W7. . ./ LIBRARy $ Mich W3“IllifllfljlyfljlllllflllfltfllfllflMW 1“ mg; {a This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Effects of a Defendant's Physical Attractiveness and Experimental Procedures on Juridic Judgments presented by Michael J. Sunnafrank has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for MasLemLAntsiegree in Communication MM Major professor Date—mm— 0-7639 THE EFFECTS OF A DEFENDANT'S PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS AND EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES ON JURIDIC JUDGMENTS BY Michael James Sunnafrank A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Communication 1978 ABSTRACT THE EFFECTS OF A DEFENDANT'S PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS AND EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES ON JURIDIC JUDGMENTS BY Michael James Sunnafrank The present study focused on identifying the possible effects of a defendant's physical attractiveness and sex on jurors' judgments under various experimental conditions. More specifically, four studies were conducted to examine whether a defendant's attractiveness influenced the decisions of role-playing jurors. In each of these studies, subjects were shown either a physically attractive or unattractive male or female defendant. In two further conditions, subjects were told that the de— fendant was male or female but the defendant was not shown. A comparison of the four studies was conducted to determine if the amount of information presented, mode of presentation, or type of evi- dence presented influenced juridic decisions. The results of these studies indicated that while the defendant's attractiveness did not influence juridic decisions, the mode of presen- tation and type of evidence presented did. Dedicated to Mom and Dad ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to extend my sincere appreciation to the members of my committee, Dr. Gerald R. Miller, Dr. Norman E. Fontes, and Dr. Hal Hepler, for their constant help and guidance. I would also like to thank Ed Kaminski for his much needed advise concerning the videotape equipment employed in these studies. In addition, I would like to thank Donna, Shana, and Ryan for putting things in their proper perspective with their love, laughter, and understanding. iii Chapter II III INTRODUCTION .............................. ..... TABLE OF CONTENTS Statement of the Problem ..... ... ..... . ....... .......... Theoretic Perspective ..... ..... ..... . ...... . PROCEDURES.... Definitions.... Physical Attractiveness .............. ..... ......OOOOOOOOOOO00...... Perceived Morality................J.... Perceived Intelligence............ ..... Perceived Locus of Control............. Likelihood of Future Crime............. Verdict .......... ..... ................. Severity of Sentence................... Information Retention.. .......... ........ Design ......... . ............... .......... Selecting a Trial Transcript. ............... Preparing the Stimuli....................... Instructions to the Subjects................ Description of Subjects................................ Overview .......... ..... ............ . ........ ... ........ RESULTS.... ............. ..... ..... .......... Hypothesis 0.0.0.0.... Manipulation Check........... ..... ............ . .. .. 1.0.0.... ..... O ..... .... 0000000000000 O 2. ...... O ......... ......OOOOOOOOOOOOOQI Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis 3........................... H.. ......... ................ 5........................... 6.. ..... .................... 7........................... 8.0.0.0000000000000.0.0.0... 9.0.0.0... ...... ......OOOOOOI iv 14 1” 1a 16 16 17 19 2O 2O 22 22 23 2k 26 28 29 3O 31 37 37 37 38 39 39 an Lu; 1m 1+5 Chapter Page III RESULTS (cont'd) Hypothesis ll ........... ............... .......... SO Hypothesis 12.. ......... . ..... . .................. 55 Hypothesis l3.............. ..... ................. 55 Hypothesis 1n... .......... ... ......... . .......... S7 Hypothesis lS............ ......... ....... ....... . 67 Summary of Significant Results........................ 67 Comparison of the Experimental Procedures ........... .. 69 Verdict (Guilty Versus Innocent)...................... 7l Verdict (Misdemeanor Versus Felony)................... 72 Severity of Sentence (Recommended Punishment for Misdemeanor) ........... .................... ........ 73 Severity of Sentence (Recommended Punishment for Felony).......... ....... ......O............... ..... 7” Summary of Significant Findings for Comparisons....... 76 IV DISCUSSION 0000000000 O ...... O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O O O O O C O O O 77 Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex ..... 77 Comparison of Experimental Procedures.. ....... ........ 88 APPENDIXOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0....O........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.... 91 BIBLIOGRAPHYOO 0000000000000 .0... 0000000000 ......OOOO... ......... llu LIST OF TABLES Table Page l Manipulation Check of the Physical Attractiveness variableOOOOOIOOOO ...... O. ....... O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 32 2 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Defendant's Morality in the FT Study. 0 O O O ....... O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O 0000000000 33 3 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Defendant's Morality in the VS Study .............. ....... .......... . ....... 3H u The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Defendant's Morality in the Bw Study.....OOOOO ..... ......OOOOOOOOOOOO ...... 35 S The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Defendant's Morality in the Gw Study.....OOO0.0.000.........OOOOOOOOO0.0... 36 6 Means and Standard Deviations of Male and Female Jurors' Evaluations of the Attractive Female Defendant's Mo- rality in BaCh Of the Studies. 0 O O O O C O O O O O O O I O O l O O O O O O O 38 7 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Defendant's Intelli- gence in the FT Study..... ....... ........ ...... .. ..... no 8 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Defendant's Intelli- gence in the VS Study ..... . ..... ...................... ul 9 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Defendant's Intelli- gence in the BW Study............... ....... . ..... ..... M2 10 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Defendant's Intelli- gence in the GW Study.. ....... ......... ............... u3 11 Means and Standard Deviations of the Male and Female Jurors' Evaluations of the Attractive Female De- fendant's Intelligence in Each of the Studies ......... ”5 vi Table Page 12 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Defendant's Locus of Control in the FT Study..... ............... . ....... ”6 13 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Defendant's Locus of Control in the VS Study....................... ..... M7 1a The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Defendant's Locus of Control in the BW Study........... ..... . ........... MB 15 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Defendant's Locus of Control in the GW Study............ ................ H9 16 Means and Standard Deviations of the Male Jurors' Evaluations of the Male and Female Defendants' Locus of Control in Each Study.............. ..... ..... 50 17 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Likelihood of Future Crimes in the FT Study................. ........ 51 18 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Likelihood of Future Crimes in the VS Study..... ........ ..... ..... .. 52 19 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Likelihood of Future Crimes in the BW Study ......... ......... ....... 53 20 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Likelihood of Future Crimes in the GW Study........ ...... ..... ...... SM 21 The Obtained Frequencies for Innocent Verdicts in Each Study000000000000000000...00.000.00.000000000... ...... 56 22 The Obtained Frequencies for Guilty Verdicts in Each Study.....00000000000 ..... 00.00.00...000.00.000.000000 56 23 The Obtained Verdicts for Misdemeanors in Each Study..... 58 2” The Obtained Frequencies for Felonies in Each Study...... 58 25 The Obtained Frequency of Misdemeanor Verdicts in the BW and GW Studies After Collapsing Attractiveness..... 59 vii Table Page 26 The Obtained Frequency of Misdemeanor Verdicts in the BW and GW Studies After Collapsing Sex................ 59 27 The Obtained Frequency of Felony Findings in the BW Study for Sex After Collapsing Attractiveness......... 60 28 The Obtained Frequency of Felony Findings in the BW Study for Attractiveness After Collapsing Sex......... 60 29 The Obtained Frequency of Misdemeanor Probation Find- ings in Each Study for Sex After Collapsing AttraCtiveneSS0.00......000000000.00000000.0.0.0...... 62 30 The Obtained Frequency of Misdemeanor Probation Find- ings in Each Study for Attractiveness After Col- lapsing Sex............ ...... ......................... 62 31 The Obtained Frequency of Misdemeanor Incarceration Findings in Each Study for Sex After Collapsing AttPaCtiveneSS00000.00.00.00.000.00.00.0000.00.00...00 63 32 The Obtained Frequency of Misdemeanor Incarceration Findings in Each Study for Attractiveness After COllapSing sex.00....0000000000000000000000.0...0.00.. 63 33 The Obtained Frequency of Felony Probation Findings in Each Study for Sex After Collapsing Attractiveness.... 6a 39 The Obtained Frequency of Felony Probation Findings in Each Study for Attractiveness After Collapsing Sex.... 64 35 The Obtained Frequency for Felony Incarceration in Each Study for Sex After Collapsing Attractiveness......... 65 36 The Obtained Frequency for Felony Incarceration in Each Study for Attractiveness After Collapsing Sex......... 65 37 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Information Retention in the FT Study.. 68 38 The Observed Frequency of Guilty and Innocent Verdicts in BaCh Study...00.00000000000000.0000000000....000000 71 39 The Observed Frequencies of Misdemeanor and Felony Verdicts in Each of the Studies................. ..... . 73 no The Observed Frequencies of Incarceration and Probation Recommendations for Defendants Found Guilty of a MiSdemeanor in EaCh Study.....00.0.0...0000.0000000000 7” viii Table Page #1 The Observed Frequencies of Incarceration and Probation Recommendations for Defendants Found Guilty of a Felony in Each Study.................................. 75 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Researchers have recently given increased attention to identifying extra-legal influences that may affect the perceptions of jurors and, ultimately, the decisions that jurors are required to render (Beran, Albert, Loiseaux, Mayfield 6 Wright, 1958; Fontes, Miller 8 Bender, 1977; Kaplan 6 Kemmerick, 197M; Lawson, 1969; Miller, Bender, Boster, Florence, Fontes, Hocking 6 Nicholson, 1975; Miller, Fontes, Bauchner, Brandt, Boster, Carman, Halbert, Haight, Kaminski, Sunnafrank 8 Werner, 1977; Mitchell 8 Byrne, 1973; Walster, 1966). These studies have shown that such diverse factors as the prestige of the jury foreperson, the credibility of contesting attorneys, the mode in which the testimony is presented, the frequency of the introduction of inadmissible testimony, perceived attitude similarity between jurors and defendants, and the severity of the crime may affect juridic judgments. One potentially biasing courtroom influence lies in the relative physical attractiveness of the defendant.. The possible effects of this variable have received little attention within the trial setting. This apparent lack of concern is surprising, since the positive value many persons attach to attractiveness (Byrne, London 8 Reeves, 1968) could lead to preferential treatment of attractive defendants by jurors. Berscheid and Walster (1979) suggest that the lack of concerted research focusing on attractiveness may stem from the belief that "(a) 1 2 people of different attractiveness levels are not treated differentially; we do not typically judge books by their covers. (b) Even if we do, in- dividual differences in physical attractiveness criteria are so vast that differential treatment could have no consistent effect upon any one indi- vidual" (p. 186). As far as legal treatment is concerned, this reasoning may be augmented by an awareness of the Constitutional "guarantee" that all persons, regardless of race, color, or creed, shall receive due proc- ess from our legal system (Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution). Numerous studies (e.g., Berscheid 8 Walster, 1969; Byrne, London 6 Reeves, 1968; Dion, Berscheid 8 Walster, 1972; Miller, 1970) have demon- strated that people respond differently to individuals who vary in phys- ical attractiveness. In general, these response differences fall into line with favorable stereotypes of attractive persons, although some of them appear to be sex-specific. Thus, Byrne et_al, (1968) found that physically attractive males are judged less intelligent and moral than their unattractive counterparts, but physically attractive females are perceived as more intelligent and moral than less attractive women. Various attribution formulations (Heider, 1958; Jones 8 Davis, 1965; Kelley, 1967) assume that individuals make inferences about others based on the information they possess about them. The physical attrac- tion studies indicate that information about the physical attractiveness of others may influence the inferences made about them; specifically, people usually make favorable inferences regarding attractive others and unfavorable inferences about physically unattractive others. Although no study has examined the effects of a defendant's physical ‘1, Iattractiveness in the courtroom, some studies (Dion, 1972; Efran, 197”; 3 Sigall 8 Ostrove, 1975) report that people do render decisions favoring physically attractive individuals in experimental situations which are more or less analogous to the courtroom setting. While these studies suffer from questionable ecological validity, they do suggest that the Iphysical attractiveness of defendants may bias juridic decisions (ecolo— ‘fjgical validity refers to the likelihood that the results of an experiment are generalizable to the "real" world given the procedures employed.). Given that the extra—legal influence of a defendant's physical attrac— tiveness may affect juridic judgments, the Constitutional guarantee of due process may be called into question. Further investigation into this socially significant problem area should be undertaken to determine if the physical attractiveness variable affects juridic decisions in more ecologically valid situations. The purpose of this inquiry is to identify and circumvent problems of ecological validity in past studies to assess the effects of a defend- ant's physical attractiveness on juridic decisions. In addition, an ex- amination of the attributions made by jurors across procedures with ap- parent varying degrees of ecological validity will be made. Since the procedural differences of interest concern the ways information is com- municated to jurors, as well as the amount of information communicated, the study focuses on the trial situation as a communication system. Statement of the Problem Recent research evidence indicates that the physical attractiveness of a defendant may affect jurors' perceptions and decisions regarding the defendant. In a study dealing with the relationship between physical at- tractiveness and evaluation of people who commit socially undesirable u acts, Dion (1972) found that attractive children were generally evaluated more positively after committing a transgression than were less attrac— tive children. However, an interaction was observed that suggested dif- ferent stereotypes for male and female offenders. Specifically, attrac- tive females and unattractive males were evaluated less negatively for a severe transgression than were attractive males. Moreover, unattractive females received more negative evaluations than unattractive males. Two studies have dealt with the relationship of physical attraction and severity of punishment in simulated legal settings. Efran (197M) had participants read a 650 word description of an alleged cheating in- cident committed by a student during an examination. By attaching a photograph of either an attractive or unattractive male or female stu- dent to some of the statements, Efran generated three conditions: at- tractive defendant, unattractive defendant, and no photograph provided. Equal numbers of male and female participants in each condition were then asked to evaluate the defendant's guilt, to recommend punishment contingent upon the defendant's guilt or innocence, and to indicate their degree of attraction toward the defendant by completing Byrne's Interpersonal Judgment Scale. Regardless of the sex of the defendant, participants were less certain about the guilt of attractive defendants than they were about the guilt of unattractive defendants. Finally, while there was no sig- nificant sex of participant by sex of defendant interaction, male par- ticipants were influenced to a greater degree by defendant's attractive- ness than were females. Sigall and Ostrove (1975) posited an interaction between the I/relative attractiveness of a defendant and the degree to which a crime 5 is attractiveness-related. Specifically, they reasoned that if a crime is attractiveness-related - i.e., if being attractive facilitates successful perpetration of the crime - jurors will judge attractive defendants more harshly than unattractive ones. If the crime is not attractiveness- related - i.e., if successful perpetration of the crime is perceived as independent of physical attraction - unattractive defendants will receive more severe sentences. As predicted, a significant physical attractiveness by type of crime interaction was observed. Examination of the simple effects indicated, however, that the interaction was most pronounced for the attractiveness— unrelated crime (burglary). Specifically, the recommended punishment for the unattractive burglar was significantly harsher than for the attrac— tive burglar. By contrast, there were no sigificant differences in the sentences recommended for the attractive and unattractive defendants ac- cused of an attractiveness-related crime (swindle). While the analysis yielded no significant sex of simulated juror by sex of defendant inter- action, this result must be interpreted cautiously since only photographs of a female defendant were used. ‘, Although the preceding research has added to our understanding of the influence of physical attraction on jurors' judgments of defendants, the studies employed experimental techniques that may limit the general- ; lizability of their findings. The fact that none of them closely simu- lates actual courtroom conditions creates several problems. The use of monochromatic photographs to vary physical attraction appears to result in a relatively weak manipulation, both because the photos themselves are relatively far removed from a real courtroom situation and because 6 this procedure eliminates cues such as color of hair and eyes which may themselves be salient in judging physical attraction. In the Sigall and Ostrove study, which more closely approximates the courtroom environment than any of the other prior studies, the guilt of the defendants was not in question. Instead, guiltwastaken as a given .’ and the simulated jurors were asked to recommend a specific sentence. Both Efran's and Dion's studies indicate that when the guilt or inno- cence of a person is in question, evaluators are not as certain of an attractive person's guilt as they are of an unattractive person's. This fact suggests that generalization to actual trial situations can occur with greater confidence if researchers use situations where the guilt or innocence of the defendant is questionable. Some of the studies did not manipulate the sex of the defendant, thus precluding evaluation of a possible sex of juror by sex of defend- ant interaction. Moreover, for those studies that did manipulate the defendant's sex, the findings are mixed: some did not find significant interactions while others did. Thus, these possible interactions need additional evaluation. The amount of information conveyed in the short written descriptions of the antisocial acts used in these studies is problematic. The limited amount and type of information made available to participants may have been inadequate to make the judgments normally required of jurors. In- dividuals make retrodictive and predictive inferences about others based upon either cultural, sociological and/or psychological information avail- able concerning the individuals being evaluated}//Miller and Steinberg (1975) state that predictions concerning others' behavior based upon cultural information entail knowledge concerning cultural norms and -/ -/ "r /‘ 7 values. Predictions based upon sociological information require knowledge of the evaluated person's memberships in specific subgroups of society and predictions at the psychological level necessitate information which is idiosyncratic to the individual being judged. These inferences are essentially attributions, the accuracy of which, is dependent upon the type of information available. Specifically, the probability that attributions concerning a given individual are accurate would increase as we moved from the cultural through the sociological to the psychological level. The accuracy of attributions made based upon psychological information should be greater than attributions based upon sociological information. Attributions based upon cultural information would be the least accurate. Psychological information reduces individ- uals' reliance upon sociological and cultural stereotypes, including the physical attractiveness stereotype, when making judgments of others. The information provided to participants in these studies was sociological at best, identifying the group memberships of the accused. In the Dion study, subjects were informed that the transgressor was either a male or female second—grade school child. The accused in the Efran study was either a female or male college student and the defend- ant in the Sigall and Ostrove study was either an attractive or unattrac- tive female. Given the effects of cultural and sociolbgical physical attractiveness stereotypes and the absence of psychological information, it is not sur- prising that the effects of the physical attractiveness variable were significant. No psychological information was presented concerning the intent and motive of the accused or the degree of remorse felt by them, if any. Presentation of this type of information would more closely 8 approximate what generally transpires in the courtroom environment and might diminish the effects of the physical attractiveness variable. It should be noted that the introduction of this type of information would not necessitate the accused testifying in his or her own behalf. It is sometimes introduced by witnesses to the alleged antisocial behavior. The use of short written descriptions and photographs may also produce what Orne (1962) has labeled demand characteristics. _Student subjects such as those participating in these studies are generally better educated than the general pOpulace and are usually more knowl- edgeable about experimental research techniques. Consequently, when using student subjects it is imperative that the experimental manipula- tion be as unobtrusive as possible. If subjects are able to identify the nature of the experimental manipulation, it is possible that the subjects' responses to the dependent measures included in the study will be contaminated by their understanding of the manipulation. There were a number of cues in the studies reviewed which could have been used by subjects to identify the physical attraction manipula- tion. Perhaps the most salient cue was the attached picture of the ac- cused. A reasonably inquisitive subject might be expected to question the purpose of the inclusion of the picture. Once such cognitions are activated, it does not require much creative thought from subjects to conclude that the study has something to do with the effects of the ac- cused's appearance on their judgments. Given this possibility, vexing doubts about experimental artifacts are difficult to ignore. One final limitation of these studies merits discussion. As :_indicated, the information concerning the transgressions was presented in written form. The absence of verbal presentations by the transgressors 9 or witnesses to the transgressions denied subjects nonverbal and para- linguistic cues that may have significantly affected subjects' judgments of the accused individuals. It is not the intent of this paper to be unduly critical of the studies discussed. Rather, an attempt has been made to identify proce- dural factors that may limit the generalizability of findings of studies employing these or similar experimental techniques. Given a specific interest in the effects of a defendant's physical attractiveness on juror information processing and decision-making activities, the significant departure of the Efran and Sigall and Ostrove studies from normal courtroom procedures raises serious questions about the generalizability of their findings to the courtroom environment. For this reason, this paper will report a study which examines the effects of the relative physical at— tractiveness of a defendant in a more ecologically valid trial simula- tion. In addition, three further studies will be reported to empirically assess the ecological validity of past research. Theoretic Perspective Various attribution perspectives assume that man strives to stabilize, predict, and control his environment. One of the main elements in man's environment is other men. Given that man seeks an ordered view of his surroundings, he must attempt to view other men as stable in order to predict and control their actions. Attribution perspectives assume that man achieves this goal by attributing enduring dispositions to actors based on information about them. In a recent review of the attribution literature, Seibold (1975) indicates that most research in this area focuses on attributions about 10 the enduring dispositions of strangers based wholly on information about actions taken by them. While information concerning the actions taken by strangers may be highly salient to attributions made about them, it would be unrealistic to assume that this is the only information perceivers use in making attributions about others. As the physical attraction litera- ture suggests, people may use information conveyed by the attractiveness and sex of strangers in attributing enduring dispositions to them. Since the physical attractiveness and sex of strangers are readily accessible to perceivers in face-to-face situations, it would appear that any theo- retic perspective addressing attributions about strangers should account for information conveyed by these characteristics. The current analysis deals with attributions made by jurors about defendants who are strangers to them. Thus, this paper will extend attribution theory to include the physical attractiveness and sex variables. An attempt will be made to show that information conveyed by the physical attractiveness and sex of strangers contributes to man's goal of a stable, predictable, and con- trolled environment. Individuals come into contact with many strangers in their day-to- day interactions. If these individuals seek a stable, predictable, and controlled environment, coming into contact with unpredictable strangers would disrupt their goal. They must, therefore, establish some means of predicting how strangers will act. Miller and Steinberg posit that perceivers use information from the cultural, sociological, and psychological levels of analysis when attempt- ing to make predictions or attributions about others. If people are to be successful in attaining a stable environment, they must base their ll attributions on information at the level of analysis with the best pre- dictive potential available to them. When individuals make attributions about strangers, no psychological information is generally available. Thus, the information with the best predictive potential is based on the sociological level of analysis. This paper suggests that when people have sociological information about stran— gers, they will employ stereotypes based on this information to make attributions. The findings in the physical attraction literature suggest that individuals have sociological stereotypes about the behavior and enduring dispositions of others based on the physical attractiveness and sex var- iables. If this is the case, then sociological information conveyed by these stereotypes may differentially affect the attributions made about strangers. If individuals base their attributions about strangers on the socio- logical information conveyed by the attractiveness and sex of strangers in everyday life, it is likely that this propensity will be activated in the courtroom regarding decisions made by jurors about defendants. If the courtroom environment and the information presented to the jurors during the case do not overcome these attributions, it is likely that the verdict jurors arrive at will be affected by the physical attractive- ness and sex of the defendant. The research on the physical attractive- ness of transgressors would indicate that this may be the case. While these studies do not closely approximate the courtroom environment or the information presented in the court, they do indicate that the rela- tive attractiveness and sex of a defendant may affect decisions made re- garding him/her. 12 The results of the physical attraction studies suggest various stereotypes based on the physical attractiveness and sex of a transgres- sor. These observed stereotypes were employed to generate the following hypotheses: H1: H2: Physically unattractive defendants will be perceived as less moral by jurors than attractive defendants. Physically attractive female defendants will be per- ceived by jurors as more moral than unattractive female defendants. Physically attractive male defendants will be per- ceived as less moral than attractive female defendants. The morality of physically attractive female defend- ants will be evaluated higher by male jurors than by female jurors (given the research by Byrne which sug- gests that male and female perceivers may hold differ— ent stereotypes for females). Physically attractive male defendants will be per- ceived as less intelligent by jurors than unattractive male defendants. Physically attractive female defendants will be per— ceived as more intelligent than unattractive female defendants. Physically attractive male defendants will be per- ceived as less intelligent by jurors than attractive female defendants. The intelligence of physically attractive female de- fendants will be evaluated higher by male jurors than by female jurors. The defendant's locus of control will be perceived by jurors as external for unattractive defendants and internal for attractive defendants. Male jurors will perceive a male defendant's locus of control as internal and a female defendant's locus of control as external. Physically attractive defendants will be perceived by jurors as less likely to commit future crimes than unattractive defendants. they retain. H 15' l3 Physically attractive defendants will be found guilty less often by jurors than physically unattractive de- fendants accused of committing the same crime. Physically attractive defendants who receive guilty verdicts will be found guilty of a less severe crime than unattractive defendants who receive guilty verdicts. The punishment recommended by jurors for physically unattractive defendants found guilty of a crime will be more severe than the punishment recommended for attractive defendants found guilty of the same crime. An additional hypothesis concerns the relationship between the absence or presence of a defendant and the amount of trial related information re- tained by jurors. If the defendant's physical attractiveness does influ- ence jurors' evaluations, they may conceivably formulate a judgment about the defendant's guilt or innocence early in the trial. If this is the case, jurors may attend less carefully to the subsequent trial proceed- ings, thus causing a decrease in the amount of trial related information This reasoning leads to the following hypothesis: Jurors who do not see a defendant during a trial will retain more trial related information than jurors who see a defendant. CHAPTER II PROCEDURES Definitions This section presents conceptual and operational definitions for the following variables: perceived physical attractiveness; perceived moral- ity; perceived intelligence; perceived locus of control; perceived likeli- hood of future crime; verdict; severity of sentence; and juror information retention. Physical Attractiveness Physical attractiveness is conceptualized as a perceived variable. It is assumed members of a culture learn that certain physical character- istics are differentially valued in their culture. When individuals eval- uate the physical attractiveness of others, they are likely to base their judgments on these culturally learned values. Thus, physical attractive- ness is conceptualized as the perceivers' aesthetic evaluation of the physical characteristics of others, a judgment which is usually heavily influenced by these culturally learned values. Physical attractiveness was operationalized in the following manner. Seventeen drama majors at Michigan State University, who classified them- selves as either physically attractive or unattractive, were videotaped for three minutes each.. Nine of these individuals were females and eight were males. These videotape shots were taken of the stimulus persons' 14 15 head and shoulders. These videotaped individuals were to be used as stimulus persons in an attractiveness pretest. Twenty subjects were solicited from beginning communication classes at Michigan State University to rate the physical attractiveness of the videotaped stimulus persons. These subjects rated the physical attrac— tiveness of the stimulus persons on the following seven—point scale: In comparison to people in general this person is: Very Very Physically: : : : : : : :Physically Attractive Unattractive The male and female stimulus persons who were ranked the most physically attractive and least physically attractive on this pretest by the subjects were selected as the stimulus persons for the studies to be reported here. The physically attractive male had a mean score of 5.35, while the unattractive male had a mean score of 2.65. The physically attractive female's score was 5.35, while the unattractive female obtained a 2.4. The physically attractive male was rated as significantly more attractive than the unattractive male (t=12.34, df= 19, p<.001). In addition, the physically attractive female was judged as more attractive than her unattractive counterpart (t=12.58, df=19, p<.001). No significant difference was found between the attractive male and female or the unattractive male and female. One of the videotapes of the selected stimulus persons was presented to role-playing jurors in each of the experimental conditions reported in this paper. These presentations represent the manipulation of the phys- ical attractiveness variable. 16 Perceived Morality This analysis assumes that there are culturally learned normative criteria that individuals employ to evaluate whether the actions of others are morally appropriate. When individuals are asked to evaluate another's morality, it is likely they will employ these normative criteria to arrive at their judgments. Thus, perceived morality is conceptualized as a per- ceiver's evaluation of the degree to which another's actions conform to or deviate from the normative actions subscribed to by the perceiver. This conceptualization was operationalized by asking each role-playing juror to respond to the following item from Byrne's Interpersonal Judgment Scale (1968): Please check the response which best describes your feelings about the defendant. This defendant impresses me as being extremely moral. This defendant impresses me as being moral. This defendant impresses me as being moral to a slight degree. This defendant impresses me as being neither particularly moral or immoral. This defendant impresses me as being immoral to a slight degree. This defendant impresses me as being immoral. This defendant impresses me as being extremely immoral. Perceived Intelligence This paper assumes that individuals evaluate the actions of others in assessing the intellectual ability reflected by those actions. More- over, it is assumed that individuals employ these evaluations to assess how intelligent others are. Thus, perceived intelligence is conceptually 17 defined as a perceiver's evaluation of the intellectual ability reflected in another's actions. The more rational the actions of another is per- ceived to be, the higher the perceived intelligence of the other. This conceptualization was operationalized by asking each role-playing juror to respond to the following item from Byrne's Interpersonal Judgment Scale: Please check the response that best describes your feelings about the defendant. I believe the defendant is very much above average in intelligence. I believe the defendant is above average in intelligence. I believe the defendant is slightly above average in intelligence. I believe the defendant is average in intelligence. I believe the defendant is slightly below average in intelligence. I believe the defendant is below average in intelligence. I believe the defendant is very much below average in intelligence. Perceived Locus of Control Rotter (1966) posits that individuals perceive that their actions and the outcomes of their actions are either externally or internally controlled. Externally controlled individuals perceive that the environ- ment is responsible for their actions and outcomes. Internally controlled individuals perceive that their actions and outcomes are contingent on their own behavior and/or own permanent characteristics. Moreover, Rotter specifies that this is not an all or none trait. Rather, individuals' perception of their locus