Mere Ownership Effect Is Equally Pronounced in Material and Immaterial Objects

Bialek, Michal, Michał Stefańczyk, and Marta Rokosz. 2021. “Mere Ownership Effect Is Equally Pronounced in Material and Immaterial Objects.” PsyArXiv. October 27. doi:10.31234/osf.io/c9sbm

Abstract: The mere ownership effect is an increase in the subjective value of owned objects compared to identical but non-owned objects. We tested whether the effect differs in magnitude between material and immaterial objects (e.g., information). Three hundred participants played an incentivized detective game in which they had to connect clues to identify a murderer. Their task was to evaluate the usefulness of the clues they or their partners were endowed with. Despite the fact that the immaterial clues were rated as more useful than the material ones, we found the mere ownership effect to be similarly strong for the material and the immaterial clues.

Mock jurors rendered more proprosecution case judgments when the victim was cisgender vs trans; when the victim was cisgender vs trans, mock jurors were more likely to convict, rated the defendant less credible, and rated the victim more credible

Miller, Q. C., & London, K. (2021). Mock jurors’ perceptions of child sexual abuse cases involving sexual and gender minority victims. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, Oct 2021. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000541

Abstract: Sexual and gender minority youth are at high risk of maltreatment and subsequent criminal justice system involvement, yet jurors’ perceptions of these individuals have yet to be investigated. In the current research, we examined mock jurors’ decisions after reading a case summary manipulating victim gender (boy, girl), gender identity (cisgender, transgender), and sexual orientation (straight, gay). Jury-eligible community member participants (N = 368) read a case summary describing an alleged incident of child sexual abuse between a male teacher and an adolescent victim then rendered various case judgments. Mock jurors rendered more proprosecution case judgments when the victim was cisgender versus transgender. When the victim was cisgender versus transgender, mock jurors were more likely to convict, rated the defendant less credible, and rated the victim more credible. Effects of victim gender identity varied as a function of gender, but only when the victim was transgender. When the victim was a transgender boy versus girl, jurors were more likely to convict, rendered higher ratings of defendant degree of guilt, rated the defendant less credible, and rated the victim more credible. Findings have implications for jury instructions and voir dire processes when gender minority individuals encounter the justice system.