Jury Simulation Essay - Grade: A+ PDF

Preview

Summary

Final essay (Jury Simulation) for research methods lab for Samar Needham....

Description

Running head: EFFECTS OF ATTRACTIVENESS ON A MOCK JURY 1

A Jury Simulation: The Effects of Defendant and Victim Character Attractiveness on Sentencing by a Mock Jury California State University, Long Beach

EFFECTS OF ATTRACTIVENESS ON A MOCK JURY

2

Abstract This study examined whether the attractiveness of a victim and a defendant had an effect on the length of sentence given to a guilty defendant by a mock jury. Specifically, participants were presented with different case accounts used in previous research experiments (Landy & Aronson, 1969) where the victim and the defendant had either attractive or unattractive characteristics. It was predicted that in case accounts with the attractive victim or the unattractive defendant, sentencing for the defendant would be much longer than those with the unattractive victim or the attractive defendant. 184 participants (Mage = 20.14, 93 males & 91 females) were each given one of four possible case accounts and asked to sentence the defendant to a number of years based on their opinion and to rate their favorability of both the defendant and the victim on a nine point scale. There was no significant effect of the attractiveness of the defendant, but there was a main effect of victim attractiveness on sentencing such that the defendant received a significantly longer sentence in case accounts with the attractive victim than those with the unattractive victim. Jury simulation data suggest that victim attractiveness is a significant factor influencing jurors’ judgement in deciding the length of a sentence for a guilty defendant, which can be applied to today’s judiciary system.

EFFECTS OF ATTRACTIVENESS ON A MOCK JURY

3

A Jury Simulation: The Effects of Defendant and Victim Character Attractiveness on Sentencing by a Mock Jury Previous studies have shown a large amount of data supporting that many individual factors can influence a jury’s decision of punishment regarding criminal acts (Gerbasi, Zuckerman, & Reis, 1977). Some of these factors include one’s perceived biases in severity of damage in accidents (Walster, 1966), as well as the physical attractiveness (Stewart, 1985), character attractiveness (Landy & Aronson, 1969; Nemeth & Sosis, 1973) gender, and race of the defendant or the victim (Mazzella & Feingold, 1994). Countless experiments have been conducted over the past years in order to determine if these individual factors improperly effect the decisions of a mock jury. The most prominent method used in each of these experiments has included either the original or a different version of the mock jury paradigm that was first introduced by Landy and Aronson (1969). Each of these previous studies discuss a different manipulated attribute of the defendant, victim, or both. Landy and Aronson’s original paradigm keeps the facts of the case account constant, such as the crime itself and events leading up to it, but the character attractiveness of the victim and the defendant is manipulated. This form of attractiveness refers to one’s occupation, socioeconomic status, and the social aspect of one’s life. The victim Martin Lowe is described as either a successful broker with an outstanding background as a family guy and community member, or a notorious hoodlum with a criminal record and a loaded pistol. Additionally, the defendant John Sander is described as either a friendly, older insurance adjustor who is widowed and got hurt in the accident, or a negligent, younger janitor who was never noticed and a two-time divorcee. It was found that both the attractiveness of the victim and the

EFFECTS OF ATTRACTIVENESS ON A MOCK JURY

4

defendant are significant factors affecting the sentencing of a jury, as the average sentencing for the attractive victim was 10.55 years and the average for the unattractive victim was 8.48 years. Studies focusing on other types of victim and defendant attractiveness, such as facial disfigurement and physical attractiveness, have found similar results. In Kerr, Bull, MacCoun, and Rathborn (1985) when the trial transcript described how the defendant took every possible precaution to avoid the crime, mock jurors convicted the defendant only when the victim was both unattractive and previously disfigured. Another related study had an opinion survey before the experiment, in which the majority of participants answered that the defendant’s previous history should be a determining factor in jurors’ decisions (79% agreed) and that physical appearance should not have any effect on the jurors’ decisions (93% agreed). However, during the simulated jury task physically attractive defendants were given less severe recommended punishment, less certainty of guilt, and greater attraction than physically unattractive defendants (Efran, 1974). It is clear that although the belief of not taking individual characteristics into consideration for sentencing is there, but that there is a lack of implementing such ideas into real life situations. The present study further examined the effects of character attractiveness of both the victims and the defendants on a jury’s judgement of recommended length of sentencing, as well as any differences in the decisions of jurors based on the each of their gender. The attractiveness of both the victim and the defendant were manipulated in a number of case accounts using the mock jury paradigm used in previous studies (Landy & Aronson, 1969). Based on previous research, it was hypothesized that in case accounts with the attractive victim or the unattractive defendant that the length of sentence would be the longest, and that those with the unattractive victim or the attractive defendant the length of sentence would be the shortest. It was also