of control can vary in degree. That is, in 18 some situations individuals may perceive that the environment is in control, while in other situations they may feel that they are in control. Thus, locus of control is conceptualized as the degree to which an individual perceives that him/herself or the environment is in control of his/her actions and outcomes. The present analysis focuses on the perceived locus of control of others. Perceived locus of control is conceptualized as a perceiver's evaluation of the degree to which another or the environment is in control of the other's actions and outcomes. The locus of control conceptualization was operationalized by asking each juror to respond to a modified version of the 29 item Scale to Measure Internal and External Control (Rotter, 1966). The original version attempts to measure an individual's own locus of control. The modified version asked role-playing jurors to respond to the Scale to Measure Internal and External Control as they believed the defendant would. The instructions to the role- playing jurors and an example item follow: The next set of statements concern how you believe the defendant personally feels about a number of topics. Two statements appear together for each item. Please check the statement that you be- lieve the defendant would most agree with. The defendant feels that: Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad luck. People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make. The statement "the defendant feels that" preceded each of the 29 items to remind subjects that they were to respond for the defendant. If subjects checked an external response (as with the first alterna- tive for the example item),they were assigned a score of one for that item. 19 Internal responses (such as the second alternative in the example) were assigned a score of zero. 23 of the items measure internal-external con- trol and six of the items are fillers. The perceived locus of control score for each subject was the sum of the scores for the 23 locus of con- trol items. The higher the score, the more external the perceived locus of control. Thus, if the defendant was perceived to be completely exter- nal in locus of control, he/she would have received a score of 23 from that subject. If the defendant was perceived as completely internal, the score would be 0. Any score from O to 23 was possible. Likelihood of Future Crime This analysis assumes that individuals evaluate another's past actions to predict his/her future actions. When individuals are asked to predict specific future behaviors, it is likely that the past behavior of others which is similar to the future behavior would be most salient. Thus, the perceived likelihood to commit future crime is conceptualized as the juror's perception of the degree to which crime related actions taken by the de- fendant in the past indicate a tendency to engage in criminal behavior. This conceptualization was Operationalized by asking role-playing jurors to respond to the following item: How probable is it that the defendant will commit a crime in the future? very probable somewhat probable not very probable i t not very probable at all 2O Verdict Verdict is conceptualized as the jurors' evaluation of whether or not the evidence indicates beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant engaged in the action(s) he/she is charged with. This conceptualization was operationalized by asking each role-playing juror to respond to the following item: I find the defendant: __ guilty _____innocent In addition, jurors who found the defendant guilty were asked to find the defendant guilty of a misdemeanor or a felony: If you have found the defendant guilty, you must decide if the defendant is guilty of a misdemeanor or a felony. Please check the appropriate response. I have found the defendant guilty of a: felony misdemeanor Severity of Sentence Severity of sentence is conceptualized as the jurors' recommended period of incarceration for defendants found guilty of committing a crime. The operationalization of the severity of sentence variable consists of two separate items. First, subjects who found the defendant guilty of a felony were asked to recommend a sentence in the following item: Since you have found the defendant guilty of a felony, you must now recommend the number of years the defendant is going to spend in prison. Please assume that the defendant will serve the number of years you recommend. 0 years 1 year 2l 2 years 3 years n years 5 years 6 years 7 years 8 years 9 years 10 years ____ 11 years -____ 12 years Second, subjects who found the defendant guilty of a misdemeanor recommended punishment in response to the following item: Since you have found the defendant guilty of a misdemeanor, you must now recommend the number of months the defendant is going to spend in the county jail. Please assume that the defendant will serve the total number of months you recommend. 0 months (defendant is put on probation) 1 month 2 months 3 months u months 5 months 6 months 7 months 8 months 9 months 10 months 22 11 months _____12 months The recommended punishment items represent Operationalizations of the severity of sentence variable. Each of these items was analyzed separately. Information Retention Information retention is conceptualized as the jurors' ability to remember trial testimony and instructions from the judge at the conclusion of the trial. This conceptualization was operationalized in the following manner for the first study to be reported in the results chapter. Subjects were asked to respond to 51 true-false items concerning the trial that they had just witnessed. Fifteen items focused on the instructions the judge had given to them concerning the responsibilities of jurors. The remaining 36 items pertained to the testimony of the witnesses in the trial. When the subjects' responses were correct, they were assigned one point. If the responses were incorrect, no points were assigned. The subject's information retention score was the sum of the points given for all 51 items. The higher the score, the greater the information retention. £83.31 Chapter I identified the limitations of previous studies dealing with the physical attractiveness of transgressors. This section will present the procedures employed in a study which attempted to circumvent these limitations. In addition, the procedures used in three further studies will be reported. These further studies were undertaken to assess if the 23 hypothesized relationships are constant across procedures. An examination of the results of the four studies could indicate that procedural differ- ences (e.g., amount of information provided, type of information provided) lead to different patterns of relationships. There were some differences between the design employed in the present set of studies and the designs employed in the Efron and Sigall and Ostrove studies. First, since jurors are never told whether a defendant is guilty or innocent, but make that decision after hearing the trial testimony, the participants in the studies reported here decided upon the verdict. Sec- ond, in all but the final study the evidence presented in the trial stim— ulus was inconclusive, i.e., the guilt or innocence of the defendant was open to question. Finally, the sex of the defendant was manipulated to facilitate investigation of possible sex of juror by sex of defendant interaction. The same 3 x 2 factorial design was used in all four of the studies in which both the physical attractiveness (attractive, unattractive) and sex (male, female) of the defendant were manipulated. The remaining two cells were "no visual conditions" in which no visual information was pro- vided concerning the defendant although participants assigned to these conditions were made aware of the sex of the defendant. Selecting a Trial Transcript A transcript of an actual vehicular manslaughter trial was obtained from the California State Law Library, Sacramento, California. This par- ticular trial was selected with the assistance of legal experts because it was felt that the potential for committing this crime is independent of an individual's sex and physical attractiveness. 29 The transcript was edited, again with the assistance of legal experts, so that the entire trial including the judge's instructions could be pre- sented to jurors in one and a half hours. During this editing process, all references to the names of actual trial participants were deleted and the amount and type of trial evidence supporting the innocence of the ac- cused was balanced with that evidence which supported a guilty verdict. Although the defendant in the original trial testified in his behalf, his testimony was edited from the transcript because of a desire to rep- licate in part the procedures used by Efran and Sigall and Ostrove. It should be noted, however, that witnesses who talked with the accused immediately subsequent to the crime provided testimony concerning what the accused had told them. This consisted of psychological information concerning the accused's intent and motive. Finally, three ninety second intervals were edited into the transcript at the beginning, middle and end of the trial during which no information concerning the defendant or the crime was presented. This facilitated editing in a sixty second video shot of the defendant during a portion of the judge's opening remarks to the jurors; during a conference at the judge's bench between the attorneys and the judge; and during a segment of the judge's deliberation instructions to the jury. Preparing the Stimuli Three different stimuli were prepared, one for each of the studies to be executed. The first stimulus consisted of a videotaped reenactment of the trial. A courtroom set was constructed at California State Univer- sity, Sacramento and participants to play the roles of various trial par- ticipants were recruited from among the faculty and students in the De— partment of Communication Studies. Everyone was required to memorize 25 their parts verbatim from the trial transcript. The reenactment was videotaped in color and served as the stimulus for the full trial (FT) simulation experiment. The trial was one and one-half hours long. The second study entailed the use of a twenty minute long video synopsis (VS) of the trial. The synopsis obviously contained less in— formation. The information that was edited out was primarily cultural and sociological. The salient psychological information relevant to the intent and motive of the accused presented by three different witnesses who spoke with the defendant subsequent to the accident was presented in this synOpsis. The judge's opening remarks to the jurors and his delib- eration instructions were included in abbreviated form. The relevant segments of testimony selected for presentation were copied onto another tape. A fifteen second break between presentations of trial participants were edited in facilitating the use of a voice-over technique in which information was provided concerning who would be tes- tifying next. The synopsis included the three intervals discussed earlier during which no information concerning the defendant or the crime was presented which enabled us to edit in three sixty second shots of the defendant. The only significant differences between this video presenta- tion and the one used in the full trial simulation were the amount of in- formation presented and the length of the presentation. The stimulus for the third study consisted of a 1,161 word written synopsis (BW) which contained the same testimony that was included in the video synopsis. Therefore, a significant difference between the video synopsis and the written synopsis was the mode of presentation which pro— vided none of the witnesses' paralinguistic and nonverbal behavior. Another 26 difference concerns the length of time required by subjects to process the information which was considerably less in this study as compared to the video synopsis study. The final difference resulted from the proce— dure used to visually present the defendant to the subjects in this study. A thirty second color videotaped shot of the defendant sitting at the defense table in the courtroom was shown to the participants in this study. This shorter presentation was used because of the reduced amount of time it would take participants in the study to process the trial in- formation presented. The stimulus for the final study consisted of a 1,080 word written synopsis which eliminated a piece of testimony from the BW study that supported the innocence of the defendant. This testimony contained cul— tural and sociological information. Thus, in this study subjects were presented with a guilty written synopsis (GW) which presented more in- formation supporting guilt than innocence. Therefore, one difference between this study and the BW study was the type of evidence presented (primarily guilty versus equal amounts of guilty and innocent evidence). The only other difference was the length of the transcript. Eighty one fewer words were presented in the GW study. Instructions to the Subjects In the full trial study subjects were told that Dr. Gerald R. Miller and Dr. Norman E. Fontes, Professors in the Department of Communication at Michigan State University, were conducting research on juror informa- tion processing. They were informed that the research in which they were participating was part of this ongoing project. The experimenter told the subjects that they were going to see an actual trial that had been 27 conducted in California. They were instructed to role-play jurors and not to speak to one another about the trial. The experimenter then told them that either Mr. Mark Johnson (male conditions) or Ms. May Johnson (female conditions) had been charged with the vehicular manslaughter of one Martha Bell. They were further instructed that the defendant had exercised his/her legal right not to testify. The experimenter then said that the trial would be one and one—half hours in length and that there would be a short break during the middle of the trial. Subjects were told that they would see the defendant at the beginning, the middle, and the end of the trial (in the control con— ditions this statement was not made). The experimenter then ascertained if the subjects understood the instructions. The videotape was then played for the subjects. The experimenter monitored all the subjects to make certain that the trial was not dis- cussed. The subjects appeared to be interested in the trial and consci- entiously played the role of jurors. The subjects filled out question- naires at the end of the trial and were debriefed. The experimental procedures in the video synopsis study were identical to the full trial study with a single exception. Subjects were told that they would see a twenty minute synopsis of an actual trial which had taken place in California. They were informed that all of the facts of the case would be presented in the synopsis and that procedural matters had been edited out. The experimenter gave the same instructions in the balanced written study with the following deviations. The subjects were told that they would be reading a synopsis of an actual trial which had occurred in 28 California. The experimenter informed them that California law does not allow the videotaping of trials. In the conditions where the subjects were to see the defendant, they were told that the court had given per- mission to videotape the defendant and that they would be shown that video- tape. In these conditions, the videotape of the defendant was played for 30 seconds immediately after the instructions were completed. The sub- jects were then asked to read the synopsis and fill out the attached questionnaire. In the control conditions, subjects read the synopsis and filled out the questionnaires immediately after the instructions were completed. The experimental procedures in the guilty written study were identical to those employed in the balance written study. Description of Subjects Subjects for all four studies were solicited from undergraduate communication classes at Michigan State University to participate in exchange for extra-credit. 168 students participated in the FT study of which 99 were males and 69 were females. Their average age was 19.08 years and they had completed an average of 13.2 years of education. lug students participated in the VS study of which 78 were male and 71 were female. Their average age was 20.33 years and they had completed an average of 13.7 years of education. 1&0 subjects participated in the BW study of which 79 were male and 61 were female. Their average age was 20.85 years and they had completed an average of lu.6 years of edu- cation. 156 students participated in the GW study of which 85 were male and 71 were female. Their average age was 20.0 years and they had com- pleted an average of 13.9 years of education. 29 Overview Each of the hypotheses presented earlier was tested in all four studies. In addition, the results of the four studies were compared to assess differences due to the procedures employed. CHAPTER III RESULTS This chapter reports the results of each of the four studies and of comparisons between the studies. The first section reports the results of a manipulation check on the attractiveness variable for each study. The following section reports the results of the tests of the hypotheses. In the final section a comparison of the studies is reported which focuses on the guilt and severity of sentence variables. For all statistical tests the .05 significance level is used. Before presenting these results, it should be noted that a number of demographic variables were measured in each of the studies. These demo- graphic variables included the subjects' locus of control, age, sex, mar- ital status, education, jury experience, television usage, likelihood to drink, likelihood to get drunk, and likelihood to drive and drink. Anal- ysis of variance, t-tests, and chi-square tests were performed, where ap- propriate, to determine if there were differences between the experimental conditions in each of the studies or between experiments on each of these demographic variables. Where significant differences were observed, cor— relations between the demographic variables and the dependent variables were obtained to determine if these demographic variables might be con- founding the experimental results. These analyses revealed that none of the demographic variables were significantly affecting the experimental results. 