Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill: factsheet

There is substantial evidence that jurors, and their decision-making, are influenced by rape myths. This was set out in Lady Dorrian’s Review, which considered the view that the defence in some rape trials adopt an approach that “deliberately targets at any prejudices or rape myths that may exist among the jury”. The Review also noted research which suggests that even when jurors are given directions designed to counter rape myths, they continue to come up in jury deliberations: “This accorded with the view of many Review Group members that rape myths remain prevalent amongst jurors and are very difficult to displace”.

This factsheet provides more information on the independent academic research that has already been carried out into rape myths and summarises the main evidence, including research referred to within the Lady Dorrian Review, as well as research published subsequently. It has been updated in May 2025 to reflect the most recent research publications, and changes made to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill at Stage 2.

What rape myths are

The term ‘rape myth’ is commonly used to describe false beliefs and misconceptions about rape, rape victims and rapists.

They are beliefs about rape that are untrue and prejudicial, and can impact the outcome of the case. Their existence shows the difference between what people expect the facts and circumstances of rape to look like, or the way they expect victims to behave, and the reality. Rape myths include false beliefs about how the actions of a victim before, during or after a serious sexual assault relate to how credible they are, and whether they consented. There are many rape myths but they can be broadly categorised as:

• Beliefs that blame the victim/survivor
• Beliefs that cast doubt on allegations
• Beliefs that excuse the accused
• Beliefs about what ‘real rape’ looks like

Examples of rape myths

• Women invite rape by the way they dress, how much alcohol they drink or the number of sexual partners they have had
• Genuine victims will scream, fight or get injured
• False allegations due to revenge or regret are common
• Any delay in reporting rape is suspicious
• Male sexuality is uncontrollable, and men cannot control their sexual urges
• Women often send mixed signals about their willingness to engage in sexual activity
• Rape occurs between strangers and is usually accompanied by violence
• Male rape only occurs between gay men
• Genuine rape victims are always emotional when giving evidence
• A genuine rape victim will always be able to give a consistent and detailed account of the incident

Limitations on research

Research into jury decision-making has been restricted by a law (Section 8(1) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981) which does not allow for juries’ deliberations to be observed, or for jurors to speak about those deliberations.

The purpose of section 8 is to protect the confidentiality of deliberations. This helps to ensure that jurors can express their views freely and frankly; guards against jurors being intimidated or otherwise influenced by third parties; and helps to protect the finality of jury verdicts and avoid the ‘trial by media’ that could happen if the content of deliberations was in the public domain.

Section 8(1) does allow for some limited research with real jurors. For example, jurors can be asked about their experience of serving as jurors (other than what happened during deliberations), their personal understanding of legal terms or concepts, or about their general views and attitudes. Researchers have therefore adopted a variety of methodologies to build our understanding of how rape myths affect jury decision making, which are described in more detail in the sections below.

During Stage 2 of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, new provisions were added to the Bill which would amend section 8(1) of the Contempt of Court Act. These provisions will not come into force until the Bill becomes law. If they do become law, they will create the opportunity for future research with jurors that goes beyond what is currently possible under Section 8(1). This is because it will no longer be contempt of court for a juror to disclose – or for a researcher to obtain or publish – details of what has been said during deliberations, or details of how jurors had voted, as long as the disclosure or publication is for research purposes, and permission has been granted by the Lord Justice General.

Research and evidence to date

A considerable amount of research has taken place in the last fifty years to explore rape myths, both in society generally and in relation to their impact on criminal trials and jury reasoning and decision-making. Four recent articles provide a useful summary of much of this research and list the range of sources and studies considered:

• What do we know about rape myths and juror decision making? (2020) by Professor Fiona Leverick provides a summary of research carried out specifically to explore the impact of rape myths in jury decision making, identifying over 50 studies involving over 15,000 participants.
• Jury Decision Making in Rape Trials: An Attitude Problem? (2021) by Willmott et al considers the empirical evidence around jury decision making in rape trials.
• Intimate Partner Rape: A Review of Six Core Myths Surrounding Women’s Conduct and the Consequences of Intimate Partner Rape (2023) by Lilley et al considers rape myths in the context of rape which occurs in relationships.
• Factors Behind Contemporary Rape Myths in Europe: A Systematic Review by Hyźy & Mitka (2024) reviews articles published between 2013 and 2023 and focuses on the factors that influence the perpetuation and spread of false beliefs regarding sexual violence, its victims, and perpetrators.

