C.:llifornia State Unive.rstiy - North:r·:;_5p,e
Ir;n?LUENCE OF THE RACE AND CHi\RACTEP.
OF THE DEFENDANT AND VI CT IN:
A SIHULATED JURY STUDY
''-
A thesis submitted in partial satisfact:Lon
.... ,..,i·.;: 1~or
tl•"'
1 . J·'n,-·,]·reJTl
-<::q.l;. __ .. <;;:.,,_'::.
1
:·c dE'9'1'c..·~
-. 0 .. -..<.;;.
O f__ the
or Master of Arts 1n
~-
PSYCHOLOGY
by
\:Jilliam S Ashmore
June, 1974
is approved:
The
Committee Chairman
California State University - Northridge
May, 1974
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author is indebted to the following:
Dr . ....Tames McHartin
Dr. Jerry Shaw
Dr. Roger Moss
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
iii
J..I~'lT
·.
OF TABLES
v
ABSTRACT.- .
vi
INTRODUCTION
1
HETHOD
8
8
Design
Subj cct:s.
Procedure
Attrac~ive
8
8
10
Victim
Un:s.tt1.·active V:Lctim
Attractive Defendant.
U:t.s.ttractive Defendant
11
11
11
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
13
Hanipu1.ation Checks
Judicial Severity .
Perceb7ed Harshness of THo Hypothetical Sentences
Conclusions
BIBLIOGRAPHY
13
17
22
25
27
APPENDICES
.•
Questions.
. . .
Instructions for Sentencing the Defendant
Post Experimental Questions
Sample Expe1:·imental Booklet
Ei~perimental
iv
28
29
32
34
36
LIST OF' TABLES
Page
I. One-\..Jay Chi Square Analysis of the Manipulation
15
Check of Race.
II. Analysis of Variance of Ha:Ln Dependent Variable.
III. Cell Means for Race of Victim X Attractiveness
of Defendant
IV. C:0.1.1 Msans for Rae•:: of Victim X Race of
Defendant X Attractiveness of Victim .
V. CaL'. !·'leans for Race of Victim X Race of
X Attractiveness of Victim .
v
19
20
21
D~~fendant
24
ABSTRACT
INFLUENCE OF THE RACE AND CHARACTER
OF THE DEFENDANT AND VICTIM:
A SIMULATED JURY STUDY
by
WilliamS. Ashmore
Master of Arts i:n Psychology
The present study does not find support for a de:Eensi-..Te
attribution model Tt7hich includes a race manipulation. It: was
hypothesized that within situations of highest relevance to
the white su.bj ect:s the follov1h1g ivould happ-:?.':1.:
defendant is \vhite and attract:.i.v..;e
~oihi.i.c~
the vi.ctim is black
and unattract:ive a very light prison sentence will result;
and (2) :i.f the de.fen(hmt is black ?:lnd 1mattract:Lve ..-,.,;·h:Ll€..: the
victim is white and at:. tractive,
2
vc:ry st:Lff prison sentence
\vill result.
112 undergraduates enrolled i:::-1 introductory Sociology
courses at California State University &t Northridge served
aE:: subj e.cts.
In a 2x2x2x2 fe.ctori.:;:•_l design subjects were
randomly assigned to one combination of the follovJing
treatment C'.t)nditions:
t-'
~J..ffi;
( 1'
.)
~t.,_,...,l.'i"i·ne
a.
i.. ...1... ...._ \, •• '""
v
4
or 'lUr.:tttrac'c:
L.. '-re vicU..-
{
.
..J.. ~
'
(2) attractive or unattractive defendant; (3) black or
wh:i.te victim; and (4) bi.ack or white defendant.
The results of the study did r.ot replicate Landy and
vi
Aronson (1969) or Shaw (1972) and casts some doubt on the
generality of their findings >;.Jhen a. race manipulatJ.on is
included.
vii
INTRODUCTION
We of·ten judge a person in terms of the consequences
of which we perceive him to be the causal origin regardless
of whether such attr:Lbutions can be made logically.
Walster (1966) demonstrated this phenomenon by manipulating
the consequences of an automobile accident resulting from
the same description of the particular youth's pre-accident
driving habits.
The results of her study indicated that
attribution of responsibility is dependent upon the magnitude of consequences (seriousness) of a negative accident
and that the assignment of responsibility increases as the
severity of consequences increases.
Walster's explanation
of this phenomenon was presented as "defensive attr:;.bution".
She theorized that. if the outcome is minor the
perceiver attributes it to chance.
However, if the outcorne
is severe the perceiver cannot make a similar attribution
to chance because of the threatening idea that he too might
suffer a similar misforttme.
In so doing the perceiver
insulates himself from the possibility that this "bad
event" might happen to him in the future.
Lerner's (1965) "belief in a just world" theory can be
ext.:ended to provide another explanation for the above
phenomenon.
Thus, the perceiver of a severe negative
accident (in order to maintain his belief that people get
1
'ljt?hat th.ey deserve) must attribute the :r.e.sponsibility of the
outcome to the victim.
That is to say, the bias that the world is just is more
threatened, the more serious is the outcome.
Thus, it is
clear that Lerner and Walster' s ·theories make
thf~
same pre--
diction (i.e. , as severity of outcome increases for a r;..egative accident the vict::Lm will
bE~
perceived as more :respon-
sible for that outcome).
In addition, Landy and Aronson (1969) present evidence
that given the same objective consequences of a criminal
act, the attractiveness of both the victim and
dc~fendant
are
potent determinants of the severity of judgment of the latter individual.
In two sequential experiments, a standard-·
ized account of negligent automobile homicide was presented
while the attractiveness of the victim and/or defendant was
syst·ematicall.y varied with the dependent measure being the
term of imprisonment prescribed for the defendant.
Subjects
sentenced the unattractive defendant to a significantly
greater number of years of imprisonment than the neutral or
attractive defendant.