30 31 Manipulation Check In the process of filling out the questionnaires, subjects were asked to respond to the seven-point attractiveness measure as a check on the attractiveness manipulation. One-tailed t-tests for uncorrelated means were performed for each study to ascertain if the perceived physical at- tractiveness of the attractive and unattractive stimulus persons was sig- nificantly different. The results of these manipulation checks are reported in Table 1. These results indicated that the physical attractiveness manipulation was successful in the full trial (FT) study (for the male defendant: t=3.81; df=59, p<.05; for the female defendant: t=7.25; df=52; p<.05), the videotaped synopsis (VS) study (for the male: t=3.78; df=50; p<.05; for the female: t=6.25; df=u9; p<.05), and the guilty written (GW) syn- opsis study (for the male: t=u.uo; df=u7; p<.05; for the female: t=3.79; df=48; p<.05). However, in the balanced written (BW) synopsis study, the physical attractiveness manipulation was successful for the female de- fendant (t=5.69; df=45; p<.05), while the manipulation was unsuccessful for the male defendant (t=l.14; df=u2; p>.05). This would indicate that tests of the hypothesis involving the male defendant in the BW study may be problematic. The first four hypotheses focus on the defendant's perceived morality as the dependant variable. A 3x2 analysis of variance with attractiveness and sex of the defendant as the independent variables and perceived moral- ity as the dependent variable was performed on the results of each study. Tables 2 through 5 present the results of these analyses for each of the studies. 32 Table l Manipulation Check of the Physical Attractiveness Variable Sex and Attractiveness of Defendant Experimental Procedure Attractive Male Unattractive Male Attractive Female Unattractive Female VS Qéu.39 SD=.96 N=31 §E3.38 SD=.92 N=2l §Eu.52 SD=.99 N=23 Q22.82 SD=.95 N=28 33 Table 2 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Defendant's Morality in the FT Study Attractiveness Sex of Defendant Male Female Attractive §=t+. 08 Eur. us Defendant SD=1.02 SD=1.08 N=2H N=23 No Presentation iéu.16 ieu 41 of Defendant SD=1.00 SD=.69 N=31 N=27 Unattractive §=u . 06 x=u . 1+3 Defendant SD=l.11 SD=.879 N=32 =27 Source Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F Attractiveness 2 0.029 0.026 Sex 1 u.u11 ”.668* Interaction 2 0.105 0.112 Residual 160 0.995 *p<.05 3H Table 3 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Defendant's Morality in the VS Study Attractiveness Sex of Defendant Male Female Attractive 32w . 26 Em. 57 Defendant SD=.82 SD=.95 N=31 N=23 No Presentation iéu.u1 iéu.1u of Defendant SD=.91 SD=.73 N=22 N=21 Unattractive in; . 33 qu . o7 Defendant SD=.97 SD=1.14 N=2l N=27 Source Degrees of Freedom Mean Square Attractiveness 2 0.538 0.629 Sex 1 0.039 0.0u6 Interaction 2 2.000 2.319 Residual 140 0.863 *p<.05 35 Table u The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Defendant's Morality in the BW Study Attractiveness Sex of Defendant Male Female Attractive §=u . 38 qu . 31 Defendant SD=.87 SD=.79 N=21 N=26 No Presentation ;EH.26 §Eu.ue of Defendant SD=.81 SD=.72 N=23 N=2H Unattractive 37w. so {an 32 Defendant SD=.98 SD=.75 N=2u N=l9 Source Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F Attractiveness 2 0.069 0.102 Sex 1 0.007 0.010 Interaction 2 o.u37 0.643 Residual 131 0.679 *p<.05 36 Table 5 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Defendant's Morality in the GW Study Attractiveness Sex of Defendant Male Female Attractive {=9 . 29 {=9 . 25 Defendant SD=1.27 SD=1.29 N=29 N:Qu No Presentation ;¥9.07 is9.95 of Defendant SD=1.09 SD=1.12 N=28 N=29 Unattract ive i=9 . 20 {=3 .88 Defendant SD=l.l2 SD=1.13 N=25 N=25 Source Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F Attractiveness 2 0.870 0.638 Sex 1 0.019 0.019‘ Interaction 2 1.652 1.212 Residual 199 1.363 *p<.05 37 Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 1 predicted that physically attractive defendants would be perceived as less moral than unattractive defendants. No significant results were obtained for the attractiveness variable in any of the anal- yses of variance. Thus, this hypothesis was not supported and no further tests of the hypothesis were called for. Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 2 predicted that the attractive female defendant would be perceived as more moral than the unattractive female. No significant main effects for attractiveness and no significant interaction effects were observed in any of the studies. This would indicate that the at- tractiveness variable did not affect the perceived morality and that this is the case for both male and female defendants. Therefore, none of the studies support Hypothesis 2 and no further tests were called for. Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 3 predicted that physically attractive male defendants would be judged as less moral than attractive female defendants. Given that no sex of defendant or interaction effects were observed in the VS, BW, or GW studies, no further tests of this hypothesis were called for in these studies. However, there was a significant main effect for sex of defendant in the full trial study (F=9.668; df=l,l60; p<.05). Thus, a further test of Hypothesis 3 was called for in this study. A one-tailed t-test for independent means comparing the evaluations of the attractive male and female defendant's morality revealed no significant difference between these groups (t=1.29; df=95; p>.05), although the observed value of t approached significance with the relationship in the hypothesized 38 direction. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was not supported in any of the studies. Hypothesis 9 Hypothesis 9 predicted that the morality of the attractive female defendant would be evaluated higher by male jurors than by female jurors. One-tailed t-tests for independent samples were employed to test this hypothesis for each of the studies. Table 6 presents the mean morality ratings of the attractive female defendant for male and female jurors in each of the studies. No significant differences between male and female jurors' evaluations were found in the FT (t.05), VS (t.05), or the BW studies (t.05). Thus, Hypothesis 9 was not supported in these studies. However, this hypothesis was sup- ported in the guilty written synopsis study. In this study, male jurors did assign higher morality to the attractive female defendant than did female jurors (t=l.92; df=22; p>.05). Tafle6 Means and Standard Deviations of Male and Female Jurors' Evaluations of the Attractive Female Defendant's Morality in Each of the Studies Sex of Subject Experimental Procedure FT vs BW GW i29.39 i29.90 ;;9.96 $§9.7o Male SD=1.26 SD=.97 SD=.82 SD=1.03 N=13 N=lO N=ll N=13 §Eu.eo §%9.7o §¥9.2o IE3.73 Female SD=.89 SD=.95 SD=.78 SD=1.92 N=10 N=13 N=15 N=ll 39 Hypotheses 5 through 8 focused on the defendant's perceived intelli- gence as the dependent variable. A 3x2 analysis of variance with attrac- tiveness and sex of the defendant as the independent variables was per- formed on the data for each study. Tables 7 through 10 present the re- sults of this analysis for each of the studies. Hypothesis 5 Hypothesis 5 predicted that the physically attractive male defendant would be judged to be less intelligent than the unattractive male defend- ant. Given that no attractiveness or interaction effects were observed in the VS, BW, or GW studies, no further tests of this hypothesis were called for in these studies. However, there was a significant main ef— fect for attractiveness in the full trial study (F=5.090; df=2,l60; p<.05). Thus, a further test of Hypothesis 5 was carried out. A one-tailed t-test for independent means comparing the attractive and unattractive male de— fendant's perceived intelligence revealed that the attractive male was perceived to be more intelligent than the unattractive male in the FT study (t=2.15; df=59; p<.05). Since this effect was not in the predicted direction, Hypothesis 5 was not supported. Hypothesis 6 Hypothesis 6 predicted that the physically attractive female defendant would be perceived to be more intelligent than the unattractive female de- fendant. Given that no attractiveness or interaction effects were observed in the VS, BW, or GW studies, no further tests of this hypothesis were called for in these studies. However, the significant main effect for attractiveness in the full trial study indicated that a further test of Hypothesis 6 was called for. A one-tailed t—test for independent means 90 Table 7 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Defendant's Intelligence in the FT Study Attractiveness Sex of Defendant Male Female Attractive §=9 . 63 i=9 . 98 Defendant SD=1.25 SD=.90 N=29 N=23 No Presentation i59.16 ;E9.15 of Defendant SD=.97 SD=.95 N=31 N=27 Unattract ive i=9 . 03 I: 3 . 89 Defendant SD=.82 SD=.53 N=32 N=28 Source Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F Attractiveness 2 9.665 5.090* Sex 1 0.398 0.935 Interaction 2 0.073 0.079 Residual 160 0.916 *p<.05 91 Table 8 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Defendant's Intelligence in the VS Study Attractiveness Sex of Defendant Male Female Attractive i59.39 ';Eu,35 Defendant SD=.89 SD=.89 N=31 N=23 No Presentation x=9.l7 x=9.76 of Defendant SD=.89 SD=l.09 N=23 N=21 Unattractive §Eu.38 §23.89 Defendant SD=1.02 SD=1.28 N=2l N=27 Source Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F Attractiveness 2 2.190 2.051 Sex 1 1.602 1.536 Interaction 2 1.278 1.225 Residual 191 1.093 *p<.05 92 Table 9 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Defendant's Intelligence in the BW Study Attractiveness Sex of Defendant Male Female Attractive §Eu.93 iéu.u8 Defendant SD=1.08 SD={85 N=21 N=27 No Presentation ;;9.33 ;s9.25 of Defendant SD=1.29 SD=.90 N=29 Nzgu Unattractive §E9.38 §é9.18 Defendant SD=.88 SD=.50 N=29 N=19 Source Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F Attractiveness 2 0.506 0.571 Sex 1 0.208 0.235 Interaction 2 0.209 0.230 Residual 133 0.886 *p<.05 93 Table 10 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Defendant's Intelligence in the GW Study Attractiveness Sex of Defendant Male Female Attractive i59.67 £29.08 Defendant SD=.82 SD=1.32 N=29 N=29 No Presentation ;E9.2l i59.31 of Defendant SD=1.20 SD=1.07 N=28 N=29 Unattractive ;E9.00 ;s9.00 Defendant SD=.96 SD=1.08 N=25 N=25 Source Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F Attractiveness 2 1.839 1.556 Sex 1 0.819 0.693 Interaction 2 1.698 1.937 Residual 199 1.182 *p<.05 99 comparing the attractive and unattractive female defendants' perceived intelligence revealed that the attractive female was perceived to be more intelligent than the unattractive female in the FT study (t=2.35; df=99; p<.05). Thus, Hypothesis 6 was supported in the FT study only. Hypothesis 7 Hypothesis 7 predicted that the physically attractive male defendant would be perceived to be less intelligent than the attractive female de— fendant. No significant main effect for sex and no interaction effects were observed in any of the studies. This would indicate that the sex variable did not affect the perceived intelligence variable and that this is the case for attractive male and female defendants. Thus, Hypothesis 7 was not supported in any of the studies. Hypothesis 8 Hypothesis 8 predicted that the intelligence of the physically at- tractive female defendant would be evaluated higher by male jurors than by female jurors. One-tailed t-tests for independent samples were employed to test this hypothesis for each of the studies. Table 11 presents the mean intelligence ratings of the attractive female defendant by male and female jurors. No significant differences between male and female jurors' evaluations were found in the FT (t.05), VS (t.05), BW (t=l.01; df=25; p>.05), or the GW studies (t=l.58; df=22; p>.05). Thus, Hypothesis 8 was not supported in any of the studies. Hypothesis 9 Hypothesis 9 predicted that the unattractive defendants would be perceived to be external in locus of control, while the attractive de- fendants would be perceived as internally controlled. A 3x2 analysis 95 Table 11 Means and Standard Deviations of the Male and Female Jurors' Evaluations of the Attractive Female Defendant's Intelligence in Each of the Studies Sex of Subject Experimental Procedures FT vs BW cw §¥9.59 §E9.1o §é9.87 §E9.96 Male SD=.97 SD=.79 SD=.65 SD=.88 N=13 N=10 N=12 N=13 §éu.9o '§%9.59 §é9.33 §¥3.89 Female SD=.89 SD=.97 SD=.97 SD=1.63 N=10 N=13 N=15 N=11 of variance with attractiveness and sex of the defendant as the independent variables was performed on the data for each study. Tables 12 through 15 present the results of this analysis for each of the studies. No signif- icant results were obtained for the attractiveness variable on the locus of control variable in any of the studies. Thus, this hypothesis was not supported and no further tests were called for. Hypothesis 10 Hypothesis 10 predicted that male jurors would perceive a male de- fendant's locus of control to be internal and a female defendant's locus of control to be external. One-tailed t-tests for independent samples were employed to test this hypothesis for each of the studies. Table 16 presents the mean locus of control ratings of the male and female defend— ants by male jurors in each of the studies. No significant differences between the male jurors' evaluations of the male and female defendant's 96 Table 12 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Defendant's Locus of Control in the FT Study Attractiveness Sex of Defendant Male Female Attractive £517.00 i217.87 Defendant SD=5.30 SD=3.76 N=23 N=2l No Presentation §518.62 ;517.28 of Defendant SD=9.17 SD=5.92 N=29 N=26 Unattractive E518.55 ;516.82 Defendant SD=9.30 SD=9.32 N=29 N=27 Source Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F Attractiveness 2 5.337 0.253 Sex 1 39.679 1.699 Interaction 2 19.899 .999 Residual 159 21.085 *p<.05 97 Table 13 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Defendant's Locus of Control in the VS Study Attractiveness Sex of Defendant Male Female Attractive §él9.87 i215.96 Defendant SD=5.17 SD=5.83 N=30 N=23 No Presentation i215.68 i217.20 of Defendant SD=6.01 SD=9.90 N=22 N=20 Unattractive i517.95 ;216.79 Defendant SD=3.85 SD=5.68 N=2O N=27 Source Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F Attractiveness 2 99.737 1.579 Sex 1 0.009 0.000 Interaction 2 32.261 1.139 Residual 137 28.326 *p<.05 98 Table 19 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Defendant's Locus of Control in the BW Study Attractiveness Sex of Defendant Male Female Attractive i217.3o i919.83 Defendant SD=3.87 SD=3.62 N=20 N=29 No Presentation ‘;¥16.87 £317.93 of Defendant SD=5.11 SD=5.85 N=23 N=2l Unattractive §Els.92 §218.05 Defendant SD=5.58 SD=9.83 N=29 N=2O Source Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F Attractiveness 2 25.909 1.087 Sex 1 2.156 0.090 Interaction 2 90.831 1.713 Residual 126 23.892 *p<.05 Table 15 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex Locus of Control in the GW Study on the Jurors' Perception of the Defendant's Attractiveness Sex of Defendant Male Female Attractive 37:18. 58 i316 . 05 Defendant SD=9.56 SD=5.36 N=29 N=22 No Presentation i919.96 1;515.93 of Defendant SD=5.91 SD=5.33 N=28 N=29 Unattractive i=19 . 8 2 §=18. 36 Defendant SD=5.11 SD=9.19 N=22 N=22 Source Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F Attractiveness 2 18.998 0.798 Sex 1 59.127 2.335 Interaction 2 97.890 1.891 Residual 191 25.319 *p<.05 50 Table 16 Means and Standard Deviations of the Male Jurors' Evaluations of the Male and Female Defendants' Locus of Control in Each Study Sex of Defendant Experimental Procedure FT vs BW cw §%18.99 §éls.97 §Els.59 i519.93 Male SD=9.09 SD=9.57 SD=5.39 SD=5.27 N=9l N=32 N=37 N=92 i917.29 i919.93 i916.59 §éle.l8 Female SD=9.71 SD=6.29 sn=5.22 SD=9.89 N=59 N=92 N=37 N=39 locus of control were found in the FT (t=l.30; df=93; p>.05), VS (t=1.17; df=72; p>.05), BW (t.05) or the GW studies (t=l.55; df=79; p>.05). Thus, Hypothesis 10 was not supported in any of the studies. Hypothesis ll Hypothesis 11 predicted that physically attractive defendants would be perceived as less likely to commit future crimes than unattractive de- fendants. A 3x2 analysis of variance with attractiveness and sex of the defendant as the independent variables was performed on the results of the likelihood to commit future crimes variable for each of the studies. Tables 17 through 20 present the results of these analyses. No signifi- cant results were observed in any of the studies. Thus, Hypothesis 11 was not supported and no further tests were called for. 51 Table 17 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Likelihood of Future Crimes in the FT Study Attractiveness Sex of Defendant Male Female Attractive ;52.00 ;51.69 Defendant SD=.66 SD=.75 N=15 N=13 No Presentation §e2.16 i52.06 of Defendant SD=.83 SD=.85 N=19 N=l6 Unattractive i51.90 ;E1.77 Defendant SD=.69 SD=.66 N=20 N=l7 Source Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F Attractiveness 2 0.816 1.502 Sex 1 0.715 1.316 Interaction 2 0.096 0.176 Residual 99 0.599 *p<.05 52 Table 18 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Likelihood of Future Crimes in the VS Study Attractiveness Sex of Defendant Male Female Attractive i51.88 £92.09 Defendant SD=.70 SD=.67 N=33 N=23 No Presentation 32:2.05 i=2.29 of Defendant SD=.65 SD=.77 N=22 N=2l Unattractive 1;51.91 ;E2.09 Defendant SD=.63 SD=.89 N=21 N=28 Source Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F Attractiveness 2 0.078 0.152 Sex 1 0.755 1.979 Interaction 2 0.038 0.079 Residual 193 0.512 =‘~p<.05 53 Table 19 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Likelihood of Future Crimes in the BW Study Attractiveness Sex of Defendant Male Female Attractive §E2.oo §El.93 Defendant SD=.89 SD=.62 N=21 N=27 No Presentation iel.92 ;E2,oo of Defendant SD=.72 SD=.52 N=29 N=23 Unattractive §E2.09 §E2.3o Defendant SD=.75 SD=.66 N=29 N=20 Source Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F Attractiveness 2 0.693 1.320 Sex 1 0.298 0.508 Interaction 2 0.313 0.693 Residual 133 0.988 *p<.05 59 Table 20 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Perception of the Likelihood of Future Crimes in the GW Study Attractiveness Sex of Defendant Male Female Attractive §El.83 iél.87 Defendant SD=.65 SD=.76 N=23 N=23 No Presentation §52.O9 isl.93 of Defendant SD=.89 SD=.65 N=28 N=29 Unattractive ;52.12 ;E2,13 Defendant SD=.67 SD=.85 N=25 N=29 Source Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F Attractiveness 2 0.899 1.631 Sex 1 0.023 0.092 Interaction 2 0.078 0.192 Residual 196 0.598 *p<.05 55 Hypothesis l2 Hypothesis 12 predicted that attractive defendants would be found guilty less often than unattractive defendants. Given that verdict was operationalized as a dichotomous variable, the appropriate method of analysis was deemed to be the chi-square statistic. One-tailed chi- square tests were performed on 3x2 contingency tables with attractive— ness and sex of defendant as the independent variables and with innocent and guilty verdicts as the dependent variables. Table 21 presents the frequency of innocent verdicts in each study, while Table 22 presents the frequency of guilty verdicts. No significant differences between the frequency of innocent verdicts for the attractiveness and sex vari- ables were observed in the FT (x2=l.21; df=2; p>.05), VS (x2=l.97; df=2; p>.05), BW (x2.05), or the cw studies (x2=l.77; df=2; p>.05). Moreover, no significant differences between the frequency of guilty ver- dicts for the attractiveness and sex variables were observed in the FT (x2.05), vs (x2=1.58; df=2; p>.05), 3w (x2<1.0; df=2; p>.05) or the GW studies (x2<1.0; df=2; p>.05). Thus, Hypothesis 12 was not sup- ported in any of the studies and no further tests of the hypothesis were called for. Hypothesis 13 Hypothesis 13 predicted that jurors who found the defendant guilty would find the attractive defendants' guilty of a less severe crime than unattractive defendants. This was operationalized by asking jurors to find the defendant guilty of a misdemeanor or a felony. Given that this was a dichotomous measure, the chi-square statistic was deemed the appro- priate method of analysis. 