Renata Bongiorno

Collective Futures How Projections About the Future of Society Are Related to Actions and Attitudes Supporting Social Change

We identified the active ingredients in people’s visions of society’s future (“collective futures”) that could drive political behavior in the present. In eight studies (N = 595), people imagined society in 2050 where climate change was mitigated (Study 1), abortion laws relaxed (Study 2), marijuana legalized (Study 3), or the power of different religious groups had increased (Studies 4-8). Participants rated how this future society would differ from today in terms of societal-level dysfunction and development (e.g., crime, inequality, education, technology), people’s character (warmth, competence, morality), and their values (e.g., conservation, self-transcendence). These measures were related to present-day attitudes/intentions that would promote/prevent this future (e.g., act on climate change, vote for a Muslim politician). A projection about benevolence in society (i.e., warmth/morality of people’s character) was the only dimension consistently and uniquely associated with present-day attitudes and intentions across contexts. Implications for social change theories, political communication, and policy design are discussed.

What Counts as Rape? The Effect of Offense Prototypes, Victim Stereotypes, and Participant Gender on How the Complainant and Defendant are Perceived:

Jurors rely on a range of schemas when evaluating allegations of rape and sexual assault. For example, they may be influenced by the prototypicality of the alleged offense, the stereotypicality of the victim, or gender-related stereotypes. These schemas have often been conflated however, making it difficult to determine the unique impact of each on jurors’ perceptions. To be able to effectively counter any schema-related misconceptions, we must first identify which beliefs are important and when. An experiment (N = 420) examined the independent effects of offense prototypicality and victim stereotypicality on mock jurors’ perceptions. As expected, victim stereotypicality had a greater effect on judgments in the counter-prototypical (acquaintance) assault scenario than in the prototypical (stranger) assault scenario. When the complainant was described as being a counter-stereotypical victim in the acquaintance rape scenario, the defendant was seen as less likely to be guilty and evaluated more positively and the complainant less positively compared with when the complainant was described as being a stereotypical victim. Analysis of the qualitative data suggested a focus on different factors in reaching verdicts in the stranger and acquaintance rape scenarios. Results were interpreted as evidence that jurors “step down” through a hierarchy of schemas in their attempts to determine what happened in cases of rape and sexual assault.

When Sex Doesn't Sell: Using Sexualized Images of Women Reduces Support for Ethical Campaigns

Images of scantily clad women are used by advertisers to make products more attractive to men. This “sex sells” approach is increasingly employed to promote ethical causes, most prominently by the animal-rights organization PETA. Yet sexualized images can dehumanize women, leaving an unresolved paradox – is it effective to advertise an ethical cause using unethical means? In Study 1, a sample of Australian male undergraduates (N = 82) viewed PETA advertisements containing either sexualized or non-sexualized images of women. Intentions to support the ethical organization were reduced for those exposed to the sexualized advertising, and this was explained by their dehumanization of the sexualized women, and not by increased arousal. Study 2 used a mixed-gender community sample from the United States (N = 280), replicating this finding and extending it by showing that behaviors helpful to the ethical cause diminished after viewing the sexualized advertisements, which was again mediated by the dehumanization of the women depicted. Alternative explanations relating to the reduced credibility of the sexualized women and their objectification were not supported. When promoting ethical causes, organizations may benefit from using advertising strategies that do not dehumanize women.

The Selective Use of Rape-Victim Stereotypes to Protect Culturally Similar Perpetrators

Powerful stereotypes exist about how female rape victims should act. For example, victims are expected to physically resist their attacker and immediately report their assault. In reality, some victims are too shocked to physically resist or too traumatized to immediately go to police. Nevertheless, counterstereotypic-victim behavior can undermine fair prosecution outcomes, especially for acquaintance-rape victims. In the current research, we examined the influence of perceivers’ cultural similarity to the perpetrator, and the stereotypicality of rape-victim behaviour, on victim and perpetrator blame, punishment severity, and guilt likelihood. We varied an acquaintance-rape scenario, to present stereotypical/counterstereotypical rape-victim behaviour, and the cultural similarity/dissimilarity of perpetrators to participants, who were White-Australian women and men, aged between 18 and 74 (N = 237). In the victim-stereotypic condition, reactions did not vary as a function of perpetrator-cultural similarity. However, in the counterstereotypic-victim condition, culturally similar (compared to culturally dissimilar) perpetrators were considered less guilty and less deserving of punishment. Moderated mediation indicated that the greater leniency shown towards culturally similar perpetrators was explained by increases in victim blame and decreases in perpetrator blame. To decrease bias when prosecuting rape perpetrators, we recommend challenging the selective use of counterstereotypic-victim behaviour to defend culturally similar perpetrators.

Looking Shifty but Telling the Truth: The Effect of Witness Demeanour on Mock Jurors’ Perceptions

Two studies investigated the impact of witness demeanour on the extent to which mock jurors were influenced by the strength of the witness’ testimony. The first study (N = 87) manipulated the strength of a witness’ testimony (strong versus weak) and the witness’ non-verbal behaviour (stereotypically deceptive versus non-deceptive). As expected, the strength of the testimony only influenced mock jurors’ perceptions when the witness displayed stereotypically non-deceptive non-verbal behaviour. A second study (N = 101) tested whether this effect was due to reliance on stereotypical but accurate cues to deception or stereotypical but inaccurate cues to deception. Participants were presented with the strong testimony from the first study in either an audio-visual format or audio-only format. Participants were only influenced by the stereotypically deceptive or non-deceptive non-verbal behaviours of the witness when such cues were accessible via audio-visual information. In the audio-only condition, where only the accurate stereotypical cues were accessible, there was no difference in evaluations as a function of witness behaviour. Results suggest that instructing jurors to rely on the demeanour of a witness when evaluating the credibility of that witness may be counter-productive.