Furthermore, the defendant, irrespective of attractiveness, received a significantly longer sentence when his
victim was attractive (versus unattractive).
Shaw (1972) obtairter.l support for these data by using
the same characterization of the victim and defendant as
Landy and Aronson.
Specifically, Sha.w found an interaction
between the·attractiveness of victim and defendant.
That
3
subj E\Cts
1
impressions seeme.d to be considerably more·
negative toward an unattractive victim than toward an at·-.
tractive victim, but only slightly more negative tm.vard an
unattractive defendant (Shmv, 1972).
Shaver 1 s (1970) extension of \.<Jalster 1 s defensive attribution theory provides an explanation for the result:s of
both experiments.
Shaver proposes an analysis of defensive
attribution based on a dual component of relevance.
vanc2 has two components;
pc~rsonal
Rele-
relevance (i.e. , simi-
larity of beliefs, values, and/or personal characteristics),
and situational relevance (i.e., similarity between circumstances of the stimulus person and the perceiver).
Situa-
tional relevance or similarity (without personal :celevance)
is a necessary cause for the arousal of self protective
defensive attribution.
For example, "When the
circumstc:~nces
su.rr·ounding an incident are sufficiently similar to threaten
the subject, he might assign responsibility to the stimulus
person and assure himself that he will avoid the accident
because he is a different kind of person.
This assumed per-
sonal difference prevents his making the same mistakes that
he implicitly accuses the stimulus person of making".
(Shaver, 1970, p. 106).
However, when the incident has both
situational relevance and personal relevance for the perceiver (or subject) a different attribution will arise.
The
perceiver seeks to "avoid blame" that he could have caused
such an accident.
In this situation the perceiver (or sub-
ject) will attribute responsibility to a "chance occurrence".
.1
l..j.
In a slightly different light, Shaw (1972) used this
analysis as it relates to the victim.
In this situation the
perceiver is motiva·ted to insulate himself from the negative
outcome of the victim if the personal relevanc.e is lovJ and
situational relevance is high.
This occuxs because the per-
ceiver seeks to "avoid occurrencen of a similar misfort-une
and would make an attribution, "he isn't like me,
couldn't happen ·to a person like me."
this
However, if the vic-
tim has high personal and situational relevance for the perceiver, a different motivation manifests itself.
The per-
ce:i_ver will then react syrnpathetically toward the victim so
as "to avoid blame" under similar circumstances.
An attri-
bution would be made to the perpetrator of the crime as
being held responsible for what happened to the victim.
Within this research area of defensive attribution, and more
specifically the examination of judging criminal behavior,
additional variables must be investigated.
As Shaver him-
self concludes, "one task of future research should be to
discover other variables, and other situations, which percipitate defensive attribution.
0
(Shaver, 1970, p. 113).
Following through with this, an interesting and badly neglected variable of great practical importance is that of
race.
Neither Landy and Aronson nor Shaw made a mention of
the race of their stimulus persons.
Therefore, the subjects
might have assumed that the stimulus persons were caucasian.
Thus, these findings may not generalize to stimulus persons
who are black.
·-What would be the effect of manipulating the
race qf the defendant and the victim in a situat:LoD. such as
·that
devE~loped
by the previously mentioned
researcb-.:;x."~>
(?)
(Le., Landy and Aronson (1969) and ShavJ (1.972)
According to Rokeach (1960) prejudice is a large
degree the result of perceived dissimilarities of beliefs.
In other \vords,
11
a prejudiced person does not :;:-eject a. per-
son of another race, religion or nationality
ethnic membership per
§_~,
becnu~~e
of. his
but rather because he percei.vet';
that ti-1e other differs from him in important beliefs and
(Stein, Hardyck and Smith, 1965, p. 281).
et al.
Stein
(1965) set out to resolve the contradictory findings
concerning the nature of prejudice (i.e.,
"~itaS
it determined
by racial factors or belief similarity/ dissimilarity fac· .
tors).
Their results primarily supported the belief sim-
ilarity hypothesis of Rokeach.
Those few responses that
were evidence of race prejudice v:ere in instances where:
institutionalized prejudices may have affected the way the
subjects normally respond (i.e., dating ·across racial lines
and mixed marriages).
Consistent with Rokeach and Stein et al. 's theorizing
is the notion that race, Eer
sonal attraction.
is unrelated to interper-
However, from the
vie~~oint
of Shaver's
analysis, race will function so as to either heighten or detract from perceived personal rei.evance of the stimulus person.
Within the present study, race will be investigated
employing the same experimental des:Lgn as in Landy and
Aronson's research.
In essence, this experiment will be an
6
e.x.t:ended replication of the Landy and Aronson Experiment II
including manipulation of race of defendant and victim in
light of the explanations Shaver and Rokeach put forth.
Situational relevance. in this study is the situation
invol~
ving an accidental automobile homicide. Additionally, situational •:elevance is constant across conditions 2.nd assumed
to be high.
On the other hand, personal relevance for the
subjects will vary depending upon the race and attractiveness variables.
Specifically, within the situations of
highe.st relevance to the white subjects (personal and situational) the following predictions are made:
(1) if the
defendant is white and attractive while the victim is black
and unattractive a very light prison sentence will result;
and (2) if the defendant is black and unattractive Hhile
the victim is white and attractiv·e, a very stiff prison
sentence will result.
It should be reiterated that race
1J-7ill function so as to either heighten or detract from per··
ceived personal relevance (e.g., white stimulus persons
should be perceived as more
11
personally relevant" then
black stimulus to white subjects).
An alternative prediction is based on the reality that
most "liberal" white college students, when alerted to a
si.tuat.ion involving racial makeup, will respond in a
11
socially desirable" way.
They will behave in an overcom-
pensating fashion so they will not be considered prejudiced
by the experimenter.