56 Table 21 The Obtained Frequencies for Innocent Verdicts in Each Study M=Male Defendant, F=Fema1e Defendant Attractiveness Experimental Procedure FT VS BW GW M F M F M F M F Attractive 7 ll 21 7 12 17 8 6 No Presentation 15 12 9 6 16 15 12 9 Unattractive ll l2 l2 9 13 12 8 2 Table 22 The Obtained Frequencies for Guilty Verdicts in Each Study M=Ma1e Defendant, F=Fema1e Defendant Attractiveness Experimental Procedure FT VS BW GW M F M F M F M F Attractive 17 l3 l2 l6 9 10 16 19 No Presentation 16 17 19 15 8 9 16 25 Unattractive 21 16 9 19 ll 8 17 22 57 Table 23 presents the frequency of misdemeanor verdicts by attrac- tiveness and sex for each study and Table 29 presents the felony verdicts. Chi-square analysis was used to evaluate the results of the frequency of misdemeanor and felony sentences in the FT and VS studies. In addition, chi-square analysis was applied to the results of the GW study for felony sentences. However, in the BW study and in the case of misdemeanors in the GW study the expected cell frequencies were too small to allow an ap- propriate test of the attractiveness by sex contingency tables for the chi-square statistic. Thus, the sex variable was collapsed to examine the effects of the attractiveness variable and the attractiveness vari- able was collapsed to examine the effects of the sex variable in these studies. The chi-square statistic was employed to examine these collapsed contingency tables which are presented in Tables 25 through 28. No significant differences on the frequency of misdemeanor verdicts were observed in the FT (x2.05), VS (x2<1.0; df=2; p>.05), BW (for attractiveness: x2.05; for sex: x2<1.0; df=1; p.>05) or the GW studies (for attractiveness: x2<1.0; df=2; p>.05; for sex: x2=3.1; df=1; p>.05). Moreover, no significant differences on the frequency of felony verdicts were observed in the FT (x2<1.0; df=2; p>.05), VS (x2=3.39; df=2; p>.05), BW (for attractiveness: x2=1.18; df=2; p>.05; for sex: x2<1.0; df=1; p>.05), or the GW studies (x2=1.81; df=2; p>.05). Thus, no support was found for Hypothesis l3. Hypothesis 19 Hypothesis 19 predicted that jurors would recommend more severe punishment for unattractive defendants than for attractive defendants. The punishment operationalization focused on the number of months or 58 Table 23 The Obtained Verdicts for Misdemeanors in Each Study M=Male Defendant, F=Female Defendant Attractiveness Experimental Procedure FT VS BW GW M F M F M F M F Attractive 7 8 8 10 5 5 5 9 No Presentation 8 13 6 8 6 5 6 7 Unattractive 19 13 7 10 5 5 3 9 Table 29 The Obtained Frequencies for Felonies in Each Study M=Ma1e Defendant, F=Fema1e Defendant Attractiveness Experimental Procedure FT VS BW GW M F M F M F M F Attractive 10 5 9 6 3 5 ll 9 No Presentation 9 9 9 8 2 3 9 l6 Unattractive 7 3 2 9 6 3 l9 l9 59 Table 25 The Obtained Frequency of Misdemeanor Verdicts in the BW and GW Studies After Collapsing Attractiveness Sex of Defendant Experimental Procedure BW GW Male 16 19 Female 15 25 Table 26 The Obtained Frequency of Misdemeanor Verdicts in the BW and GW Studies After Collapsing Sex Attractiveness Experimental Procedure BW GW Attractive 10 19 No Presentation 11 13 Unattractive 10 12 60 Table 27 The Obtained Frequency of Felony Findings in the BW Study for Sex After Collapsing Attractiveness Sex of Defendant Felony Verdicts in BW Study Male 11 Female 11 Table 28 The Obtained Frequency of Felony Findings in the BW Study for Attractiveness After Collapsing Sex Attractiveness Felony Verdicts in BW Study Attractive 8 No Presentation 5 Unattractive g 61 years that the jurors recommended the defendant be incarcerated. These results were to be subjected to analysis of variance. However, examina— tion of the obtained cell sizes indicated that they were too small to be appropriate for analysis of variance. Therefore, these length of sentence variables were collapsed into dichotomous measures. Specifically, a mis- demeanor sentence was dichotomized as probation versus jail sentence, while a felony sentence was dichotomized as probation versus prison sen- tence. One-tailed chi-square tests were then performed on these collapsed severity of punishment variables. While it was desirable to use 3x2 contingency tables to examine the effect of the attractiveness and sex variables on severity of punishment, the expected cell frequencies were too small in all studies to allow an appropriate test by the chi-square statistic. Consequently, the data were collapsed to facilitate assessments of the independent effects of a defendant's physical attractiveness and sex upon the severity of pun- ishment. The collapsed contingency tables are presented in Tables 29 through 36. Unfortunately, after collapsing the data, the frequencies in some of the cells, including felony probation sentences for the full video trial, video synopsis, and balanced written synopsis and felony incarceration results for the balanced written synopsis, were still too small for chi-square analysis. In these cases, no statistical tests were performed. In all other cases, chi-square tests for significance were performed. No significant differences for misdemeanor probation were observed in the FT (for attractiveness: x2=1.0; df=2; p>.05; for sex: x2<1.0; df=1; p>.05), V8 (for attractiveness: x2.05; for sex: 62 Table 29 The Obtained Frequency of Misdemeanor Probation Findings in Each Study for Sex After Collapsing Attractiveness Sex of Defendant Experimental Procedure FT VS BW GW Male 12 11 8 5 Female 19 15 7 12 Table 30 The Obtained Frequency of Misdemeanor Probation Findings in Each Study for Attractiveness After Collapsing Sex Attractiveness Experimental Procedure FT VS BW GW Attractive 8 11 3 8 No Presentation 7 8 5 5 Unattractive ll 7 7 9 63 Table 31 The Obtained Frequency of Misdemeanor Incarceration Findings in Each Study for Sex After Collapsing Attractiveness Sex of Defendant Experimental Procedure FT VS BW GW Male 16 10 8 9 Female 20 13 8 13 Table 32 The Obtained Frequency of Misdemeanor Incarceration Findings in Each Study for Attractiveness After Collapsing Sex Attractiveness Experimental Procedure FT VS BW GW Attractive 7 7 7 6 No Presentation 13 6 6 8 Unattractive 16 10 3 8 69 Table 33 The Obtained Frequency of Felony Probation Findings in Each Study for Sex After Collapsing Attractiveness Sex of Defendant Experimental Procedure FT VS BW GW Male 3 3 5 16 Female 3 7 7 15 Table 39 The Obtained Frequency of Felony Probation Findings in Each Study for Attractiveness After Collapsing Sex Attractiveness Experimental Procedure FT VS BW GW Attractive 3 2 5 12 No Presentation 1 3 3 5 Unattractive 2 5 9 19 65 Table 35 The Obtained Frequency for Felony Incarceration in Each Study for Sex After Collapsing Attractiveness Sex of Defendant Experimental Procedure FT VS BW GW Male 21 12 6 18 Female 9 l7 9 29 Table 36 The Obtained Frequency for Felony Incarceration in Each Study for Attractiveness After Collapsing Sex Attractiveness Experimental Procedure FT VS BW GW Attractive 10 9 3 8 No Presentation 12 19 2 20 Unattractive 8 6 5 l9 66 x2.05), BW (for attractiveness: x2=1.62; df=2; p>.05; for sex: x205), or the GW studies (for attractiveness: x2: 1.53; df=2; p>.05; for sex: x2=2.88; df=1; p>.05). In addition, no sig- nificant differences for misdemeanor incarceration were observed in the FT (for attractiveness: x2=3.99; df=2; p>.05; for sex: x2<1.0; df=1; p>.05), V8 (for attractiveness: x2=1.13; df=2; p>.05; for sex: x2<1.0; df=1; p>.05), BW (for attractiveness: x2=1.62; df=2; p>.05; for sex: x2<1.0; df=1; p>.05), or the GW studies (for attractiveness: x2<1.0; df=2; p>.05; for sex: x2.05). For the relationships that could be tested, no significant differences for felony probation were ob- served in the VS (for sex: x2=l.60; df=1; p>.05), BW (for sex: x2<1.0; df=1; p>.05), or GW studies (for attractiveness: x2=9.32; df=2; p>.05; for sex: x2<1.0; df=1; p>.05). In the full trial study, male defendants who were found guilty of committing a felony were more likely to be sentenced to a period of in— carceration than female defendants found guilty of committing a felony (x2=9.80; df=1; p<.05). However, no significant differences on felony incarceration for the attractiveness variable were observed in the full trial study (x2<1.0; df=2; p>.05). For the relationships that could be tested in the remaining studies, no significant differences for felony incarceration were observed in the VS (for attractiveness: x2=3.38; df=2; p>.05; for sex: x2.05), BW (for sex: x2.05), or the GW studies (for attractiveness: x2=5.19; df=2; p>.05; for sex: x2.05). The results of these analyses indicate that no differences attribut- able to the attractiveness of the defendant were observed for either 67 operationalization of the severity of punishment variable in any of the studies. Thus, Hypothesis 19 was not supported in any of the four studies. Hypothesis 15 Hypothesis 15 predicted that jurors in the FT study who did not see the defendant would retain more trial-related information than jurors who did see the defendant. A 3x2 analysis of variance with attractiveness and sex of the defendant as the independent variables and information retention as the dependent variable was performed on the results of the FT study. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 37. No significant differences were observed for the attractiveness vari- able or for interactions of the attractiveness and sex variables. This would indicate that Hypothesis 15 was not supported and no further tests were called for. Summary of Significant Results This section provides a summary of the hypotheses which received support and a brief report of significant results which were not hypoth- esized. Hypothesis 9, which predicted that male jurors would evaluate the attractive female defendant's morality more positively than female jurors would, was supported in the guilty written synopsis study. Hy- pothesis 6, which predicted that the attractive female defendant would be perceived by jurors as more intelligent than the unattractive female defendant, was supported in the full trial study. Neither of these hy- potheses was supported in the remaining studies and none of the other 13 hypotheses received support in any of the studies. Three unhypothesized significant results were observed in the full trial study. Specifically, jurors in this study perceived female 68 Table 37 The Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex on the Jurors' Information Retention in the FT Study Attractiveness Sex of Defendant Male Female Attractive 7:38.79 32:38.81 Defendant SD=9.53 SD=3.72 N=23 N=21 No Presentation Y=39.2l $90.92 of Defendant SD=5.33 SD=5.03 N=28 N=26 Unattractive §=39.38 i=37.25 Defendant SD=9.62 SD=5.02 N=29 N=29 Source Degrees of Freedom Mean Square F Attractiveness 2 27.579 1.210 Sex 1 3.157 0.139 Interaction 2 38.068 1.671 Residual 195 22.787 *p<.05 69 defendants as more moral than male defendants and attractive defendants as more intelligent than unattractive defendants. In addition, jurors in the full trial study were more likely to recommend a period of incarcera- tion for male defendants found guilty of a felony than for female defend- ants found guilty of a felony. No other significant results were observed in any of the studies on the dependent variables. Comparison of the Experimental Procedures This paper has argued that the results of previous studies may be an artifact of the procedures used and that these simulations may lack ecological validity. This section of the paper makes an attempt to as- certain if this is the case. In actual criminal trials, jurors may be asked to make two decisions: (1) They must decide whether the defendant is innocent or guilty and (2) if the defendant is found guilty, the jurors may be asked to determine if the defendant is guilty of a misdemeanor or a felony. Given that these are the only decisions that the jurors are asked to make, this paper will report comparisons of the results of the verdict variable on guilty versus innocent and misdemeanor versus felony verdicts across procedures. It was noted earlier that the Sigall and Ostrove study may be the most ecologically valid of the past studies in this area. Given that their only measure of severity of sentence was the length of incarcera- tion, this paper will compare the results of the recommended punishment severity of sentence operationalizations across studies. 70 Comparisons of the results for these variables were made between the full trial and video synopsis studies to ascertain if the amount of information presented to role-playing jurors had an independent effect on their decisions. In addition, comparisons of the results of the video synopsis and balanced written synopsis were made to ascertain if the mode of presenting information independently affected jurors' decisions. More- over, comparisons of the results of the balanced written synopsis and the guilty written synopsis were made to assess the independent effect of the type of evidence presented. Comparisons of the results of the full trial and balanced written synopsis were also made. If there were no differences attributable to the amount of information observed in the FT versus VS comparison and no differences attributable to the mode of presentation in the VS versus BW comparison, then any differences in the FT versus BW comparison would be attributable to the conjoint effects of amount of information and mode of presentation. If differences were observed for both amount of information and mode of presentation in the FT versus V8 and VS versus BW comparisons, then any differences in the FT versus BW comparison would again be attrib— utable to the conjoint effect of amount of information and mode of presen— tation. However, if differences were observed for amount of information but not for mode of presentation in the FT versus VS and the VS versus BW comparisons, then any differences in the FT versus BW comparison would be attributable to amount of information. Finally, if differences were observed for mode of presentation but not for amount of information in the preliminary analysis, then any differences in the FT versus BW com- parison would be attributable to the mode of presentation. 71 Verdict (Guilpy Versus Innocent) Given that the verdict variable was operationalized as a dichotomous variable, the appropriate form of analysis for comparing the results of the studies was deemed to be the chi-square statistic. Since none of the studies found significant differences attributable to the sex or attrac- tiveness of the defendant, the attractiveness and sex variables were col- lapsed to examine differences across simulations on verdicts rendered. 2x2 contingency tables of verdict by methodology were then analyzed by the chi-square statistic. Table 38 presents the results on the verdict variable for each of the studies. Table 38 The Observed Frequency of Guilty and Innocent Verdicts in Each Study Verdict Experimental Procedure FT VS BW GW Guilty 97 85 55 115 Innocent 70 69 85 90 No significant differences on the verdict variable were observed between the FT and VS studies (x2.05), VS and BW (x2<1.0; df=1; p>.05), or the FT and BW compari- sons (x2<1.0; df=1; p>.05). Subjects in the guilty written synopsis study were more likely to find the defendant guilty of a felony than subjects in the balanced 73 Table 39 The Observed Frequencies of Misdemeanor and Felony Verdicts in Each of the Studies Severity of Verdict Experimental Procedure FT VS BW GW Felony 38 38 22 73 Misdemeanor 63 99 31 39 written synopsis study (x2=7.31; df=1; p<.05) indicating that the type of evidence presented affected the type of crime defendants were found guilty of. Severity of Sentence (Recommended Punishment for Misdemeanor) Given that the misdemeanor sentence operationalization was collapsed to a dichotomous variable, the appropriate form of analysis was deemed to be the chi-square statistic. Since none of the studies found differences on this variable attributable to the attractiveness or sex of the defend— ant, the attractiveness and sex variables were collapsed to examine dif- ferences across simulations on this variable. 2x2 contingency tables of recommended punishment by simulation were then analyzed with the chi- square statistic. Table 90 presents the results of this punishment var- iable for each of the studies. No significant differences on the misdemeanor sentence variable were observed in the FT and vs (x2=1.89; df=1; p>.05), vs and BW (x2<1.o; df=1; p>.05), FT and BW (x2.05), or the BW and GW comparisons (x2.05). 79 Table 90 The Observed Frequencies of Incarceration and Probation Recommendations for Defendants Found Guilty of a Misdemeanor in Each Study Misdemeanor Sentence Experimental Procedure FT VS BW GW Incarceration 36 23 16 17 Probation 26 26 15 22 Severity of Sentence (Recommended Punishment for Felony) Given that the felony sentence operationalization was collapsed to a dichotomous variable, the appropriate method of analysis was deemed to be the chi-square statistic. The results of the full trial study indi- cated that the sex of the defendant differentially affected the recom- mended punishment for defendants found guilty of a felony. No significant relationship between sex of defendant and recommended punishment for a felony was observed in any of the remaining studies. In addition, none of the studies found differences on felony punishment attributable to the attractiveness of the defendant. Given the significant sex of defendant results in the FT study, the most appropriate comparisons involving the FT study should include the sex variable. However, an inspection of these comparisons revealed that the expected cell frequencies were too small to allow an appropriate test by the chi-square statistic. Thus, the attractiveness and sex variables were collapsed to examine differences across simulations on felony punishment. 2x2 contingency tables of rec- ommended punishment by simulation were then analyzed with the chi-square 75 statistic. Table 91 presents the results for this punishment variable for each of the studies. Table 91 The Observed Frequencies of Incarceration and Probation Recommendations for Defendants Found Guilty of a Felony in Each Study Felony Sentence Experimental Procedure FT VS BW GW Incarceration 30 29 10 93 Probation 6 10 12 31 No significant differences on the felony sentence variable were observed in the FT and VS (x2<1.0; df=1; p>.05), or the BW and GW com- parisons (x2=1.59; df=1; p>.05). A comparison of the V8 and BW studies revealed that the subjects in the video synopsis study were more likely to recommend incarceration than subjects in the balanced written synopsis study (x2=3.92; df=1; p<.05) indicating that the mode of presenting the information had an effect on the felony sentence variable. A comparison of the FT and BW studies re- vealed that subjects in the full trial study were more likely to recom- mend incarceration than subjects in the balanced written synopsis study (x2=7.97; df=1; p<.05). This finding reinforces the conclusion that the mode of presenting the information affected the felony sentences. 