The “Emotional Victim” Bias

In most instances of rape, the assailant and victim have a previously existing relationship. Legal cases, therefore, often hinge on consent—and when other evidence is lacking, a complainant’s perceived credibility may be the key factor in judging whether consent was granted.

But a new analysis suggests that credibility is often judged, in part, on victims’ emotional demeanor—even though the two factors have not been shown to correlate. In a meta-analysis of 20 studies using written and video prompts, researchers found that both law enforcement professionals and laypeople rated distressed female complainants (those with tears, a trembling voice, or upset expressions) as more credible than those who behaved neutrally.

“We know from past research that emotion isn’t a reliable way to determine if someone is telling the truth,” says study co-author Faye Nitschke of Australia’s University of Queensland. A rape victim could be emotionally “flat” for a number of reasons—including trauma, the passage of time, or a dedicated effort to maintain composure.

After traumatic crimes like rape, “People have strong expectations for how people ‘should’ react,” observes Jessica Salerno, a psychologist at Arizona State who was not involved in this research. “When victims violate those expectations, their credibility suffers.” The bias against unemotional complainants may partially explain why a minuscule number of rapes (approximately 5 out of every 1,000) end in convictions. Says Salerno: “Many of the police, attorneys, and judges who might be affected by this bias [likely] have no idea that emotion stereotypes are affecting their decision.”