A result of this type of "socially
desirable" behavior would be an overcompensation for black
defendants and victims (which could override the ·previousl:r
melYtioned predictions of defensive attribution).
In conclusion it should be noted that the relationship
bet·ween such extralegal faetors (e.g. , race and degree of
attrac>ti.veness of the defendant and victim) and the judgment of various criminal offenses presents an extremely
intriguing area of study of the interconnec·tion of psycho·,.
logy and the law and may have far reaching implications for
the administration of justice.
The implications are of ut-
mos1: importance in light of the follovdng quote from Stuart
Nagel's
11
The Tipped Scales of American Justice", "The
Fourteenth Ainendment to the Constitution of the United
States asserts that no state of local government shall
'deny any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection ·of the laws.'
Other clauses to the Bill of
Rights guarantee the right to a lawyer and a fair and
speedy trial by jury.
However, do all defendants and vic-
tims of crimes in America get the full benefit of these
guarantees?" (Nagel, 1965, p. 3).
HET'HOD
Basic
De~_!:&£!:·
factorial.
The design of this experiment is a 2x2x.2x2
This design includes two levels of attract:ive~
nesg for the victim, two levels of attr·activeness for the
defendant (i.e. , una.t:i::::::active and attractive),
of race of the defenda.nt and two
lE-.~vels
t\¥0
levels
of race of the vic·-
tim (i.e., black and wbite).
?ubj ects.
112 male and fema.le c.aucasian subjects from
introductory Sociology courses were recruited in three separat.e groups for 2.n experiment on judicial judgment.
Re-
cruitment of the subjects was accomplished by securing the
approval of the instructor involved.
Subjects were ran-
domly assigned to the various experimental treatment comb:Ln··
at:Lons.
The.re vlere 7 subjects in each of the 16 cells.
Proceduxe.
:,,::~-ten
all subjects for a given sessi.::m had
arr.i:ved, they were greeted by the experimenter who thanked
them for their participation.
He then distributed self-
explan.atory experimental booklets and answered preliminary
questions.
Next the experimente-r explained that the book':"'
lets contained all necessary instructions and had the sub-
jects ccmmence, telling them to take as much time as they
\<iished.
At the conclusion of the session the subjects were told
that they would be debriefed after all sessions of the
8
experiment wer(-; completed.
The debriefing came the
following week in the fo:cm of a typed letter.
The descriptions of the negligent automobile homicide
remained the same as those in Landy and Aronson Experiment
II except for changes in the account of the offense so as
to make it a more credible story for a Los Angeles setting.
The description of the crime as presented in the case account is presented below:
"The employees of the Harbor
Times v.1here Spence worked were having a Christmas party on
the afternoon of the 24th.
P.M.
By 5:00 P.M.
The party began at around 2:00
some people were already leaving for
home, although many continued to drink and socialize.
Spence, 'tvho by this time had had several drinks, was offered
a lift home by a co-worker who did not drink and who suggested that Spence leave his car in the parking lot and
pick it up when he was in "better shape."
Spence declined
the offer claiming he •;;.ms "stone sober" and would manage
fine.
By the time Spence finished another drink, the party
was beginning to break up.
Spence left the party and went
to get his car in a nearby lot.
this time of day.
Traffic was very heavy at
Spence was only six blocks from the
parking lot when he was stopped by a policeman for reckless
driving.
It was quite apparent to the officer that Spence
had been drinking.
Rather than give him a ticket on
Christmas Eve, he said he would let Spence off if he would
prm::l:i.se to leave his car and take a taxi.
Spence agreed.
The officer called a taxi, and Spence got i.nto it.
The
10
minute the taxi ·turned the corner, hmvever, Spence told the
driver to pull over to the curb and let him out.
t:h~n
started back to where his car was parked.
Spence
Upon
reaching his car, he proceeded to start it up and dr:f.ve
off.
He had driven four blocks from the street vJhere the
police officer had stopped him when he ran a red light ::1nd
struck John Crane.
Crane died a few minu:tes later on his
way to the hospital.
It was later ascertained that inter-
nal hemorrhaging was the cause of death.
Charles Spence
was apprehended and charged with negl:f.gent automobile homicide.
The· police examiner '.s report indicated that Spence's
blood alcohol clearly exceeded the legal limit for
intoxication."
Below are aggregate descriptions of the caucasia.n
stimulus persons.
Note these descriptions were not pre-
sentcd in this way, but ra-ther, they were inserted at the
appropriate place in the case account (depending on which
condition the subject was in).
These descriptions were
primarily based on the descriptions Landy and Aronson used.
Additionally, the race manipulation was accomplished by
either:
(l) not mentioning race of stimulus person (this
is then assumed to be caucasian); or (2) placing the phrase
"a negro" after the stimulus person'. s name is mentioned.
Attractive Victim.
"John Crane, a well liked teacher at
Harbor College and a prominent member of the community ....
he vms active in setting up many public service programs.
At the time of the incident he was on his way to the local
1. 1.
Yo·uth Crisis Center ·vJhere he was a part-time cm.mselor.
Crane had been mar:ried for 15 ye.ars and is survived by his
wife and teenage daughter."
Unattractive Victim.
"John Crane, a heroin addict, v-;ras
involved in many syndicate-controlled rackets such as sales
of narcotics and illegal gambling.
Crane was best known
for his alleged connection V.Tith the Carter Junior High
heroin sales arrest a fe\.v months prior.
At the tim01 of the
incident, Crane was carrying $2, 000 w·orth of narcotics and
a loaded pistol."
Attractive-Defendant.
"Charles Spence is the head writer
for the Harbor Times newspaper where he has worked for over
20 years.
Spence was well known as a fair and honest man
by his friends and co-workers.
Spence has been married for
12 years and has t"'Jo children " ... Charles Spence received
no major injuries ..... Spence's traffic record showed he
had received no moving violations in the past 5 years.
