1. The Effects of Sexual Orientation in the Courtroom One-Way Anova Serena Evans Kym Regan Chesleigh Keene

2. What Happens When…. a homosexual is a victim of a violent crime? Is the victim stigmatized for his sexual orientation, or is he able to receive equal treatment in a courtroom? a homosexual man is accused of a sexual assault? Will he be able to receive a fair trial? the alleged victim is a heterosexual male? Will the alleged offender’s sexual orientation or the evidence be the concentration of the trial?

3. Background Homonegativity: irrational fear of homosexuality In the U.S., there is a growing number of male rapes, and due to high levels of homonegativity, it is hypothesized that homosexuals will receive unfair treatment in sexual assault trials. The reason there is a concern is because of the continual rise and occurrence of male rapes. It seems that it will not be long before male victims seek justice for the crimes committed against them.

4. Introduction Four conditions were examined controlling for the gender and sexuality of both the defendant and victim, and a mock sexual assault trial was created controlling for factors known to affect juror’s decisions. These conditions will be shown in the raw data slide.

5. Taken From: Hill, Jennifer M. “The Effects of Sexual Orientation in the Courtroom: A Double Standard.” Journal of Homosexuality, 39 (2) 93-111. 2000. Hawthorne Press, Inc.

6. Research Question Does there appear to be sufficient evidence to conclude with at least 95% that homosexuals are treated differently than heterosexuals in sexual assault trials?

7. Statistical Hypothesis H o: μ 1 = μ 2 = μ 3 = μ 4 H 1 : The means are not all equal

8. Decision Rule Given: N 1 =10, N 2 =10, N 3 =10, N 4 =10 N total =40 α=.05 Data appropriate for One-Way Anova We will reject the null hypothesis if the calculated F(3, 36) > 2.86.

9. Raw Data 1=Heterosexual male allegedly assaults a heterosexual female 2=Heterosexual male allegedly assaults a homosexual female 3=Homosexual male allegedly assaults a heterosexual male 4=Homosexual male allegedly assaults a homosexual male 1 1 1 1 1 6 4 6 6 4 5 8 2 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 5 5 1 7 4 5 3 5 6 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 4 5 2 5 5 2 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 6 5 7 4 8 9 2 4 5 7

10. Calculations

11. Decision We will reject the null hypothesis at a.05 level of significance because our F(3, 36)= 3.11>2.86.

12. Interpretations This study does provide sufficient evidence to conclude with 95% confidence that homosexuals are treated unfairly in the courtroom. F(3, 36)=3.11, p <0.05. The exact p-value for the study ( p = 0.04) shows that we are actually more than 96% confident that group size affects mean response time. A Tukey HSD post-hoc test (alpha = 0.05) shows that the difference that stands out the most at a.03 level of significance is between the homosexual male versus heterosexual male case and the homosexual male versus the homosexual male case. This shows that the homosexual male who attacks the heterosexual male is given a higher level of guilt. Our data only included group sizes of ten, while the original data used a group size of eighteen people per condition; therefore, our study would be more accurate with a slightly larger group size. The effect size observed in this study, eta 2 = 0.21 This large effect size can be interpreted as indicating that 21% of the variation among the court cases are related to homonegativity, while 79% of the court cases are attributable to individual differences. The sustained power is.68, and since the probability of a Type II error is (1-power), there would be a 32% chance of a Type II error. This is higher than the usual preferred 20% chance, but it is not too extreme that we would need to worry.

13. Future Research Further research could be done to try to find out how we can decrease homonegativity. More research could be done comparing homonegativity with the victim’s gender. We could also take a closer look at the homonegativity based on different age groups