EFFECTS OF ATTRACTIVENESS ON A MOCK JURY

5

hypothesized that there would be a difference in sentencing between males and females due to previous research stating that women tend to empathize less with the defendant and assume more responsibility on the defendant than other causes of death, in cases with the unattractive victim (Bottoms et al., 2011). Methods Participants The sample consisted of 184 participants (93 male, 91 female) between the ages of 18 and 25 with a mean age of 20.14 (SD = 1.87). The mean age for males was 20.53 (SD = 2.11) and for females was 19.73 (SD = 1.48). They were recruited from the Long Beach, California area by college students through word of mouth. Materials Case accounts. Each participant was given a sheet with a case account in which the defendant and the victim had either attractive or unattractive characteristics. Four possible case accounts were used: ‘Attractive Defendant-Attractive Victim’ (AD_AV), ‘Attractive DefendantUnattractive Victim’ (AD_UV), ‘Unattractive Defendant-Attractive Victim’ (UD_AV), or ‘Unattractive Defendant-Unattractive Victim’ (UD_UV). In the case of the attractive defendant, the description was of a ‘friendly 64 year-old insurance adjustor and widower to a departed cancer victim’, and in the case of the unattractive defendant the description was of a ‘negligent 63 year-old janitor and two-time divorcee’. On the other hand in the case of the attractive victim, the description was of a ‘noted architect, community member, and founding member of an orphanage’, and in the case of the unattractive victim the description was of a ‘notorious gangster, syndicate boss, and murderer’. Favorability Scale. A nine point favorability scale was used to measure the impression that the defendant and the victim had on each participant. One (1) being extremely favorable and nine (9) being extremely unfavorable. The scale was then followed by a question asking the participants what issues they believed were significant in deciding the length of sentence.

EFFECTS OF ATTRACTIVENESS ON A MOCK JURY

6

Procedure. Male and female participants were recruited from the Long Beach, CA area and surrounding cities through word of mouth by college students at California State University, Long Beach. Each college student was asked to select two female and two male participants between the ages of 18 and 25 in order to have equal representation for the study. Each participant was informed by the experimenter that they would act as a mock juror and be given a case account to read through thoroughly, as they would answer some questions afterwards about the case itself. The experimenter randomly gave each participant a sheet with one of the four possible case accounts (AD_AV, AD_UV, UD_AV, or UD_UV) and they were asked to read through the case account describing the criminal act. On a second sheet they were asked to sentence the defendant to a number of years based on their opinion, rate their favorability of both the defendant and the victim, and write the issues they believed were significant in deciding the length of sentence. During this time the experimenter left each participant alone to maximize the honesty in responses. After each participant was finished, the experimenter folded their sheets and put them in an envelope. Results Descriptive Statistics Figure 1 shows the average number of years the defendant was sentenced to for each of the four case accounts given (AD_AV, AD_UV, UD_AV, or UD_UV). The AD_UV case account received the shortest sentence (M = 13.20, SD = 7.42), followed by the UD_UV case account (M = 13.83, SD = 7.26), which was followed by the AD_AV case account ( M = 16.48, SD = 7.06), and the UD_AV case account which received the longest sentence (M = 17.67, SD = 6.50). Inferential Statistics

EFFECTS OF ATTRACTIVENESS ON A MOCK JURY

7

A 2 X 2 ANOVA on the attractiveness of the defendant and the victim was used to analyze the results. The results showed that there was no significant main effect of the defendant’s attractiveness, F (1, 180) = .77, p = .382 and no significant interaction between the attractiveness of the defendant and victim, F (1, 180) = .074, p = .787. However, there was a significant main effect of victim attractiveness, F (1, 180) = 11.71, p = .001, η2 = .061, such that the defendant received a significantly longer sentence in case accounts with the attractive victim (M = 17.08, SD = 6.77) than with the unattractive victim (M = 13.51, SD = 7.30). The results also analyzed whether males and females sentenced the defendant differently. Results showed that there was no significant difference in the number of years sentenced on any of the case accounts in males and females, t (182) = -.41, p = .681. Discussion As outlined previously, this study was conceptualized to further understand the effect of victim and defendant attractiveness on the judgement and decisions of mock jurors. Specifically, the attractiveness of the victim and the defendant was manipulated and the length of sentencing recommended by each mock juror was analyzed. It was expected that the longest sentence would be the case account with either the unattractive defendant or attractive victim, while the shortest sentence would be the case account with either the unattractive victim or the attractive defendant. The results supported some of the stated hypothesis as well as previous research stating that attractiveness is an influencing factor in the sentencing of a defendant. Attractiveness of the victim was an influencing factor in the sentencing, while attractiveness of the defendant was not. In case accounts with the attractive victim, the defendant received a significantly longer sentence than those with an unattractive victim. The results support some of the claims made by Landy and Aronson (1969) that the character of the victim is