Since publication of the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill, the Law Commission of England and Wales has issued a consultation paper which includes its detailed consideration of the evidence around rape myths and how they influence juries.

In a recent study from New Zealand, researchers asked jurors about their deliberations in sexual violence trials shortly after those trials concluded (121 participants questioned from 18 sexual violence trials. Researchers also had access to transcripts of opening and closing statements, the judge’s summing up as well as notes of the evidence). To note, the law in New Zealand allows for this type of research.

Types of studies on rape myths

There are different approaches to jury research but all have limitations. The specific limitations of each approach are discussed in more detail below. There are two general limitations that impact all jury research:

• Social desirability bias – this may mean that research participants provide respectable or ‘socially desirable’ answers rather than truthful answers. This might be particularly relevant when asking participants about rape myth acceptance, as such questions often have a very obvious socially acceptable answer.
• Participants are not faced with a decision or situation which holds any real-life consequences: because research on real jury deliberations is largely prohibited (as described above), all research is conducted in a context with no real-life or practical consequences. It is suggested that deliberation about a decision with real-life consequences (for example, a prison sentence) would be different to a decision that is theoretical.

Although there are limitations, well-designed and robust jury research can provide valuable insights into juror decision making, group deliberations and rape myth acceptance. Two of the most commonly used approaches are mock jury research and post-trial surveys.

Mock Jury Research

Mock jury studies vary significantly with regard to the size and make up of their sample, as well as the type of materials shared with, or shown to, the research participants. Generally, these studies involve exposing the participants to the key elements of a case (either through a live enactment, a video or a written summary) and then asking them questions designed to examine their attitudes towards rape and the relationship between these attitudes and attributions of blame or guilt and credibility, and/or observing their group deliberations to see if and how rape myths are expressed. As such, mock jury studies can report either quantitative (numerical data) or qualitative (language-based and descriptive) findings. Some, such as the Scottish Jury Research, contain both quantitative and qualitative elements. This study provides Scottish specific qualitative data from deliberations observed during the largest mock jury experiment conducted in the UK (64 mock jury groups, made up of 863 mock jurors), using simulated trials designed to be as realistic as possible. Half of the mock juries considered and deliberated on a rape trial, which formed the basis of a specific research paper on the impact of rape myths within these deliberations.

A key strength of the mock jury approach is that researchers are able to engage in experiments: they can change one aspect of a trial (for example, the gender of the complainer) for different groups of jurors to see what effect this might have on their decision making and deliberations. This is something that would be impossible when studying real juries. However, the way in which some mock juries studies are carried out (using written court summaries and not including a deliberation aspect) limits the degree to which their findings are generalisable to the real-world. Some mock jury projects seek to improve this by recruiting participants that are representative of the wider jury population. However, it should be noted that participants that take part in mock jury studies do so voluntarily, which is different to the pool of real jurors who are required to serve on a jury (unless they meet certain exemption criteria).

Post-Trial Surveys

These studies survey real jury members after they have served on a trial. The survey questions could cover a range of different topics, including juror satisfaction; jurors’ perceived understanding of certain aspects of the trial; and how much they agree with certain beliefs, including rape myths. As explained above, at the moment surveys undertaken in Scotland and the rest of the UK cannot ask jurors about the deliberations they took part in. Post-trial surveys can provide valuable insight into the jurors’ personal experience of jury service and have the benefit of the participants being recruited from a real jury.

For example, the UCL Jury Project research presents quantitative data from surveys of participants who had recently taken part in jury deliberations in England and Wales (771 jurors). The questions asked did not relate to the deliberations of the jury they had served on, nor was there a requirement that the participants had been on a jury that had sat in a sexual offences case.

It is important to note that post-trial surveys do not provide insight into the deliberation aspect of jury service. If, for example, during the post-trial survey a juror demonstrated their belief in a certain rape myth, there is no way to determine if or how this individual’s belief impacted on the collective deliberation and decision-making of the jury. As with all survey research, the robustness of the findings are dependent on the participants’ memory and their ability to understand and explain the way in which they reached certain decisions - and ultimately, what the respondent tells the researcher is unverifiable.