Unattractive Defendant.
11
Charles Spence, a 30 year old
unskilled construction worker, "'ms virtually unknown by
fellow construction workers . . . . Charles Spence received
no major injuries .... Spence had several lesser charges of
assault and battery and breaking and entering on his crim-
inal record in the past five years.
Both of these charges
were dropped for lack of evidence, however.
His traffic
record showed three tickets for speeding and two for drunk
• .
d r~v:Lng.
At the time of the incident, Spence was driving
~ithout
a license.
It had been revoked for a past
conviction of drunk driving.
11
Following the description of the case account were
several pages of questions concerning the subject's impres-·
sions of ·the defendant and victim and the guilt of t.he
defendant.
(Please refer to Appendix A).
were set
on a 9-point scale with appropriately labeled
tlp
e:nd points.
The questions
Upon completing these questions, the subjects
were requested to sentence the defendant for the. crime of
negligent: automobile homicide to a specific number of years
imprisonment according to their own personal judgment.
The
subjects were told that the crime was punishable from 1 to
20 years imprisonment.
A copy of this question is pre-
sented in Appendix B.
A copy of the post experimental questionnaire is
presented in Appendix C.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This
sectio~
checks of tbe::.
will be divided into four categories:
expr:~rhr!'.-c:ntal
manipulation; the experime·£lta l
effects on the main dependent variable
de. •fe11Cl,<]_nr
.
__ . -- ...·
'~!->-- r~ .•. f".r~_J-"'>
;-•c.L-'iL
~
, f;;_ ..---~
(n1~ber
of years the
tO p•·'_ ·:r·-~.J..i:>l.hL
,.~.,.,)'> the
eXD'-'r-'i,-.-.,ntal
i
~~ '·
.<.1!!'•"-
affect•~
~
,
~-
o:r
tvm additional dependent variables dea.ling ·1.·1ith the pe::-ceived
hars.bnes~;
of
t\\7 0
contrasted hypothetical .se:J.ter:.ce.s
for the crime; .snd the conclusions that can be dra'\;-;rn frcm
these dato.
To check on the manipulation of race,
§_l?._ v1ere asked to respond to the items:
defendant, Charles Spence?", and
John Crar'.e?".
"Caucasian 11
,
11
"Hhar: race is the
What race is the victim,
Three possible x.·esponses were listed:
"Negro:' or "don't knmv".
The first rating
(rac.e. of d.eferJda.nt) was found to be a function only of :race
of defendant.
Chi square analysis of the response frequen-
cies of this rnan:i.pulation \->7ere performed to check on
i,7hethe.r the race was correctly per:cei ved.
that
Uh=-~
black de[e.ndar!t
-~qas
It was found
correctly perceived as being
a negro si:nce the one·-way analysis failed to yield any
significant: difference from the expected values'
d .c-2
-~--,
- ...... l4Q)
E_....--.
;.
•
of!:=. 16,
However, the cne way chi square analysis of
th(.;: white qefendant condition revealed a significant dif·.
ference
fro~
the
cxpect~d
values,
13
!')
(X-::.:30, 02' d~_=2'
E_.(.
001) '
J.4
such that the most frequent response was "don't
know~.
Similar results were obtained for the manipulation
check en r.:.:.ce of victim. Ss' .responses were onl.y a fiJ.:nctiOl1
of race of vi.ctim.
'l'he chi square analysis was almost
identical to the analysis of race of defendant.
but, the white victim condition significantly deviated from
the expect~ed values
<X2 34.54,
df.=2,
:e.<. 001).
Once a<;;;ain
the dev.:La Lion was crea·ted by the large frequency of "don' c.
know" re:::;ponses.
The chi square frequencies are presented
in Table Ic
The success of the manipulation of race, in li.ght o:E
the above results 1 should be conside;-:,:::d.
o~·1
two levels.
'rhe
first level is composed of t.he very successful manipula·tion
of race with regard to the black stimulus persons (both defendant and victim) . The next level is composed of the apparently unsuccessful attempt to manipulate race with regard
to the white stimulus persons.
This result is most probably
due to the differential method of manipulating race.
How-
ever, race was manipulated explicitly when the stimulus person was black (e.g., "Charles Spence, a negro, is the ... ")
and implici-tly when the stimulus person was white {t.g.,
"Clarles Spence is the head writer .... ") because of pos-·
sible demand
charac~eristics
that might arise if race was
explicitly stated in both instances.
Additionally, it
should be noted that check of the frequency of responses
under the response categories reveals that out of a total
15
TABLE I
ONE-HAY CHI SQUARE ANALYSIS OF THE
MANIPULATION CHECK OF RACE
Ss RESPONSE:
w1IITE
DON'T
KNOW
~
~"-----+--s_:_6=-~·
1_2_56~--1--0-~
WHITE
a2
BLACK
~ 00
EXPERH1ENTAL
CONDITION:
HIJ\CK
___
BLACK = . 02~'~-
DEFENDANT'S RACE
Ss RESPONSE:
WRITE
BLA.CK
Dm~
1
T KN0\1.7
r~~Js~
EXPERIHENTAL
CONDITION.
BLACK
I
0
s6
WHITE
15
53
~-u
1
I
3
~··--L,o
I
o"'l
I
~----_.------~·~~~~
x_2 BLACK
·k
?'d;-
=
.
16~''"
x.2
\illiTE
= 30. 01*~'"
NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROH EXPECTED VALUES.
SIGNIFICANT
:e.<. 001;
df=2
1.6
of 56'Ss in the"whit.e Victim condition. only one S gave a
response under the category "Negro""
The same result ·waf3
found in the black defendant condition where only one out
of 56 Ss responded other then "Negro".
The conclusion
dra-wn is that even though the white stimulus persons were
not perceived as such in a statistically significant way,
the stimulus person definitely was not perceived as being
black.