76 Summary of Significant Findings for Comparisons Role-playing jurors in both the full trial and video synopsis studies were more likely to find the defendant guilty and recommend incarceration for a felony than jurors in the balanced written synopsis study. These findings indicate that the mode of presentation significantly affected jurors' verdicts and recommendations for punishment of felonies. In addi- tion, role-playing jurors in the guilty written synopsis study were more likely to find the defendant guilty and guilty of a felony than jurors in the balanced written synopsis study, indicating that the type of evi- dence affected jurors' verdicts. CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION This chapter will first address the findings for the attractiveness and sex variables. The results for the comparison of the experimental procedures will then be discussed. Effects of the Defendant's Attractiveness and Sex Fourteen hypotheses were tested in each of the four studies reported in this paper. One further hypothesis was tested in the full trial study. A total of 57 hypothesis tests were carried out. Only Hypothesis 9 in the guilty written study and Hypothesis 6 in the full trial study were supported. Given the .05 significance level used, these are probably chance findings. Although this possibility is likely, it seems useful to examine other possible reasons for these findings. In Chapter III it was reported that a number of demographic variables were measured in each of the studies. Analysis of these data revealed no differences between conditions within studies or across studies which were affecting the experimental results. However, this does not rule out the possibility that the observed differences were due to sampling error. While the significant results for both Hypothesis 9 and Hypothesis 6 may be attributable to either chance or sampling error, these findings could reflect differences due to the independent variables. The following discussion focuses on this possibility and suggests reasons for discover- ing significant relationships in one study while not in others. 77 78 Hypothesis 9, which was supported in the guilty written study, pre— dicted that the morality of the attractive female defendant would be eval— uated higher by male jurors than by female jurors. Possible reasons for the discrepancy between the results of the guilty written study and the remaining studies can be assessed by comparing the experimental procedures employed in these studies. Specifically, differences in the amount of information presented, the mode of presentation, and/or the type of evi- dence presented may account for the discrepant findings. However, if the amount of information presented produced the significant results in the guilty written study, then similar results should have been observed in the balanced written study and the video synopsis study. Moreover, if the mode of presentation produced the significant finding, a significant result should have been observed in the balanced written study. There— fore, neither the amount of information presented nor the mode of pres- entation readily accounts for the observed results. The possibility remains that the type of evidence presented produced the discrepant results. In the guilty written study jurors were presented with more evidence concerning the defendant's guilt than his/her innocence. In all other studies equal amounts of evidence supporting guilt and inno- cence were presented. Thus, the sole difference between the guilty writ- ten study and all of the remaining studies was the type of evidence pre— sented. The results for the morality variable indicate that when male and female jurors are presented with primarily evidence supporting the guilt of an attractive female defendant, male jurors attribute greater morality to her than do female jurors. One possible explanation for this observed relationship concerns the similarity of the defendant and the jurors. A number of studies 79 have shown that socially stigmatized others who possess personalities or attitudes similar to an individual's own personality or attitudes are evaluated more negatively than socially stigmatized others who possess dissimilar personalities or attitudes (e.g., Novack 8 Lerner, 1968; Mettee, 1971). The female jurors in the guilty written study probably perceived the attractive female defendant to be more similar to them than did the male jurors. In addition, since subjects in the guilty written study were given primarily evidence supporting the guilt of the defend- ant, the defendant likely would be perceived as more socially stigmatized in this study. The results for the verdict variable support this conten- tion: The defendant was found guilty more often in the guilty written study than in the other studies. Thus, the attractive female defendant in the guilty written study may have been perceived as a socially stig- matized similar other by female jurors and a socially stigmatized dis- similar other by male jurors. If socially stigmatized similar others are evaluated more negatively than socially stigmatized dissimilar others, then female jurors would be likely to evaluate the morality of the attrac- tive female defendant lower than would the male jurors. This would not have occurred in the other studies reported here where equal amounts of evidence supporting the defendant's guilt and innocence were presented, thus lessening the amount of social stigma attached to the defendant. If this reasoning is valid, then female jurors should have evaluated the attractive female defendant more negatively than male jurors on di- mensions other than morality. Hypothesis 8 predicted that male jurors would perceive the attractive female defendant to be more intelligent than would the female jurors. While this hypothesis was not supported in any of the studies, the relationship did approach significance in the 80 guilty written study (t=l.58; df=22; p=.06). Thus, some support for the stigmatized similar-dissimilar other argument may be inferred. Hypothesis 6 predicted that the attractive female defendant would be perceived as more intelligent than the unattractive female defendant. This hypothesis was supported in the full trial study only. Moreover, in the full trial study the attractive defendant's intelligence was eval— uated higher than the unattractive defendant's regardless of the sex var— iable, while this was not the case in the remaining studies. Again, dif- ferences in the amount of information presented, the mode of presentation, and/or the type of evidence presented may conceivably account for the dis- crepant findings. However, if the mode of presentation produced the sig- nificant results in the full trial study, significant results should also have been observed in the video synopsis study. In addition, if the type of evidence presented produced the full trial results, the same results should have been observed in the video synopsis and balanced written studies. Therefore, neither the mode of presentation nor the type of evidence presented could account for the discrepant results. The possibility remains that the amount of information presented could account for the discrepant results. 'More specifically, either the sheer amount of information presented or some bit(s) of information which was deleted from the full trial stimulus to produce the remaining trial stimuli may account for these findings. Although it would be impossible to evaluate the effect of each piece of deleted information, there is one intriguing argument concerning the effect of the sheer amount of information presented. During the execu- tion of the synoptic studies, a number of subjects found it difficult to make attributions concerning the defendant's intelligence based on the 81 information available to them. When this occurred, the subjects were told to do the best they could. Given that the subjects felt they did not have information on which intelligence attributions could be based, they may have decided to attribute what they considered to be average intelligence for individuals in this culture; i.e., when subjects in the synoptic studies, who felt they did not possess sufficient information to make intelligence attributions, were forced to make attributions, they may have resorted to employing cultural information to evaluate the de— fendant's intelligence. In the full trial study no subject in either the attractive or un- attractive conditions expressed an inability to make attributions con— cerning the defendant's intelligence. Given the sheer amount of avail— able information, these subjects may have felt they should be able to evaluate the defendant's intelligence. Therefore, they may have used all of the information available to them, including sociological infor- mation conveyed by the defendant's attractiveness, in making intelligence attributions. Thus, the findings of the full trial study suggest that when individuals perceive they possess sufficient information to make attributions concerning another's intelligence, attractive others will be perceived as more intelligent than unattractive others. Although psychological information was presented to the jurors concerning the de- fendant, none of this information concerned the defendant's intelligence. If psychological information concerning the defendant's intelligence had been presented to the jurors, perhaps the effect of sociological informa- tion conveyed by the defendant's attractiveness would not have been observed. 82 Two further significant findings not hypothesized were observed in the full trial study. Specifically, jurors in this study perceived the female defendant as more moral than the male defendant and were less likely to recommend incarceration for the female defendant than for the male defendant. These findings were not observed in the remaining stud- ies, indicating that the amount of information presented could account for the discrepant results. Before presenting an analysis of why amount of information presented could account for these results, it should be noted that the argument presented for the findings on the intelligence variable is not applicable here. In none of the studies did jurors express inability to make attri- butions concerning the defendant's morality or to recommend punishment. In all four studies jurors were given information concerning an alleged crime committed by the defendant and the defendant's reactions to what had occurred. This information would likely be used by the jurors to evaluate the defendant's morality and to recommend the defendant's pun- ishment. Thus, subjects in all of the studies may have perceived that they possessed sufficient information on which to base morality attribu- tions and recommend punishment. At least one possible explanation concerning the amount of information presented can account for the female defendant being perceived as more moral than the male defendant in the full trial study but not in the re- maining studies. Jurors presented with the synoptic versions of the trial received primarily salient information concerning the alleged criminal activities engaged in by the defendant and psychological information about the defendant's reaction to these activities. However, in the full trial study this information was embedded in great amounts of other information 83 concerning such issues as witness qualifications and courtroom procedures. This additional information may have distracted jurors from the informa- tion concerning the defendant's actions upon which morality attributions and punishment recommendations could be based. If so, jurors in the full trial study may have based their decisions on information other than the defendant's actions. One other source of information available to the jurors concerned the defendant's sex. Specifically, jurors may have em- ployed sociological stereotypes based on the defendant's sex in arriving at morality attributions. These sex-related sociological stereotypes may convey information which leads to higher morality attributions for females than for males. Thus, under the conditions of the full trial study higher morality ratings for the female defendant would be expected. The preceding discussion may, in part, explain why jurors recommended less severe punishment for the female defendant in the full trial study. When making punishment recommendations, jurors probably consider their perceptions of the defendant's morality. Thus, it would not be unreason- able to assume that the greater the perceived morality of the defendant, the less the punishment recommended for the defendant. Since the female defendant was perceived as more moral in the full trial study, she would receive less severe punishment recommendations. Another possible explanation for the discrepant findings concerning punishment recommendations has to do with the seriousness with which the role-playing jurors approached their tasks. Subjects in the synoptic studies had much less time to assume their roles as jurors than their full trial counterparts. Moreover, subjects in the full trial study were in a situation which more closely approximated an actual trial situation. Both of these factors may have led the subjects in the full 89 trial study to take their roles as jurors more seriously than subjects in the synoptic studies. In turn, subjects in the full trial study would have considered their decisions regarding punishment recommendations to be more important than subjects in the synoptic studies. This possibility is even more likely when information obtained in the debriefing periods is considered. Though numerous subjects in the full trial study inquired about the actual outcome of the trial, no subjects in the written synopsis studies and only a few in the video synopsis studies made this inquiry. This difference in curiosity supports the contention that role—playing jurors in the full trial study took their roles more seriously than role— playing jurors in the synoptic studies. If the subjects in the full trial study were more seriously involved in their trial-related decisions, it is not difficult to fathom why the female defendant received fewer incarceration recommendations than the male defendant. It would not be unreasonable to assume that individuals in this society consider incarceration more appropriate for males than for females. Thus, incarceration may be perceived as a more severe pun- ishment for female defendants than for male defendants. It is likely that jurors who consider their decisions to be important would consider this when making these decisions. However, subjects in the synoptic studies, who did not consider their decisions as important, may not have considered the sex of the defendant when making their decisions concerning incarcera- tion. If so, it is not surprising that the female defendant received in— carceration recommendations less often than the male defendant in the full trial study while not in the other studies. None of the remaining 55 hypotheses received support. These results may appear surprising given past studies which have found support for the 85 predicted differences. However, the present set of studies differed systematically in a number of ways from past studies in this area. The following discussion focuses on these differences. In the four studies reported here, psychological information was provided about the defendant. Past studies which have found differences attributable to the attractiveness variable provided no psychological in- formation about the stimulus person. Chapter I pointed out that when in— dividuals do not have psychological information concerning others, their attributions are likely to be based on sociological information such as information conveyed by the others' attractiveness. When psychological information is available for arriving at attributions, as with the cur- rent set of studies, individuals may base their attributions on this in- formation rather than on sociological data. The numerous failures to reject the null hypothesis in the present studies indicate that this is likely. Since actual jurors normally receive psychological information about defendants, the current findings suggest that the results of re— search which fails to provide role-playing jurors with psychological in- formation concerning the defendant may not be generalizable to actual trial situations. Another difference between prior research and the studies reported here concerns the demand characteristics of past studies. Previous stud- ies have typically attached a photograph of an attractive or unattractive stimulus person to a written description of some offense purportedly com- mitted by that person. Chapter I suggested that this mode of manipulating attractiveness may serve as a highly salient cue to subjects for assessing the purpose of the study. Thus, the results of past studies may be due to demand characteristics. 