Transcript File
Which picture of John Travolta would you
associate with crime, and why?
Week 2
This week we will examine the effects of race, accent
and appearance/attractiveness on decision making.
Your key study this week is Sigall & Ostrove (1975).
Race
Ethnic minorities - 8% of UK’s population
Ethnic minorities - 15% of UK’s prison population
‘Some’ research – [Extension h/w?]
White jurors
More likely to find black defendant guilty (in comparison to white).
More likely to issue harsher sentences, for the same crime.
Skolnick & Shaw (1997) found the opposite…
Black and white jurors were less likely to find a black defendant guilty.
Black jurors were more likely to find a white defendant guilty, in
comparison to a black defendant.
Accent
If a defendant is well-spoken – less likely to be found guilty
of crimes such as robbery.
If the defendant has a strong regional accent (or rough
accent), the reverse is true.
This may be because ‘we’ see robbery as a ‘poor mans’ crime
and therefore do not associate it with well-spoken individuals.
Mahoney & Dixon (2002) – in a mock jury setting, found that
people with Brummie accents, were more likely to be found
guilty of armed robbery. Whereas, people with a posh
accent were more likely to be found guilty of fraud.
Attractiveness
According to psychologists, attractive people are seen as
more intelligent, friendly and honest.
Taylor and Butcher (2007) – in a mock jury setting, found
that attractive people were judged as less guilty of a crime
and given lower sentences than unattractive people.
Key Study
Sigall & Ostrove (1975)
Sigall & Ostrove (1975) - Aim
Aim: Sigall & Ostrove had two aims:
1) To examine whether attractiveness affected jury decision
making.
2) To examine whether there was a relationship between
attractiveness and type of crime committed.
20 Questions…
Now you know the aim of the experiment, try to work out
the result of the study, by asking me questions.
I will only answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
Sigall & Ostrove (1975) - Method
Method:120 participants were divided into 6 groups (20 per group).
Each group were given a piece of card with a crime written on it and a photograph of
Barbara Helms.
Attractive photo, accused of burglary
Unattractive photo, accused of burglary
No photo, accused of burglary (control condition)
Attractive photo, accused of fraud
Unattractive photo, accused of fraud
No photo, accused of fraud (control condition).
Firstly, all of the participants were asked to rate how attractive Barbara was, to make
sure they agreed with whether the photograph was attractive (groups 1 and 4) or
unattractive (groups 2 and 5). The researchers then asked jurors (participants) to give
Barbara a prison sentence ranging from 1-15 years.
Sigall & Ostrove (1975) - Results
The attractive photograph
had a big effect on the
participant’s decision.
They thought she should
spend longer in prison for
fraud and less time in
prison for burglary.
Mean prison sentence (years)
A
similar
length
of
sentence was awarded for
both crimes, for both
6
Whatand
donothese
unattractive
photo-results show?
graph.
5
Sigall and Ostrove (1975) Results
5.45
5.2
5.1
4.35
4.35
4
3
2.8
2
1
0
Attractive
Unattractive
Burglary
Fraud
No photo
Sigall & Ostrove (1975) - Conclusion
The experiment highlights the importance of looks on jury decisionmaking. Good looking people do get away with some crimes, but if they
use their looks to commit a crime, they are less likely to get away with
it.
Outline any strengths and weaknesses of Sigall & Ostrove (1975).
Laboratory experiment – extraneous variables – good reliability
Use of control group
Repeated measures design – demand characteristics
Lacks ecological validity
Jurors don’t issue sentences