Rape myth acceptance in society

Research from across the globe shows that rape myths are widely held amongst people in a variety of countries. In their review of core myths surrounding intimate partner rape, published in 2023, Lilley et al noted that: “Research examining the existence and influence of rape myths is now vast and empirical evidence is reliable enough to conclude that widespread endorsement of rape mythology spans varied societies, cultures, and distinct social groups.”

In Scotland, successive Scottish Social Attitude Surveys have found evidence that people in Scotland believe rape myths.

In the 2019 survey, respondents were asked the following questions:

• 'How much, if at all, is a woman to blame if she wears very revealing clothing on a night out and then gets raped?' Answers were given on a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 was 'not at all to blame' and 7 was 'entirely to blame'.
  5. 29% of respondents answered that a woman is at least partly to blame in this situation, and 69% answered ‘not at all to blame’.
• 'How much, if at all, is a woman to blame if she is very drunk and gets raped?' Again, answers were given on a scale from 1 to 7 where 1 was 'not at all to blame' and 7 was 'entirely to blame'.
  5. 30% of respondents answered that a woman is at least partly to blame in this situation, and 69% answered ‘not at all to blame’.
• To what extent they agreed or disagreed with the statement ‘women often lie about being raped’. Answers were given on a 5 point scale from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’.
  5. 8% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed with this statement,
  6. 29% stated that they neither agreed nor disagreed, and
  7. 60% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
• To what extent they agreed or disagreed with the statement ‘rape results from men being unable to control their need for sex’. Again, answers were given on a 5-point scale from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘strongly disagree’.
  5. 28% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed with this statement,
  6. 20% stated that they neither agreed nor disagreed, and
  7. 49% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

In January 2024, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) published the results of a survey looking at public understanding of rape and serious sexual offences. Over 3,000 adults from across the UK took part (including 232 in Scotland), making it the largest survey on this topic in five years. The survey found evidence that in some areas, public understanding of rape and sexual offences has increased over the past 20 years. For example, 74% of respondents recognised that a person can still have been raped if they did not physically resist or fight back. However, the survey found that some rape myths remained prevalent. Findings included:

• Only 17% of respondents recognised that rape doesn’t typically involve physical violence
• Only 26% recognised that rape victims will not always seem distressed when talking about what happened to them
• Only 36% recognised that women rarely make up rape allegations
• Only 39% recognised that rape mostly happens between people who know each other

The survey also found that rape myths were more prevalent among 18-24 year olds than among older respondents.

The survey was part of a wider research project commissioned by CPS that also included a literature review; discourse analysis; round tables and interviews with rape stakeholders; and focus groups. The researchers concluded that, “overall, the public’s accurate understanding of rape is outweighed by false beliefs, misunderstanding, lack of knowledge, and underlying stereotypes”.

What the evidence tells us about rape myths and juries

In her review of over 50 studies exploring the impact of false beliefs about rape on jurors, Professor Leverick concludes that there is “overwhelming evidence that jurors take into the deliberation room false and prejudicial beliefs about what rape looks like and what genuine victims would do and that these beliefs affect attitudes and verdict choices in concrete cases. This evidence is both quantitative and qualitative.”

In their 2021 Jury Decision Making in Rape Trials: An Attitude Problem? Willmott et al conclude that “Overwhelming empirical evidence…indicates that preconceived attitudes towards rape and specific rape myth beliefs have a prejudicial impact upon jury judgements, decisions and deliberative discussions”.

The review by Lilley et al similarly observes “Given the pervasiveness of rape myths throughout global societies, concerns continue to surround the prejudicial impact they may have upon complainant allegations and legal decisions within global justice systems. A concern not lacking in empirical support.”

Furthermore, the premise of Cossins’ (2020) book Closing the Justice Gap for Adult and Child Sexual Assault, which examines the trial process for sexual assault in both England and Wales and New South Wales, Australia, is that “juries' verdicts and credibility assessments are influenced by a number of extra-legal factors, including individual jurors' adherence to rape myths, the influence of which is likely to be ameliorated or exaggerated based on the extent to which rape myths are reproduced within the trial process”.

