Rape myths and juror decision-making in sexual assault cases: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Despite legal reforms and increased public attention to sexual violence, conviction rates for rape remain low and concerns persist about the role of rape myths in juror decision-making. An earlier meta-analysis by Dinos et al. (2015) suggested that higher rape myth acceptance (RMA) is associated with more defendant-favourable outcomes but was based largely on pre-2012 studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis updates that work in a contemporary context. Peer-reviewed studies published between 2012 and 2025 were eligible if adult mock jurors evaluated a rape or sexual assault case, completed a measure of RMA or a conceptually analogous construct, and provided at least one legally relevant decision outcome (e.g. verdict, guilt rating, victim blame). Twenty studies (N = 7682) met inclusion criteria. Three-level random-effects models pooled Pearson's r for guilt-related and victim-blame outcomes. Higher RMA was associated with lower guilt judgments (r = −0.16) and higher victim blame (r = 0.52). Heterogeneity was substantial for both outcomes and was not explained by sample type or broad study location. These findings suggest that rape myths remain present in how complainants are evaluated, but that their impact on verdicts is smaller and more context-dependent than earlier work implied.