86 In the current studies, a cover story concerning the appearance of the defendant on videotape was provided in an attempt to overcome this problem. During the debriefing it was ascertained that none of the sub- jects had discerned the independent variables or had questioned the cover story. In addition, the subjects appeared surprised when the purpose of the study was revealed to them. Apparently, demand characteristics were not transparently present in these studies. Thus, the discrepancy between the results of the present studies and previous research may be attribut— able to the elimination of demand characteristics. A further difference concerns the crime involved. Chapter I pointed out that Sigall and Ostrove found when a defendant committed an attractive— ness—related crime (swindle),recommendations for punishment were the same for an attractive and an unattractive defendant. However, when the crime was attractiveness-unrelated (burglary), jurors recommended more severe punishment for the unattractive defendant. These authors considered an attractiveness-related crime to be one whose commission could be facili— tated by the attractiveness of the perpetrator, while an attractiveness- unrelated crime would not be. The crime of vehicular manslaughter appears to be an attractiveness-unrelated crime. Thus, the attractiveness related- ness of the crime would not account for the discrepancy between the find- ings of the current studies and past studies. Although the attractiveness—relatedness of the crime cannot explain these findings, another aspect of the crime may. Perhaps individuals pos- sess stereotypes concerning the physical characteristics of individuals likely to commit a certain type of crime. Such stereotypes would likely affect their attributions concerning a defendant. Since most persons are not personally acquainted with criminals, these stereotypes are probably 87 acquired through the media; e.g., the media characterizes most burglars as relatively unattractive. If individuals possess this stereotype of burglars, then it is not surprising that Sigall and Ostrove discovered an unattractive burglar was more severely punished than an attractive bur— glar in their attractiveness-unrelated condition. Simply put, the unat- tractive defendant looked like a burglar while the attractive defendant did not. Applying the above reasoning to the crime of vehicular manslaughter could explain why this attractiveness-unrelated crime did not produce differences due to the attractiveness variable. The media does not por- tray persons who commit vehicular manslaughter as consistently attractive or unattractive. Indeed, persons who commit vehicular manslaughter are seldom portrayed by the media. Therefore, individuals probably do not possess stereotypes concerning the attractiveness of people who commit vehicular manslaughter. Given this possibility, the results of the pre- sent studies may stem from lack of a stereotype concerning the attractive- ness of persons who commit vehicular manslaughter. The crime employed in the present set of studies differs from crimes employed in past studies on yet another dimension. Previous studies have employed crimes such as burglary and swindling which are intentionally committed; i.e., the goal of the individual is to commit the crime to achieve rewards for him/herself. However, the crime of vehicular man- slaughter is defined by California law as the unintentional but unlawful killing of a human being while driving a vehicle. Legal experts might argue that from their perspective vehicular manslaughter could be con- sidered intentional. It is unlikely, however, that jurors would consider this offense an intentional criminal act. Attribution perspectives suggest 88 that information concerning an intentional action taken by an individual to secure rewards would be more likely to be employed when making attri- butions than information concerning an unintentional action which was not motivated by rewards (e.g., Heider, 1958; Jones 8 Davis, 1965). This fact suggests that the conflict between the current findings and past findings could be due to the intentionality of the crimes involved. Information about an intentional crime committed by an individual to obtain rewards would be more likely to lead to negative evaluations concerning the defendant than information about an unintentional crime not motivated by rewards. In the case of intentional crimes, information conveyed by the attractiveness variable may overcome these negative eval- uations for attractive defendants but not for unattractive ones. In the case of unintentional crimes, there would be fewer negative evaluations to overcome, thus confounding the effects of the attractiveness variable. The preceding discussion has focused on numerous possible reasons for the discrepancies between findings of the present studies and pre— vious research. It should be noted that the present studies were con— ducted, in part, to examine the ecological validity of past findings. Most of the reasons advanced for the discrepant findings indicate that the results of past studies may not be generalizable to actual trial settings. The following section will focus on the results for comparing the experimental procedures which are directly relevant to the ecological validity argument. Comparison of Experimental Procedures Despite the lack of evidence for effects attributable to the attrac- tiveness variable, the results do indicate that the mode of presentation 89 and the type of evidence presented did influence juridic judgments. In both the full trial and video synopsis studies, subjects returned signifi- cantly more guilty verdicts than subjects in the balanced written study. Moreover, subjects in these two video studies were more likely to recom- mend incarceration than subjects in the balanced written study. These findings support the contention that the mode of presentation affected juridic decisions. Subjects in the guilty written study returned significantly more guilty verdicts and felony verdicts than subjects in the balanced writ— ten study. These findings indicate that the type of evidence presented also influenced juridic decisions. The findings concerning the mode of presentation variable demonstrate that the nonverbal and paralinguistic cues presented to jurors in the videotaped versions of the trial systematically affected their decisional behavior in ways which caused them to be more punitive than jurors who read the balanced written synopsis. Obviously, more research is needed if the precise nonverbal and paralinguistic cues influencing juror be- havior are to be specified. Nevertheless, these findings do indicate that if the goal of legal researchers is to produce generalizable find- ings then studies should be conducted under presentational conditions which closely approximate actual trial situations. The findings concerning the type of evidence presented indicate that jurors presented with primarily guilty evidence are more likely to find the defendant guilty and to recommend more severe sentences than jurors presented with equal amounts of evidence concerning the guilt and inno- cence of the defendant. Although hardly surprising, these results do 90 suggest that the findings of research which does not leave the guilt of the defendant open to question may not be generalizable to actual trials. The results of the comparison of the full trial and video synopsis studies provide no support for the contention that the amount of informa— tion presented to jurors has a significant impact on their trial related decisions. It could be argued that the full trial and video synopsis presentations differed systematically on variables other than the amount of information presented, thus confounding the effect of the amount of information variable. Although an attempt was made to present all the highly relevant information in the video synopsis, there is no guarantee that some unnoticed systematic difference did not influence outcomes. Therefore, further research focusing on the amount of information variable is needed. Taken together, the results of the present studies carry a clear message for legal researchers: if the goal of the researcher is to pro- duce findings which are generalizable to actual trials, studies should be conducted under informational, presentational, and evidential condi- tions that closely approximate the trial situation. APPENDIX 91 Drs. Gerald R. Miller and Norman E. Fontes have been investigating communication problems that exist within the legal system for the past three years. Today you are participating in a study that is part of their programmatic research into this socially significant problem area. You have just been presented with a trial involving a defendant charged with vehicular manslaughter. We are asking you to continue to role—play jurors while you complete the attached questionnaire. The research exe- cuted by Drs. Miller and Fontes and other members of their research team has received national attention and is being used by legal experts to introduce change into the legal system. The research findings are very important, and we hope you will conscientiously play the role of a juror when completing the questionnaire. Thank you very much for your kind cooperation. 92 You are now going to be asked to make a decision concerning the defendant's guilt or innocence. Please check the appropriate response. 1. I find the defendant guilty innocent If you have found the defendant innocent, please skip to question 6. If you found the defendant guilty, you must decide if she/he is guilty of a misdemeanor or a felony. Please check the appropriate response. 2. I find the defendant guilty of a felony misdemeanor If you found the defendant guilty of a felony, please skip question 3 and move to question 9. If you found the defendant guilty of a misdemeanor, please answer question 3 and skip question 9. 3. Since you have found the defendant guilty of a misdemeanor, you must now recommend the number of months the defendant is going to spend in the county jail. Please assume that the defendant will serve the total number of months you recommend. months (defendant is put on probation) month months months months months months months months 9 months 10 months 11 months 12 months ooqowmrootot—‘o 9. Since you have found the defendant guilty of a felony, you must now recommend the number of years the defendant is going to spend in prison. Please assume that the defendant will serve the total num- ber of years you recommend. 0 years (defendant is put on probation) 1 year 2 years 3 years 9 years 5 years The 93 6 years 7 years 8 years 9 years 10 years 11 years 12 years How certain are you that the defendant is guilty? (After responding to this question, please skip to question 7.) very certain somewhat certain somewhat uncertain not very certain at all How certain are you that the defendant is innocent? not very certain at all somewhat uncertain somewhat certain very certain How probable is it that the defendant will commit a crime in the future? very probable somewhat probable not very probable not very probable at all next set of statements concern how you believe the defendant personally feels about a number of topics. Two statements appear together for each item. Please check the statement that you believe the defendant would most agree with. 8. 90 The defendant feels that Children get into trouble because their parents punish them too much. The trouble with most children nowadays is that their parents are too easy with them. The defendant feels that Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad luck. People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make. 10. ll. 12. 13. 19. 15. 16. 17. 99 The defendant feels that One of the major reasons why we have wars is because people don't take enough interest in politics. There will always be wars, no matter how hard people try to prevent them. The defendant feels that In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world. Unfortunately, an individual's worth often passes unrecognized no matter how hard he/she tries. The defendant feels that The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense. Most students don't realize the extent to which their grades are influenced by accidental happenings. The defendant feels that Without the right breaks one cannot be an effective leader. Capable people who fail to become leaders have not taken advantage of their opportunities. The defendant feels that No matter how hard you try some people just don't like you. People who can't get others to like them don't understand how to get along with others. The defendant feels that Heredity plays the major role in determining one's personality. It is one's experiences in life which determine what they're like. The defendant feels that What is going to happen will happen. Trusting to fate doesn't turn out as well as making a decision to take a definite course of action. The defendant feels that In the case of the well prepared student there is rarely, if ever, such a thing as an unfair test. Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated to course work that studying is really useless. 18. 19. 20. 210 22. 23. 29. 25. 95 The defendant feels that Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has little or nothing to do with it. Getting a good job depends mainly in being in the right place at the right time. The defendant feels that The average citizen can have an influence in government decisions. This world is run by the few people in power, and there is not much the little guy can do about it. The defendant feels that When you make plans, you can be almost certain that you can make them work. It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune anyhow. The defendant feels that There are certain people who are just no good. There is some good in everybody. The defendant feels that Getting what you want has nothing to do with luck. Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping a coin. The defendant feels that Who gets to be boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the right place first. Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability, luck has little or nothing to do with it. The defendant feels that As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are the victims of forces we can neither understand nor control. By taking an active part in political and social affairs, the people can control world events. The defendant feels that Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by accidental happenings. There really is no such thing as luck. 26. 27. 28. 290 30. 31. 32. 33. 96 The defendant feels that One should always be willing to admit mistakes. It is usually best to cover up one's mistakes. The defendant feels that It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you. How many friends you have depends on how nice a person you are. The defendant feels that In the long run the bad things that happen to us are balanced by the good ones. Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability, ignorance, laziness, or all three. The defendant feels that With enough effort we can wipe out political corruption. It is difficult for people to have much control over the things politicians do in office. The defendant feels that Sometimes you can't understand how teachers arrive at the grades they give. There is a direct connection between how hard you study and the grades you get. The defendant feels that A good leader expects people to decide for themselves what they should do. A good leader makes it clear to everybody what their jobs are. The defendant feels that Many times we have little influence over the things that happen to us. It is impossible that chance or luck plays an important role in our lives. The defendant feels that People are lonely because they don't try to be friendly. There's not much use in trying too hard to please people, if they like you, they like you. 97 39. The defendant feels that There is too much emphasis on athletics in high school. Team sports are an excellent way to build character. 35. The defendant feels that What happens to us is our own doing. Sometimes we don't have enough control over the direction our lives are taking. 36. The defendant feels that Most of the time you can't understand why politicians behave the way they do. In the long run, the people are responsible for bad government on a national as well as a local level. The next item concerns how you feel about the defendant. 37. I feel that The defendant exerts more control over the environment than the environment exerts over the defendant. The environment exerts more control over the defendant than the defendant exerts over the environment. 38. Please check the statement that you think best describes the defend- ant's drinking habits. The defendant drinks heavily. The defendant drinks moderately. The defendant drinks only on social occasions. The defendant does not drink at all. 39. How often do you think the defendant gets drunk? very frequently frequently seldom never 90. How likely do you think the defendant is to drive when drunk? very likely somewhat likely somewhat unlikely very unlikely Please check one of the responses that best 98 describes your feelings con— cerning the defendant. 91. 1+2. 93. 99. I believe that this defendant is intelligence. I believe that I believe that intelligence. I believe that I believe that intelligence. I believe that I believe that intelligence. very much above average in above average in intelligence. slightly above average in is is defendant defendant this this is is defendant defendant this this average in intelligence. slightly below average in below average in intelligence. very much below average in is is defendant defendant this this I believe that this defendant is very much below average in his/her knowledge of current events. I believe that this defendant is below average in his/her knowledge of current events. I believe that this defendant is slightly below average in his/her knowledge of current events. I believe that this defendant is average in his/her knowledge of current events. I believe that this defendant is slightly average in his/her knowledge of current events. I believe that this defendant is above average in his/her knowledge of current events. I believe that this defendant is very much above average in his/her knowledge of current events. defendant defendant This defendant impresses me as This defendant impresses me as moral or particularly immoral. This defendant impresses me as degree. This defendant This defendant This This being being being being impresses impresses me me as as extremely moral. moral. moral to a slight degree. neither particularly being immoral to a slight immoral. extremely immoral. being being impresses me as impresses me as I believe that I believe that I believe that degree. I believe that degree. this defendant this defendant this defendant this defendant is extremely maladjusted. is maladjusted. is maladjusted to a slight is neither particularly malad- justed nor particularly well adjusted. I believe that this defendant is well adjusted to a slight I believe that this defendant is well adjusted. I believe that this defendant is extremely well adjusted. 99 95. I feel that I would probably like this defendant very much. I feel that I would probably like this defendant. I feel that I would probably like this defendant to a slight degree. I feel that I would probably neither particularly like nor particularly dislike this defendant. I feel that I would probably dislike this defendant to a slight degree. I feel that I would probably dislike this defendant. I feel that I would probably dislike this defendant very much. 96. I believe that I would very much dislike working with this defendant. I believe that I would dislike working with this defendant. I believe that I would dislike working with this defendant to a slight degree. I believe that I would neither particularly dislike nor par- ticularly enjoy working with this defendant. I believe that I would enjoy working with this defendant to a slight degree. I believe that I would enjoy working with this defendant. I believe that I would very much enjoy working with this defendant. The following statements concern the Judge's jury instructions to you. Some of the statements accurately reflect what the Judge told you while others do not. Please mark the statement "True" if it accurately re— flects what the Judge said and "False" if the statement is inaccurate. 97. If the attorneys for the parties involved in this case stipulated to any fact, you were instructed by the Judge to regard that fact as conclusively proved. True False 98. It is necessary that facts be proved by direct evidence. They cannot be proved by circumstantial evidence or by a combination of direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. False True 99. There is no distinction between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence as a means of proof. False True 50. 51. 52. 53. 59. 55. 56. 