A recent systematic review published by Hyźy & Mitka (2024) explores the factors that influence the spread of false beliefs regarding sexual violence, its victims, and perpetrators. These include sociodemographic factors such as gender; “individual factors” including sexism and personal experience of sexual violence and, “systemic factors” such as political ideology and the impact of the media.

However, not all academics agree on the issue. On the basis of results from the UCL Jury Project 2018- 2019, Professor Thomas asserts that “Research shows that jurors accept commonly held rape myths resulting in many incorrect not guilty verdicts” is incorrect” and, furthermore that “the research also reveals that previous claims of widespread “juror bias” in sexual offences cases are not valid.”

Further detail on some of the available evidence is provided below.

Court observations reveal the use of rape myths by trial lawyers

Willmott et al. reviewed a number of contemporary studies which found that in attempting to persuade jurors, trial lawyers continue to rely upon rape myths. Noting findings from one study: “Defence lawyers routinely drew upon myths in an effort to discredit witnesses, asking jurors to consider whether the complainant’s level of distress was consistent with what would be expected from a ‘real rape’ victim and

whether a lack of physical resistance should be considered suspicious.”

In a study looking at rape and attempted rape cases in Scotland, Cowan et al. (2024) found that defence lawyers evoked a range of rape myths during trials, including that false allegations were common; that injury or force needed to be present to prove a rape allegation; and that delayed reporting undermined a complainer’s credibility. The researchers observed: “In addition, irrespective of shifts in the interpretation and application of rape shield provisions, and despite evolving understandings and a formal commitment to trauma-informed justice processes, defence strategies in our live trial sample often continued to rely on tenacious myths and misconceptions about rape, rapists and rape victims. Indeed, we found that questioning of complainers at times still relied on regressive conceptions of gender roles that normalised a threshold of male possessiveness, short-temperedness and / or jealousy, and questioned the propriety of complainers’ behaviour in response to sexual abuse.”

Relying on people’s stated views in the abstract has limitations

The New Zealand study underlines the importance of investigating jury deliberations, and noted the limitations of relying on people’s stated views in response to questions designed to determine if they believed common rape myths: “When confronted with the difficulties of a real case, even those who might think they do not subscribe to cultural misconceptions about sexual violence may nonetheless fall back on those misconceptions. For example, our results include comments containing such misconceptions from a juror who had worked for Rape Crisis, and at least one juror who had been sexually assaulted. This happens because, even if jurors do not explicitly believe in misconceptions about sexual violence, these deeply embedded cultural assumptions can still "provide sources of meaning upon which [they] draw often unconsciously.”

Ellison & Munro (2010) also found that some participants reject rape myth statements in surveys and then draw on those same ideas during deliberation. Smith et al. (2021) similarly found that members of the public did not hold strong views when asked generally about rape complainants’ eligibility for state compensation, but consistently disapproved of the same eligibility rules when given case studies.

Studies consistently show the prevalence and power of common rape myths:

Rape myth: Genuine victims will fight back or call for help

Within the Scottish Jury Research, research participants frequently cast doubt on the complainer’s credibility where they did not physically or verbally resist the accused. For example, 28 of the 32 mock jury groups  that deliberated a rape trial raised concerns about a perceived lack of physical resistance by the complainer.

Studies by Ellison and Munro (Study 1 from 2009 involving 27 mock jury groups using over 200 participants, and Study 2 from 2011 involving 20 mock jury groups using 160 participants) provide further qualitative data. Both studies found that participants not only routinely expressed the view that ‘real’ rape victims would resist their attacker but also found evidence that participants expected victims to have injuries consistent with their attempts to fight back even where experts challenged this assumption. While such views were countered by other participants, this was not found to occur consistently and, where challenge did occur, appears to have had little impact on the course of jury deliberations. In ‘Telling tales’: exploring narratives of life and law within the (mock) jury room, a paper based on Study 2, the researchers observed that: ‘Not-guilty votes and verdicts continued…to be frequently justified by reference to the absence of the evidence of more serious or extensive injuries to both trial parties.’

The New Zealand research, the only study to question jurors about their deliberations in sexual offences cases, found that the extent to which a complainer resisted their attacker affected jurors’ assessment of their credibility in 11 of the 18 juries studied with one juror expecting “a consistent message of non-consent – screaming, and repeated reiterations of, ‘no, I don’t want this’”.

