Herek, B. Greene, & G. M. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and
gay psychology: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 206 –
228). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/
9781483326757.n11
Herek, G. M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Direc-
tions in Psychological Science, 9, 19 –22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
1467-8721.00051
Hill, J. M. (2000). The effects of sexual orientation in the courtroom: A
double standard. Journal of Homosexuality, 39, 93–111. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1300/J082v39n02_05
Hong, J. S., Woodford, M. R., Long, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2016).
Ecological covariates of subtle and blatant heterosexist discrimination
among LGBQ college students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45,
117–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0362-5
Joslyn, M. R., & Haider-Markel, D. P. (2016). Genetic attributions, im-
mutability, and stereotypic judgments: An analysis of homosexuality.
Social Science Quarterly, 97, 376 –390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ssqu
.12263
Kray, L. J., Howland, L., Russell, A. G., & Jackman, L. M. (2017). The
effects of implicit gender role theories on gender system justification:
Fixed beliefs strengthen masculinity to preserve the status quo. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 98 –115. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/pspp0000124
View publication stats
43
Laner, M. R., & Laner, R. H. (1979). Personal style or sexual preference:
Why gay men are disliked. International Review of Modern Sociology,
9, 215–228.
Lehavot, K., & Lambert, A. J. (2007). Toward a greater understanding of
anti-gay prejudice: On the role of sexual orientation and gender role
violation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 279 –292. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1080/01973530701503390
Mastro, D. E., Behm-Morawitz, E., & Kopacz, M. (2008). Exposure to
television portrayals of Latinos: The implications of aversive racism and
social identity theory. Human Communication Research, 34, 1–27.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00311.x
Mazzella, R., & Feingold, A. (1994). The effects of physical attractiveness,
race, socioeconomic status, and gender of defendants and victims on
judgments of mock jurors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 24, 1315–1338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994
.tb01552.x
Minero, L. P., & Espinoza, R. K. E. (2016). The influence of defendant
immigration status, country of origin, and ethnicity on juror decisions:
An aversive racism explanation for juror bias. Hispanic Journal of
Behavioral Sciences, 38, 55–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/073998
6315620374
Nadal, K. (2013). That’s so gay! Microaggressions and the lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender community. Washington, DC: American Psy-
chological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14093-000
Neisen, J. H. (1990). Heterosexism: Redefining homophobia for the 1990s.
Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, 3, 21–35. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1300/J236v01n03_02
Patry, M. W. (2008). Attractive but guilty: Deliberation and the physical
attractiveness bias. Psychological Reports, 102, 727–733. http://dx.doi
.org/10.2466/pr0.102.3.727-733
Pichler, S., Varma, A., & Bruce, T. (2010). Heterosexism in employment
decisions: The role of job misfit. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
40, 2527–2555. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00669.x
Pozzulo, J. D., Dempsey, J., Maeder, E., & Allen, L. (2010). The effects of
victim gender, defendant gender, and defendant age on juror decision
making. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 47– 63. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/0093854809344173
Vrij, A., & Firmin, H. R. (2001). Beautiful thus innocent? The impact of
defendants’ and victims’ physical attractiveness and participants’ rape
beliefs on impression formation in alleged rape cases. International
Review of Victimology, 8, 245–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/02697
5800100800301
Wiley, T. R., & Bottoms, B. L. (2009). Effects of defendant sexual
orientation on jurors’ perceptions of child sexual assault. Law and
Human Behavior, 33, 46 – 60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-
9131-2
Willis-Esqueda, C., Espinoza, R. K. E., & Culhane, S. (2008). The effects
of ethnicity, SES and crime status on juror decision making: A cross-
cultural examination of European American and Mexican American
mock jurors. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 30, 181–199.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739986308315319
Received June 2, 2017
Revision received September 24, 2017
Accepted September 26, 2017 䡲