personal characteristics and there effect on juror verdict

7/28/2019 Personal Characteristics and There Effect on Juror Verdict

1/15

T H E I N T E R A C T I O N O F A T T R A C T I V E N E S S

A N D A G G R E S S I V E N E S S O N L I K E L I H O O D O FR E C E I V I N G A P O S I T I V E V E R D I C T

Personal characteristics and

there effect on Juror Verdict


2/15

Introduction

This experiment was designed to examine theunconscious appeal of attractiveness of defendantand their aggressive demeanor on the likelihood of

receiving a positive verdict. Studies have shown the Attractiveness Bias to be a

real issue and its effects on juror verdict are to beexamined.

Marc Patry (2008) found that when deliberation(time) was removed attractive defendants alwaysreceived more positive results.


3/15

Introduction (cont.)

Beckham, Spray and Pietz (2007) found that mockjurors suggested lighter sentences for attractivedefendants more often, regardless of the jurors

internal locus of control (which was calculated). Vrij and Firmin (2001) found that individuals who

accepted rape myths were more favorable toadministering those in cases were the victim or

accused was rated as more attractive. Aggression is known to impact observers judgment

on individuals.


4/15

Introduction (Hypotheses)

Attractive defendants are more likely to receivepositive verdicts than those who are not (high vs.low); regardless of aggressiveness.

Defendants whom are aggressive are less likely toreceive a positive verdict than those who are not;regardless of attractiveness.

The negative effect of aggression of defendant on

the likelihood of a positive verdict is expected to begreater when the defendant is not attractive (low).


5/15

Method (Participants)

Participants in this experiment included collegestudents at Central Michigan University, studyingpsychology and other subjects.

Course credit for psychology 385 was provided forcompleting this and other experiments.

There were a total of 13 participants, 6 females and 7males.

The only requirement was to be of age 18, the sameas that to be a juror in the United States justicesystem.


6/15

Method (Apparatus)

Materials used in this experiment included four case briefs,records sheet (with scale), pencil, guidelines form(informational) and consent form. The consent and studyguidelines forms are informational and only required

participants to examine and sign. The records sheet allowed forparticipants to rank each case on a scale from one to seven,indicating the likelihood in which they would grant thedefendant a positive verdict (3 questions calculated). Each casereflected one of the following conditions attractive/aggressive

defendant, attractive/not aggressive defendant, not attractive(plain looking)/aggressive defendant and not attractive/notaggressive defendant and all cases had male subjects.

All cases had the same potential for outcomes as related to

punishment; they all had the same sentencing guidelines.


7/15

Method (Procedure)

A randomized 2x2 factorial within-subjects design was used;where the independent variables were attractiveness (attractiveor plain looking) and aggressiveness (aggressive or not) ofdefendant. The dependent measure was the likelihood of

positive verdict, as rated by participants. Participants wereprovided with all four case scenarios in random order, reflectingthe following conditions attractive/aggressive, attractive/notaggressive, not attractive (plain looking)/aggressive, notattractive/not aggressive. They were asked to rate each case on

the likelihood of a positive verdict as if they were one of thejurors presiding at the time of trial.

Each case brief and following questionnaire was limited to 2minute time intervals.


8/15

Attractive defendants are more likely to receive positive verdictsthan those who are not (high vs. low).

14

15

16

Attractive (high) Not Attractive (low)

Mean%

ofjurorratingonlikelihoodof

positiveverd

ict

Attractiveness


9/15

Defendants whom are aggressive are less likely to receive apositive verdict than those who are not.

14

15

16

17

Aggressive (high) Not Aggressive (low)

Mean%

ofjurorratingonlikelihoodof

positiveverd

ict

Aggressiveness


10/15

The negative effect of aggression of defendant on the likelihood of a positiveverdict was greater when the defendant was not attractive (low).

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Attracitve Not Attractive

Mean%ofjurorratingo

nlikelihoodof

positiveverdict

Attractiveness

Aggressive Not Aggressive


11/15

Results

Results have shown that

attractive defendants are more likely to receive positiveverdict than those who are not (high vs. low).

defendants whom are aggressive are less likely to receive apositive verdict than those who are not.

As predicted the negative effect of aggression ofdefendant on the likelihood of a positive verdict

was greater when the defendant was not attractive(low).


12/15

Discussion

The interaction of attractiveness and aggressivenesswas significant.

Individuals whom were shown as not attractive and aggressivewere significantly more likely to receive a negative verdict.

Contrary to the hypotheses individuals whom were shown asnot attractive and not aggressive were significantly more likelyto receive a positive verdict.

There was not a significant interaction between

defendants whom were attractive and aggressivedefendants and those whom were not attractive andnot aggressive.


13/15

Discussion (Improvements)

Future adaptations of this experiment could benefitfrom further development and constraints on thecase briefs.

A more specific guideline for the case briefs

A between subjects design were the same exact cases can beused with out creating the carry-over effect.

A larger sample size may provide for better results

A more representative population may be beneficial A more controlled environment and/or improved

survey question wording, in which participants areunable skew results with improper answers.


14/15

Discussion (Implications)

Results found in this study could be applied externallyin a few different real world situations.

Juror selection could benefit from the elimination ofthe attractiveness of defendant as perceived by thejurors.

Control over personal aggression levels would show adefendant as being more stable and in turn increase

the likelihood of a positive verdict. By showing that aggression and attractiveness alike

have impact on juror verdict is reason for prosecutors,defense attorneys to inform their clients on proper trial

etiquette.


15/15

Acknowledgments

You!

Thanks Everyone.

personal characteristics and there effect on juror verdict

Documents