ArticleBehavioral sciences & the law
The "Double Bind" of Gender-Based Violence: Secondary Victimization in Courtroom Cross-Examinations.
Article in Behavioral sciences & the law. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The "Double Bind" of Gender-Based Violence: Secondary Victimization in Courtroom Cross-Examinations.Behavioral sciences & the lawArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper examines how secondary victimization is interactionally produced during courtroom cross-examinations of women who have experienced sexual violence. Drawing on Ethnomethodology, Conversation Analysis and Membership Categorization Analysis, the study investigates how defense attorneys invoke rape myths and gendered stereotypes to challenge victims' credibility and moral character. Using the extracts of two cross-examinations from the celebrity trial CA v. Winslow II (2019), the results highlight how interactional features of questioning reproduce cultural assumptions that legitimate secondary victimization, constructing victims as unreliable or complicit. The findings highlight the "double bind" faced by women in sexual assault trials: they must appear both emotionally credible and rationally composed to be believed, yet any deviation from this ideal invites disbelief. Methodologically, the paper underscores the underutilized potential of EMCA in legal-linguistic research to reveal how institutional talk reproduces gendered injustice through ordinary conversational practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.