One possible explanation for this result might be
that white college students, in order to not be seen as
prejudiced, would react in this way:
That is w·hen the race
is unstated the "socially desirable" way to respond to a
question of race is to indicate a "don't know" response.
The check on the experimental manipulation of attractiveness of both the victim and· defendartt was presented to
the S iri the following questions:
"From the case account,
hmv attractive does the victim seem to you?." and "From the
case account, how attractive does the defendant seem to
you? 1 '
11
Its endpoints were coded "extremely attractive 11 and
extremely unattractive".
Analysis revealed attractiveness
of the victim was only a function of itself, (F=163.28,
df=l/96, £<.001).
No other effects approached signifi-
cance, (all other Fs<l. 52).
As a result, the manipulation
of attractiveness of the victim v;-as successful.
Manipulation of the attractive.ness of the defendant
was also successful
(~=42.09,
df=l/96, £<.001), but adc;li-
ti.onal effects were also found.
One of the three addi-
tional experimental effects was a main effect,
17
attractiveness of victim, which showed a contrast effect
(that a defendant was perceived as more attractive if the
. . 'i,1as unattractlve
. ).
VJ..Ctlm
The two remaining effects were
dual order interaction effects and help to qualify both
main effects.
Those interaction effects are:
(1) an
attractiveness of victim x race of defendant x race of
victim interaction (F=6.80, df=l/96, E_~.OS).
Closer in-
spection of the attractiveness of victim x r.'ace of defendant interaction indicates that the contrast effect works
best when the defendant is black.
Similar inspection of
the attractiveness of defendant x race of victim interaction shows that the interaction is due to heightened
attractiveness effect when the victim is black.
Judicial Severity.
The main dependent variable was found
under the heading "Judge and Sentence the Defendant" and
was worded as follows:
"I sentence the defendant, Charles
Spence, to the follm·;ring number of years imprisonment:".
Then, subjects had to make one response with options :ranging from 1 - 25 years.
A sample of this complete present-
ation is found in Appendix B.
were found.
Four significant effects
Two of them are main effects, and two of them
were higher order interactions.
The analysis of variance
is presented in Table II, and the associated cell means for
the interactions are in Tables III and IV.
fects are as follows:
The main ef-
Race of victim main effect was not
in the expected direction but was significant (F=7.58,
df=l/96, £<.01) and the main effect of attractiveness of
1.8
defendant 'was in the expected direction and significant
1\ F'-"1
_- J _ 2~
"0 ' £__-lf-1/q'·
- o ' E<. 01)
··- .
.. ...)
Inspection of all cell means
reveals that the defendant received more years if the. victim was black and, additionally, the defendant received
more years if he was unattractive.
However, if these main effects are taken together.with
t:he interaction effects a more complet..:e picture is realized.
The first is an attractiveness of defendant x race of victim interaction where t:he unattractive defendant receives
more years in prison especially if the victim is black
(F=S.lO, df=l/96, E_<.Ol).
The second higher order inter-
action is a triple interaction composed of race of victim
x race of defendant x attractiveness of victim
df=l/96, E_<.OS).
(~=6.25,
This triple interaction is due to an in-
crease in punitiveness as attraction decreases but
~nly
for
the· situation of a black defendant and black victim.
The failure to find any sort of attractiveness of victim x attractiveness of defendant interaction in the main
dependent measure does not replicate either Landy and
Aronson (1969) or Shaw (1972).
This creates doubt as to
whether these researcher's results will generalize when
the racial makeup of the victim and defendant is brought
into the situation.
A main effect of attractiveness of the
defendant was found which is in accordance with the initial
study reported by Landy and Aronson (1969).
Study II of
Landy and Aronson (1969) and Shaw (1972), however, did not
19
TABLE II
AJ.,IAL~{SIS
OF VARIANCE OF ltiAIN DEPENDENT VARIABLE
df
Sf)£J·r:CE
"'-~--•~-•~
·--~a~~
ss
MS
F
Victim)
1
273.43
273.43
7. 58'k
c1f Defendant)
.1..
'1
110.00
110.00
3.05
.13
A (Race cf
<1
JJ
(l:t~-J..c~e
rv
(t\ tt:ra.e t:i.vE~ness of
Vict.im)
1
4. 72
4.72
D (/\ t: t~'J.:'Cl (~ t j_ \l2.T~(3. S S of
1
444.01
Lt.4l~.
.{~[)
1
18.08
18.08
.50
AC
1
27.01
27.01
.75
BC
1
114.01
114001.
3.16
AD
1
292.51
292 . .51
8.10'k
BD
1
31.08
31.08
.86
CD
1
.89
.89
.00
ABC
1
225.72
225.72
6. 25*~'(
ABD
1
35. l}4
35. 41+
.98
.L
2.58
2.58
•
BCD
1
J.
2.01
2.01
.05
ABCD
1
4. 72
4. 72
.13
Dt:::
01
12. 3Q•k
i-: E~tLcJt:tJ·l·t)
l..
-
ACD
TOTAL
Jl~64.
96
*
Significant P<.01; df=l/96
l't:'i'(
S igni.fican.t
E_<. OS;
0 f
d+=}/
.i.
•.
j)
57
36.08
o-,
I
TABLE III
CELT..~ MEA~1·;3
I~(JP~ R.AC~J~
(JF VICTI}'I X
ATTRACTIVF;NESS OF DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT:
ATTRACTIVE
r·
WHITE
--"
UNATTRACTIVE
-
6.0
6. 7
5.6
13.1
RACE OF VICTIH:
BLACK
NOTE:
THE LARGER THE NUMBER THE MORE YEARS SENTENCED TO
PRISON.
