Which picture of John Travolta would you associate with crime, and why?

1. Which picture of John Travolta would you associate with crime, and why?

2. 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).

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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)

6. 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’.

7. 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.

8. Sigall & Ostrove (1975) - Results • A similar length of sentence was awarded for both crimes, for both unattractive and no photo-graph. • 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. • What do these results show?

9. Sigall & Ostrove (1975) - Conclusion • The experiment highlights the importance of looks on jury decision-making. 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