Rape myth: False allegations are common

The Scottish Jury Research found the belief that women routinely make false rape allegations emerged in 19 of the 32 mock juries that deliberated a rape trial, although it did find that this view was often challenged by other jurors. The findings from this study led the researchers to conclude: “within the jury room, the spectre of female fabrication still looms large, fuelled by disproportionate media coverage of rare but sensational cases in which allegations are shown to be false.”

The Ellison and Munro (2009) study recorded participants seeking to explain their views on why a woman might report a false allegation of rape (e.g. participants identified anger at the breakdown of a relationship, the complainer being emotionally disturbed or regretful sex as potential reasons why a woman might make a false allegation). In this study, the suggestion that a rape allegation was made up by the complainer because they were ‘vindictive’, a ‘psycho’ or otherwise emotionally disturbed was identified in 9 of the 27 deliberating groups. There is no evidence that false allegations of rape are common and whilst it may be an appropriate consideration in individual cases, the frequency with which it is referenced by participants in studies indicates a more generalised belief or misconception which as applied to all rape cases is untrue and prejudicial.

The UCL Jury Project research 2018-19 also found evidence that jurors hold false beliefs about how common false rape allegations are with 12% of participants agreeing with the statement that ‘many women who claim they were raped agreed to have sex and then regretted it afterwards’, a further 47% indicated that they were unsure whether they agreed with this statement.

Rape myth: Delays in reporting a rape are suspicious

False beliefs about the response of a ‘real’ victim in the aftermath of being raped, particularly how long they would take to report the offence, were also found in the Scottish Jury Research. Concerns were raised about the fact that the complainer had taken 40 minutes to report the offence to police in 13 of the 32 mock jury groups despite receiving explicit directions from the judge that there are good reasons why a complainer might not immediately report an offence. While the study found that this perspective was challenged in 10 of the 13 mock jury groups in which it was expressed, researchers noted concerns about the effectiveness of this challenge in changing perceptions about the impact of the delay on the complainer’s credibility.

Delays in reporting the rape to police were also found to impact a complainer’s credibility with participants in both Ellison and Munro studies noted above. It was consistently raised during deliberations among the jury groups. One participant stated ‘I can’t get over why she didn’t go straight to the phone when he went out of the door, she went and got changed’. It is important to note that in both studies, concerns expressed about delays in reporting were frequently challenged by other participants.

What the evidence tells us about approaches to addressing rape myths

Leverick et al. (2025) have published an evidence review that sets out the existing evidence base on rape myths and jury decision making and, approaches to addressing rape myths. The authors establish that they cannot know for certain the extent to which false beliefs, rape myths, influence verdicts “but a sizeable body of mock jury research exists that has found a significant relationship between scores on rape myth measurement scales and verdict choices.” When considering the approach to addressing rape myths, and specifically the evidence base on the effectiveness of juror education, the authors found some limited evidence that judicial direction and/or expert evidence is recalled by jurors and has a positive impact on their deliberations. Those studies that looked at whether an educational intervention made a statistically significant difference to verdict choice and/or ratings of the complainer’s credibility showed mixed results. The studies that supported this finding were, however, more realistic than those that did not. With regard to the question of what the most effective mode of delivery of an education intervention might, the evidence base is inconclusive.

Hudspith et al. (2024), in a systematic review, similarly explore the impact of providing information to mock jurors that counters rape myths. They found some evidence to suggest that the provision of judicial directions, expert witness testimony, and complainant statements regarding rape myths can impact upon jury decision-making, although the findings were mixed overall.

Krahé (2025) explores the “truth effect”, in relation to rape myths and strategies to address rape myths. Often rape myths are dispelled through the “myths vs. facts” approach, when different myths are presented and then contrasted with facts that contradict the myths. Research shows that people are more likely to perceive information as true if they have seen it before than if they see it for the first time, and this occurs even when individuals are warned about the “erroneous character or possess factual knowledge that should enable them to recognise the information as false”. Krahé concludes that when dispelling rape myths “every word matters” and that whilst repeating misinformation before presenting contradicting messages may seem like an obvious approach, instead the “truth effect” means that presenting and repeating the facts without flagging the myths would be more effective.