TABLE IV
CELL HEANS FOR RACE OF VICTIM X
RACE OF DEFENDANT X ATTRA.CTIVENESS
OF VICTI11
WHITE VICTU1:
-
. --11-
AT..::r..fu\CT]:':...J';..;.;TF:.;,.'~..;;;.U;;.;.;.NA;;.;;;,T:;;.:'J;;;..;;~RACT IVE
~·-·
~VHITE
"RACE OF
DEFENDANT:
BLACK
P---7-.2--~~---6~
6. 8
4 6
I
L-------~~
BLACK VICTIM:
UNATTRACTIVE
ATTRACTIVE
l.JHITE
RACE OF'
·-
DEFENDANT:
BLACK
NOTE:
8.7
13.0
5.4
---·
10.8
THE LARGER THE NUMBER THE MORE YEARS SENTENCED TO
PRISON.
22
find this effect.
On the contrary, the attractiveness of
the victim appeared to be of primary importance.
Further, in failing to replicate (in full) it should
be noted that Shaver's analysis of defensive attribution
does not hold u.p as an ex]:>lanation of all the results of the
main dependent variable.
Specifically, the main effect of
attractiveness of the defendant is the only result (of the
main dependent variable) that is completely cons is tent 1;17i.th
Shaver's analysis.
A possible explanation for these data will be presented in the last part of this section after the results of
the other dependent measures are discussed.
Perceived Harshness of Two Hypothetical Sentences.
Two additional dependent measures are concerned with
the Ss perceived harshness of two contrasted hypothetical
prison sen.tences.
They both were worded exactly the same
way, the only difference being the number of years prescribed in the prison sentence.
-vmrded thusly:
is."
The two questions
"~;<7ere
"a sentence of 20 (or 5) years imprisonment
The scale following the questions had as endpoints
"extremely lenient" and "extremely harsh."
Analysis of
variance for the question concerning a sentence of 20 years
resulted in obtaining only one experimental effect.
effect for attractiveness of the defendant
(~=4.
A main
26, df=l/ 96,
E.<. 05) show·s that a sentence of 20 years is perceived to be
significantly more hard for an attractive versus an unattractive defendant.
23
Analysis of the second question on perceived harshness
of a 5 year prison sentence yielded three significant effects, t·wo which are the same as those found for the main
dependent measure.
The two main effects are race of defen-
dan.t (f_=4. 06,
d~=l/96,
E_·'-:05) and attractiveness of defen-
dant (F=8.35,
~f=l/96,
E_"-.01).
The attractiveness effect
was in the expected direction with the mm:e attractive the
defendant was perceived to be the more harsh the sentence
1-vas perceived to be.
The race effect for the defendant \vas
not in the expected direction.
If the defendant 1vas black,
the 5 year sentence was perceived as more harsh than if the
defendant was white.
The f::Lnal significant result was a
triple order interaction involving race of the victim x race
of the defendant x attractiveness of the victim (F=8.86,
df=l/96, .:e_<.Ol).
This interaction qualifies the main effect
of race of defendant and can be analyzed as .follows:
When
the victim and defendant are of the same race, perceived
harshness of sentence increases as attractiveness of victim
increases; and alternatively, when the victim and defendant
are of different races, the sentence is seen to be too harsh
if the victim is unattractive.
The cell means for this
interaction is presented in Table V.
The interpretation of
these data is unclear.
A discussion of the results of the preceding two dependent variables is synonymous with the one given under the
main dependent variable.
Briefly, this includes:
(1) fail-
ure to replicate either Landy and Aronson (1969) or Shaw
TABLE V
CELL MEANS FOR RACE OF VICTIM X
RACE OF DEFENDANT X ATTRACTIVENESS
OF VICTIM
vlliiTE VIGT IM:
ATTRACTIVE
UNATTRACTIVE
BLACK VICTIM:
ATTRACTIVE
UNATTRACTIVE
WHITE
3.0
3.9
BLACK
5.0
4.2
RACE OF
DEFENDANT:
NOTE:
THE LARGER THE NUMBER THE MORE SEVERE A 5-YEAR
PRISON SENTENCE WAS PERCEIVED TO BE.
25
(1 97 )) e;:;.;.:ccpt: fcc the
for
at:r:r.jctiV('TF~·::;;c;
:initial
rc:sea:rc~.i.
('.~Yi:J;SiS
tent
OU.tC.OffiE:
of a main effect
of defendant (which >:vas only found in the
I..cw.dy and Aronson (1969)
; and (2) failure
ef data to cc,nfecm to the main hypothesis of this investiga'cion.
It :Ls apparent that black stimulus persons precipit::t-
tecJ n•ore IHmit:}3o:::
[,{?nter~.ces
to be given out t:o the defen ..
r.:hat race
r:_~r
se was the primary
An alternative explanation for these data (i.e., all
dependent measures discussed) are presented in the next part
of this section.
Conclusions.
First it should be pointed out in regard to
m.anipula.tion of race that if the race is not specified (as
in Landy and Aronson, Shaw, and the present study the \vhite
stimulus persons) and Ss are asked to identify the stimulus
persons raee, there is some confusion in that identification.
To reiterate, the possible explanation of this result,
it wc-:s hypothesized that when the race is unstated the
"socially desirable" way to respond to a question of race is
to indicate a "don't know" response.
Secondly, discussion of the possible explanation of
the results of the three dependent variables is needed. This
explanation was presented originally in the introduction,
hypothesized as a "socially desirablerr way to respond in the
given situation.
Specifically, the Ss were alerted that
this was a situation involving racial makeup and therefore
they should react in a "socially desirable" fashion.
This
26
would be manifested in behaving inan overcompensating
manner so that they are not considered prejudiced by the
experimcmter.
The resulting behavior vmuld involve over-
compensat)_on for black stimulus persons.
This outcome
~vas
indeed revealed in the dependent measures.
In sum, it is quite easily seen that the race manipulation has cast some doubt on the generality of previous
research in this area of study.