EFFECTS OF ATTRACTIVENESS ON A MOCK JURY

8

significant in the severity of the sentence imposed by mock jurors. The results did not support their claim that this is also true for defendants as the data showed no significant effect of the defendant’s attractiveness on the length of sentence. It is possible that the attractiveness of the defendant did not affect the sentencing because the facts of the case accounts that remained constant described that they were given multiple chances to avoid the crime and they still chose to drive while under the influence. Therefore if much of the blame is placed on their poor decisions, then attractiveness of the defendant may not be as significant as for them as for victim who was killed due to a situation that could have been avoided. Due to the multiple chances given and the defendant’s poor decisions, the participants may empathize more with the victim. The results also do not support other research that claims women tend to empathize less with the defendant and assume more responsibility on them in cases with unattractive victims (Bottoms et al., 2011) as the data showed no difference in sentencing between males and females. This can be due to the sample of both males and females having a similar bias in the issues they believe are significant in determining the length of sentence. For instance, most participants may believe that the events leading up to the crime are more significant than how good of a person the defendant is. If their focus is predominantly ethics based, it can explain why there was no difference in sentencing between genders. Although the participants of the study may have answered honestly, the sample present in this study cannot fully reflect the behavior of actual jurors in a courtroom as one must take other extraneous variables into account such as the environment and personal biases. It is possible that this study can be replicated in an actual courtroom if all extraneous variables are controlled for and if the jurors are unaware that their responses will be analyzed as this may influence the recommended length of sentencing. Another limitation to the study is the favorability scale as

EFFECTS OF ATTRACTIVENESS ON A MOCK JURY

9

one would think that a one (1) on a scale would mean the least and that a nine (9) would be the greatest, but this scale inverts one’s expectations. This may have caused some participants to make mistakes in their responses or have trouble deciding what to respond since there were no other labels on the numbers other than ‘extremely favorable’ on one end and ‘extremely unfavorable’ on the other. Future studies plan to assess if race and age are significant factors influencing the length of sentence in a jury simulation. The present study suggests that victim attractiveness significantly influences the recommended length of sentence for a guilty defendant by a mock jury. With the data showing a longer sentence for attractive victims than for unattractive victims, there are various implications for real life jury trials. There may be a need for more assessments in the selection of a jury or a need for new ways to discuss attractiveness of the defendant in deliberation between jurors in the deliberation room to make sure biases for attractiveness are out of the picture. If these personal biases are not controlled for soon, members of the jury and the entire judicial system will be seen as unjust in putting away an attractive criminal for less time than an unattractive criminal for committing the same exact crime.

EFFECTS OF ATTRACTIVENESS ON A MOCK JURY

10

References Bottoms, B. L., Kalder, A. K., Stevenson, M. C., Oudekerk, B. A., Wiley, T. R., & Perona, A. (2011). Gender differences in jurors’ perceptions of infanticide involving disabled and non-disabled

infant

victims.

Child

Abuse

&

Neglect,

35(2),

127-141.

doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.10.004 Efran, M. G. (1974). The effect of physical appearance on the judgement of guilt, interpersonal attraction, and severity of recommended punishment in a simulated jury task. Journal of Research in Personality, 8(1), 45-54. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(74)90044-0 Gerbasi, K. C., Zuckerman, M., & Reis, H. T. (1977). Justice needs a new blindfold: A review of mock

jury

research.

Psychology

Bulletin,

84(2),

823-845.

doi:10.1037/0033-

2909.84.2.323 Kerr, N. L., Bull, R. H. C., MacCoun, R. J., & Rathborn, H. (1985). Effects of victim attractiveness, care and disfigurement on the judgements of American and British mock jurors. British Journal of Social Psychology, 24(1), 47-58. doi:10.1111/j.20448309.1985.tb00659.x Landy, D., & Aronson, E. (1969). The influence of the character of the criminal and his victim on the decisions of simulated jurors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5(2), 141152. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(69)90043-2 Mazzella, R., & Feingold, A. (1994). The effects of physical attractiveness, race, socioeconomic status, and gender of defendants and victims on judgments of mock jurors: A metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24(15), 1315-1338. doi:10.1111/j.15591816.1994.tb01552.x

EFFECTS OF ATTRACTIVENESS ON A MOCK JURY

11

Nemeth, C., & Sosis, R. H. (1973). A simulated jury: Characteristics of the defendant and the jurors.

The

Journal

of

Social

Psychology,

90(2),

221-229.

doi:10.1080/00224545.1973.9712562 Stewart, J. E. (1985). Appearance and punishment: The attraction-leniency effect in the courtroom.

The

Journal

of

Social

Psychology,

125(3),

373-378.

doi:10.1080/00224545.1985.9922900 Walster, E. (1966). Assignment of responsibility for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(1), 73-79. doi:10.1037/h0022733

EFFECTS OF ATTRACTIVENESS ON A MOCK JURY

12

Figure 1: The effect of attractiveness on sentencing.

Mean number of years sentenced

25

20

15

10

5

0

AD_AV

AD_UV

UD_AV

UD_UV

Scenarios

Figure 1. The mean number of years the defendant was sentenced to is shown for each of the four case accounts including ‘Attractive Defendant-Attractive Victim’ (AD_AV), ‘Attractive Defendant-Unattractive

Victim’

(AD_UV),

‘Unattractive

Defendant-Attractive

(UD_AV), or ‘Unattractive Defendant-Unattractive Victim’ (UD_UV).

Victim’...