Inoculation in the Courtroom: The Effect of Judicial Direction Timing on Mock Juror Decisions in a Rape Trial

In Australia, judges may issue judicial directions during a trial to counter the rape myth that resistance is required for a rape to be legitimate, despite many victim-survivors freezing. Drawing on inoculation theory, this study tested whether the timing of such directions influences verdicts and perceptions of complainant credibility in an acquaintance rape trial. Australian community members (N = 250) were randomly assigned to receive directions before, during, after, or both before and after cross-examination, or to a no-direction control. Judicial direction timing had no significant effect on verdicts or complainant believability. Higher rape myth acceptance was associated with a lower likelihood of conviction, with men scoring significantly higher on rape myth acceptance than women. Exploratory analyses showed that complainant believability predicted verdict outcomes, while prior jury service was associated with a lower likelihood of conviction. These findings suggest that rape myth acceptance may outweigh the influence of judicial directions.