Not only does inclusion of
racial makeup in a defensive attribution study fail to fit
previous models, it might well react in a quite contrary
manne1.~.
vJ:Lth this in mind, it is very important to realize
that if this is possible
a
bution models is warranted.
serious look at defensive attriIn fact, it very well may be
that in situationspercipitating.defensive· attribution and
involving racial makeup another mechanism(s) may override
defensive attribution.
This mechanism may v.ery well be
a "socially desirable" way of responding.
Horeover, social
desirability may manifest itself in two different ways, depending upon the individual's social environment.
Either
over-compensation or prejudice (against an individual) are
the two possible directions social desirability could take
in this situation.
27
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Landy, D. and Aronson, E. The influence of the character of
the criminal and bis victim on the decisions of simulated jurors. ~01!X:!?:.~:..l... _?.~_!:x_Qerimental Social
D
h J
JC6t:;
'L -~)
'~··,··
~ILZ£~..:2..:!.:..2..&Y.,
. Y -' . ;:._.
:>- .:>r,6('
.., u .
Learue1·, Xt. ..T. Evaluation of performance as a function o.f
pt~rforme.r' s reward and attractiveness.
Journal of
k'_~El_?:q~!:':lli.!.Y_and Social Psychology, 1965, -r,-355~.::Jb0.
Nagel, S.S. The tipped scales of A.meric.an justice. Trar:.sc~~l~11
A
_:_:::~.;.~:._•
19'~
. 0 I,
,
~
J-
9•
Rokeacb, 1'1. (Ed.) The_Qpen and closed _mind.
Books, 1960.
New York: Basic
Shaver, K.G. Defensive attribution: Effects on severitv and
relevance on the responsibility assigned for an ·
accident.
JournaLof P_ersonality <;1.nd Social P~:::_hol­
ogy, 1970, 14, 101 - 1103.
Shaw, .J.I. Reactions to victims and defendants of v~rying
degrees of attractiveness.
Psychonomic Science.,
1972, 27, 329 -330.
Stein, D.D., Hardyck, J.A., and Smith, M.B. Race and belief:
An open and 3hut case.
Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 281 - 289.
~valster, E. Assignment: of responsibility for an accident .
...TQ.~;:.nal of Personality- and Social Psyc.hology, 1966,
3. 7.3 - 79 .
APPENDICES
28
APPENDIX A
EXPERIMENTAL QUESTIONS
29
,..
3v
Please answer the questions as frankly and as
accurately as possible.
section.
Do not refer back to the preceding
Simply write in your response in the space pro-
vided or circle that number on the give.n scale -;;r;hich best
represents the way you feel.
1.
What race is the defendant, Charles Spence?
Negro ___
Caucasian
2.
What race was the victim, John Crane?
Negro _ _
Caucasian
3.
4
5
6
7
8
9
extremely
serious
1
2
3
L~
5
6
7
8
9
extremely
not guilty
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
extremely
attractive
1. 2
3
Lj.
5
6
7
8
9
extremely
a·ttractive
Do you feel that for the crime talked about in the case
account a sentence of 5 years imprisonment is:
extremely
lenient
8.
3
From the case account, how attractive does the victim
seem to you?
extremely
unattractive
7.
2
crime
·From the case account, how attractive does the defendant
seem to you?
extremely
unattractive
6.
1
th.:\
t.c.:
How guilty of the crime do you feel the defendant is?
extremely
guilty
5.
Don' t kno\i·-7
In your opinion, how serious an offense was
described in the case account?
extremely
minor
Lt.
Don't know
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
extremely
harsh
How similar to yourself do you feel the victim to be?
extremely
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 extremely
dissimilar
similar
31
9.
Ho'lf7 similar to yourself do· you feel the defendant to
be?
extremely
dissimilar
10.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
extremely
similar
Do you feel that for the crime talked about in the
case account a sentence of 20 years imprisonment is:
extremely
lenient
11.
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
e.xtremelv
harsh
"'
To which social class -vmuld you categorize the victim,
John Crane?
upper class
middle class
working class
lower class
don!t know
12.
To which social class would you categorize the
defendant, Charles Spence?
upper class
middle class
working class
lmver class
don't know
APPENDIX B
INSTRUCTIONS FOR
SENTENCING THE DEFENDANT
32
33
Judge and Sentence the Defendant
Your task is to judge and sentence th0 defendant,
CharlE·s Spence.
It is yo·ur personal opinion concerning the
sentence which is of interesthere and not how you feel
others would pass judgment or how you feel you should react.
Take as mu.ch time as you want in making you decision.
In sentencing the defendant, do not consider the possibil-ity of parole.
This is beyond your jurisdiction and is
dependent mainly on the criminal 1 s behavior once he reaches
prison.
Also, make certain that you indicate your sentence
as a single number (any number from 1 to 25 years), not
zero and not a fraction or range of numbers.
After arriv-
ing at a decision, indicate your sentence by carefully
circling the appropriate number of years on the scale
below.
I sentence the defendant, Charles Spence, to the following number of years imprisonment:
1
16
2
3
17
4
5
18
19
6
7
20
8
21
9
22
10
23
11
24
12
25
13
14
15
APPENDIX C
POST EXPERil>fENTAL QUESTIONS
SEX
AGE
RACE.
----·---·
Please respond briefly to the following questions.
1.
(a) Were all instructions clear to you?
able to carry them out as requested?
2.
(a) Do you have any ideas, more specifically, of what
this survey is about? If so, briefly describe what
they are.
(b) What specific questions do you think
are being examined?
3.
Comments:
(b) Were you
APPENDIX D
SAMPLE EXPERIMENTAL BOOKLET
36
-1-
We would like to ask for your cooperation in a survey
regarding judicial judgment.
Please follovl the directions
carefully.
In this survey, we are interested in comparing the
s::.mulated jury decisions with real jury decisions in
various criminal cases.
This booklet contains a brief account of a criminal
offense followed by a few questions in which you are asked
to give your personal opinion concerning the case.
Anony-
mity is guaranteed.
Thank you very much.
We appreciate your cooperation.
3 0p
-2- There are three sections in this booklet.
All work on
a given section should be completed before passing to the
next section.
Please do not look at the succeeding section
until you have completed the one preeeding it.
much time as you like within each
section~
-
Take as
but once you
pass to a new section please do not reread any portion
whatsoever of the questionaire_which you have already completed.
In addition, note that not all case accounts are
the same so please do not look at the responses of anyone
else.
This is very important.
When you have finished reading the case account,
please answer the questions concerning ·what you have read
and continue on to the next section.
In the next section
you are asked to sentence the defendant described in the
case ac.count to a specific number of years .imprisonment.
Specific instructions will be given to you on page 8.
Take
as much time as needed in contemplating the case before you
finally sentence the defendant.
Remember that we areinter-
ested in nothing but your own personal judgment, and not
how you feel others might react to the case or how you fee.l
you should react to it.
One other thing - in making your
sentence, consider the question of parole as being beyond
your jurisdiction.
That is, sentence the defendant irres-
pective of whether or not you feel he should have the
opportunity for parole after a certain number of years in
prison.
-4taxi..
Spence agreed.
Spence got into it.
The officer called for a taxi, and
The minute the taxi turned the corner,
hm,•ever, Spence told the driver to pull ov2r to the curb
and let him out.
was parked.
Spence then started back to where his car
Upon reaching his car, he proceeded to start
it up and drive off.
He had driven four blocks from the
street where the police officer had stopped him \.;rhen he ran
a red light and struck John Crane, a well liked Negro teacher at Harbor College.
his way to the hospital.
Crane died a fe\v minutes later on
It was later ascertained that in-
ternal hemorrhaging was the cause of death.
Crane, a
prominent member of the community, was active in setting up
many public service programs.
At the time of the incident,
Crane was on his way to the local Youth Crisis Center where
he was a part time counselor.
Crane had been married for
15 years and is survived by his wife and teeriage daughter.
Charles Spence, who received no major injuries, was
apprehended and charged with negli.gent automobile homocide.
Spence's traffic record showed he received one moving violation in the past 5 years.
The police medical examiner's report indicated that
Spence's blood alcohol clearly exceeded the legal limit for
intoxication.
-5-·
Please answer the questions as frankly and as
accurately as possible.
section.
Do not refer back to the preceding
Simply w-rite in your respon.se in the space pro-
vided or circle that number on the given scale which best
represents the way you feel.
1.
"t-Jhat race is the defendant, Charles Spence?
Negro
Caucasian
2.
What race
~vas
the victim, John Crane?
In your opinion, how serious an offense was the crime
described in the .case account?
extremely
minor
4.
4
5
6
7
8
9
extremely
serious
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
extremely
not guilty
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
extremely
attractive
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
extremely
attractive
Do you feel that for the crime talked about in the case
account a sentence of 5 years imprisonment is:
extremely
lenient
8.
3
From the case account, how attractive does the victim
seem to you?
extremely
unattractive
7.
2
From the case account, how attractive does the
defendant seem to you?
extremely
unattractive
6.
1
How guilty of the crime do you feel the defendant is?
extremely
guilty
5.
Don't know
Negro
Caucasian
3.
Don't know
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
extremely
harsh
Hmv similar to yourself do you feel the victim to be?
extremely
dissimilar
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
extremely
similar
r q
'-~L
-69.
How similar to yourself do you fe.el. ·the defendant· to
be?
extremely
dissimilar
10.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
extremely
similar
Do you feel that for the crime talked about in the
case account a sentence of 20 years imprisonment.is:
extremely
lenient
11.
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 .8
9
extremely
harsh
To which social class would you categorize the victim,
John Crane?
upper class
middle class
working class
lower class
don't knmv
12.
To which social class would you categorize the
defendant, Charles Spence?
upper class
middle class
'.vorking class
lower class
don't know
-7-
BEFORE YOU BEGIN WORKING ON THE NEXT SECTION HAKE SURE THAT
ALL YOUR RESPONSES ARE COHPLETE.
ONCE YOU TURN THIS PAGE
PLEASE DO NOT RE-EXAMINE ANY OF THE PRECEDING }1ATERIAL.
-8Judge and Sentence the Defend.ant
Your task is to judge and sentence the. defendant,
Charles Spence.
It is your personal opili.ion concerning the
sentence which is of interest here and not how you feel
others would pass judgment or hmv you feel you should react.
Take as much time as you want in making your decision.
In
sentencing the defendant, do not consider the possibility
of parole.
This is beyond your jurisdiction and is depen-
dent mainly on the criminal's behavior once he reaches
prison.
Also, make certain that you indicate your sentence
as a single number (any number from 1 to 25 years), not
zero and not a fraction or range of numbers.
After arriv-
ing at a decision, indicate your sentence by carefully
cir.cling the appropriate number of years on the scale below.
I sentence the defendant, Charles Spence, to the following number of years imprisonment:
1
17
2
3
18
4
19
5
20
6
7
21
8
9
22
23
10
24
11
25
12
13
14
15
16
-9-
BEFORE YOU BEGIN ON THE NEXT SECTION, PLEASE HAKE SURE THAT
ALL YOUR RESPONSES ARE COMPLETE.· ONCE YOU TURN THIS PAGE
PLEASE DO NOT RE-·EXAMINE ANY OF THE PRECEDING MATERIAL.
-10--
SEX
AGE
RAGE
Please respond briefly to the following questions.
1.
(a) Were all instructions clear to you?
able to carry them out as requested?
2.
(a) Do you have any ideas, more specifically, of what
this survey is about? If so, briefly describe what
they are.
(b) \\That specific questions do you think are
being examined?
3
Comments:
(b) Were you