100 Direct evidence means evidence that directly proves a fact, conclu- sively establishes that fact. True False Circumstantial evidence means evidence that proves a fact from which an inference of the existence of another fact may be drawn. True False A witness false in one part is not to be distrusted in others; that is to say, you may not reject the whole testimony of a witness who willfully has testified falsely as to a material point. True False Testimony given by one witness who you believe is sufficient for the proof of any fact. False True Reasonable doubt is defined as follows: It is a mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs, and depending on moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is not that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they can say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certain— ty, of the truth charge. True False Vehicle manslaughter is the unintentional but unlawful killing of a human being in the driving of a vehicle. True False Vehicle manslaughter is a felony when a person commits, with gross negligence, an act inherently dangerous to human life or safety, or commits, with gross negligence, an act ordinarily lawful which might produce death. False True 101 57. To constitute manslaughter in this case, the act so committed by the defendant need not have been the proximate cause of the death of the person killed. False True 58. The term "gross negligence," as used in the definition of manslaughter given by the Judge, means the failure to exercise any care, or the exercise of so little care that you are justified in believing that the person whose conduct is involved was wholly indifferent to the consequences of his or her conduct to the welfare of others. True False 59. The rate of speed at which a person travels, considered as an iso- lated fact and simply in terms of so many miles per hour, is alone proof of a violation of the basic speed law. False True 60. If the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the amount, by weight, of alcohol in the defendant's blood was one-fifteenth of one percent (0.15%) or more at the time of the test as shown by a chemical analysis of his or her blood, breath, or urine, you should find that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liq- uor at the time of the alleged offense, unless from all evidence you have a reasonable doubt that he or she was in fact under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time of the alleged offense. True False 61. If you find the defendant guilty of vehicle manslaughter, then the defendant has committed a felony. False True Below are some statements concerning information provided by witnesses during the course of the trial. Some of the statements accurately reflect what the witnesses said when they testified while others do not. Please mark the statement "True" if it accurately reflects what the witness said and "False" if the statement is inaccurate. 62. Officer Ross' total length of service as a Highway Patrol Officer was slightly over three years. True False 63. 69. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 102 The accident occurred shortly after midnight, according to Officer Ross. False True The defendant was driving a Corvair at the time of the accident. True False Officer Ross spent approximately one hour and fifteen minutes with the defendant the morning of the accident. True False Officer Ross testified that he had administered the MOBAT Test to approximately 100 people. True False Officer Ross did not think the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the accident. False True The defendant told Officer Ross that the defendant had drunk a total of six drinks the day of the accident. True False The defendant told Officer Ross that the defendant had not seen Martha Bell prior to the accident. True False According to Officer Ross, the road where the accident occurred had eleven foot wide lanes and no shoulder. False True Officer Ross testified that the last six-tenths of a mile of the road traveled by the defendant prior to the accident was hilly. False True 72. 73. 79. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 103 Officer Ross testified that the light switch was pulled out in Martha Bell's vehicle indicating that the lights had been on. False True Officer Ross testified that the battery in the victim's car had been shorted out as a result of the accident. True False Officer Ross testified that the left rear tire from the victim's vehicle had a long cut in it. False True The defendant told Officer Ross that the defendant had been driving 99 M.P.H. prior to the accident. True False Officer Ross stated that he did not administer the ROMBERG Test to the defendant because the defendant was too intoxicated to complete it. True False Daniel F. Meek was a clinical laboratory bioanalyst who owned and operated a clinical laboratory. False True Dr. Meek testified that a person with .10% blood-alcohol level shouldn't be driving. True False When questioned about the accuracy of the MOBAT Test, Dr. Meek said that it was accurate to within plus or minus 10% of the reading ob- tained when it is administered. False True 80. 81. 82. 83. 89. 85. 86. 87. 109 When asked if he was familiar with the scientific work of Glenn C. Forrester, Dr. Meek testified that he had not read anything written by Mr. Forrester. False True Dr. Meek stated that the defendant's blood-alcohol level would have registered .02% higher if the MOBAT Test had been administered at the scene of the accident immediately following the mishap instead of at the hospital like it was. True False Dr. Talley, the second physician to testify, was a Captain in the United States Army. True False Dr. Talley was a specialist in internal medicine. False True The defendant suffered about an inch and a half to two inch lacera— tion on the inside of the mouth as a result of the accident. False True The defendant did not break or fracture any bones as a result of the accident. False True Dr. Talley testified that the defendant was intoxicated when examined at the hospital. False True Dr. Talley testified that the defendant may have appeared intoxicated as a result of the codeine the defendant took to relieve pain from the injuries suffered during the accident. True False 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 99. 95. 105 When questioned about the effects the suturing of the laceration in the mouth may have had upon the defendant's speech, Dr. Talley stated that it could have affected the defendant's speech. True False Dr. Talley stated that the medication given the defendant affected the alcohol-level reading on the MOBAT Test administered by Officer Ross. False True The first person to arrive at the scene of the accident was Mr. Mark Stevens, a Fire Fighter. True False Mr. Stevens found the defendant lying by the roadside. False True Mr. Stevens testified that when he talked to the defendant at the scene of the accident, he could smell alcohol on the defendant's breath. False True Mr. Stevens reported that he determined Martha Bell was dead by checking the pupils of her eyes; the pulse at her wrist and neck; and by squeezing her fingernails. True False Mr. Stevens testified that Martha Bell was wearing all dark colored clothing at the time of the accident. True False Mark Stevens indicated that both of Martha Bell's legs were severely fractured below the knees. False True 106 96. Stevens testified that the front of the defendant's vehicle and the left side of Martha Bell's vehicle were damaged. False True 97. Mark Stevens testified that he witnessed Officer Ross administer the MOBAT Test to the defendant and did not detect any odor of alcohol on the defendant's breath at that time. True False (CONTINUE ON NEXT PAGE) 107 Now we would like to get some idea of your evaluations of the two attorneys. Please complete the following scales for each attorney. Here is how to use these scales: Attorney A Example: bad : : : : : : :good 1 2 3 9 5 6 7 If you felt that attorney was in general extremely bad, you would place a check mark in space #1; if quite bad (but not extremely bad), in #2; if slightly bad, in #3; if neither good nor bad, in #9; if slightly good, in #5; if quite good, in #6; and if extremely good, in #7. The "9" or neutral space on the scale may also be used for "I don't know," or "I don't think this scale applies," answers. Please note that the "good" or "favorable" words are not all on the same side. Put your check within the spaces (: x z), not on the lines sepa- rating scales. Please place one mark on each of the 30 scales. Prosecution Attorney, Mr. Wilson 98. trustworthy: :untrustworthy 99. just: :unjust 100. dishonest: :honest 101. bad: :good 102. safe: :dangerous 103. expert: :ignorant 109. incapable: :capable 105. trained: :untrained 106. unknowledgeable: :knowledgeable 107. incompetent: :competent 108. energetic: :tired 109. meek: :aggressive 110. indecisive: :decisive lll. bold: :timid 112. passive: :active 108 Defense Attorney, Mr. Manning 113. trustworthy: : : : : : : :untrustworthy 119. just: :unjust 115. dishonest: :honest 116. good: :bad 117. dangerous: :safe 118. expert: :ignorant 119. incapable: :capable 120. untrained: :trained 121. knowledgeable: :unknowledgeable 122. competent: :incompetent 123. energetic: :tired 129. meek: :aggressive 125. indecisive: :decisive 126. bold: :timid 127. passive: :active We would like to get some idea of your evaluation of the defendant's physical attractiveness. for these evaluations. Example: Use the seven scales on the following page Here is how to use the scales: In comparison to people in general, I think the defendant was: physically attractive: :physically unattractive If you felt the defendant was extremely attractive, you would place a check in space #1; if quite attractive (but not extremely so), in #2; if slightly attractive, in #3; if average; in #9; if slightly unattractive, in #5; if quite unattractive, in #6; if extremely unattractive, in #7. The "9" or neutral space on the scale may also be used for "I don't know," or "I don't think this scale applies," answers. 109 Please note that the attractive ratings are not all on the same side. Put your check within the spaces (: X :), not on the lines separating spaces. Please place one mark on each of the seven scales. 128. In comparison to people in general, I think the defendant was: very very physically physically attractive: : : : : : : :unattractive Ave. 129. I think the defendant's hair was: very attractive: : : : : : : :very unattractive Ave. 130. I think the defendant's eyes were: very unattractive: : : : : : : :very attractive Ave. 131. I think the defendant's nose was: very unattractive: : : : : : : :very attractive Ave. 132. I think the defendant's mouth was: very attractive: : : : : : : :very unattractive Ave. 133. I think the defendant's complexion was: very unattractive: : : : : : : :very attractive Ave. The next set of statements concern how you personally feel about a number of topics. Two statements appear together for each item. Please check the statement that you most agree with. 139. Children get into trouble because their parents punish them too much. The trouble with most children nowadays is that their parents are too easy with them. 135. Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad luck. People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make. 136. One of the major reasons why we have wars is because people don't take enough interest in politics. There will always be wars, no matter how hard people try to prevent them. 110 137. In the long run, people get the respect they deserve in this world. Unfortunately, an individual's worth often passes unrecognized no matter how hard he/she tries. 138. The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense. Most students don't realize the extent to which their grades are influenced by accidental happenings. 139. Without the right breaks one cannot be an effective leader. Capable people who fail to become leaders have not taken advantage of their opportunities. 190. No matter how hard you try some people just don't like you. People who can't get others to like them don't understand how to get along with others. 191. Heredity plays the major role in determining one's personality. It is one's experiences in life which determine what they're like. 192. I have often found that what is going to happen will happen. Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me as making a decision to take a definite course of action. 193. In the case of the well prepared student, there is rarely, if ever, such a thing as an unfair test. Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated to course work that studying is really useless. 199. Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has little or nothing to do with it. Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place at the right time. 195. The average citizen can have an influence in government decisions. This world is run by the few people in power, and there is not much the little guy can do about it. 196. When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make them work. It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune anyhow. 197. There are certain people who are just no good. There is some good in everybody. 198. In my case, getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck. Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping a coin. 199. 159. 155. 156. 157. 158. 159. 111 Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the right place first. Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability, luck has little or nothing to do with it. As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are the victims of forces we can neither understand, nor control. By taking an active part in political and social affairs, the people can control world events. Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by accidental happenings. There really is no such thing as "luck." One should always be willing to admit mistakes. It is usually best to cover up one's mistakes. It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you. How many friends you have depends on how nice a person you are. In the long run, the bad things that happen to us are balanced by the good ones. Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability, ignorance, laziness, or all three. With enough effort we can wipe out political corruption. It is difficult for people to have much control over the things politicians do in office. Sometimes I can't understand how teachers arrive at the grades they give. There is a direct connection between how hard I study and the grades I get. A good leader expects people to decide for themselves what they should do. A good leader makes it clear to everybody what their jobs are. Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role in my life. People are lonely because they don't try to be friendly. There's not much use in trying too hard to please people, if they like you, they like you. 160. There is too much emphasis on athletics in high school. Team sports are an excellent way to build character. 161. 162. 112 What happens to me is my own doing. Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over the direction my life is taking. Most of the time I can't understand why politicians behave the way they do. In the long run, the people are responsible for bad government on a national as well as on a local level. And now we would like to ask you some questions about yourself. Please complete all of the following items. 163. 169. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171 0 172. Age: Sex: Female Male Marital Status: _____ Single _____ Married ______Divorced Separated ______Widowed How many years of school have you completed? _____ years Occupation: (We are interested in what you do for a living and not who you work for.) Have you ever served as a juror before? yes no How many hours per week on the average do you spend watching television? hours Do you own an automobile? no yes Do you have a driver's license? yes no Please check the statement that best describes your drinking habits. I drink heavily I drink moderately I drink only on social occasions I do not drink 173. 179. 113 How often do you get drunk? very frequently frequently seldom never How likely are you to drink when driving? very likely somewhat likely somewhat unlikely very unlikely THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Beran, W., R.S. Albert, P.R. Lioseaux, P.M. Mayfield, and G. Wright. "Jury Behavior as a Function of the Prestige of the Foreman and the Nature of Leadership." Journal of Public Law, 7 (1958), 919-999. Berscheid, E., and E. Walster. "Physical Attractiveness." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 8 (1979). Berscheid, E., and E. Walster. "Physical Attractiveness and Dating Choice: A Test of the Matching Hypothesis." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (1969). Blunk, R.A., and B.D. Sales. "Persuasion During the Voir Dire." Psychol- ogy in the Legal Process, Sales, B.D. (Ed.). New York: Spectrum, 1976. Brislin, R., and S. Lewis. "Dating and Physical Attractiveness." Psycho- logical Reports, 1968. Byrne, D., 0. London, and K. Reeves. "The Effects of Physical Attractive- ness, Sex, and Attitude Similarity on Interpersonal Attraction." Journal of Personality, 36 (1968), 259-271. Dion, K. "Physical Attractiveness and the Evaluation of Children's Trans- gressions." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29 (1972), 207-213. Dion, K., E. Berscheid, and E. Walster. "What is Beautiful is Good." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29 (1972), 285-290. Efran, M.G. "The Effect of Physical Appearance on Judgment of Guilt, Interpersonal Attraction, and Severity of Recommended Punishment in a Simulated Jury Task." Journal of Research in Personality, 8 (1979), 95-59. Fontes, N.E., G.R. Miller, and D.C. Bender. "Deletion of Inadmissible Materials from Courtroom Trials: Merit or Myth?" Detroit College of Law Review, 1 (1977), 67-81. Heider, F. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: John Wiley 8 Sons, 1958. 119 115 Hocking, J.E., J.E. Bauchner, E.P. Kaminski, G.R. Miller. "Detecting Deceptive Communication from Verbal, Visual, and Paralinguistic Cues." Paper presented at the International Communication Asso- ciation Convention. Portland, Oregon, 1976. Jones, E.E., and K.E. Davis. "From Acts to Dispositions: The Attribution Process in Person Perception." Advances in Experimental and Social Psychology, Berkowitz, L. (Ed.). Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, 1965. Kaplan, M.F., and G.D. Kemmerick. "Juror Judgment as Information Inte— gration: Combining Evidential and Nonevidential Information." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30 (1979), 993-999. Kelley, H.H. "Attribution Theory in Social Psychology." Nebraska Sym- posium on Motivation, 15 (1967), 192—238. Lawson, R.G. "The Law of Primacy in the Criminal Courtroom." The Journal of Social Psychology, 77 (1969), 121-131. Mettee, D.R. "Changes in Liking as a Function of Magnitude and Affect of Sequential Evaluations." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7 (1971), 157-172. Miller, A.G. "Social Perception of Internal-External Control." Percep— tion and Motor Skills, 30 (1970), 103-109. Miller, G.R., and M. Steinberg. Between People. Science Research Asso- ciates, (1975). Miller, G.R., D.C. Bender, F. Boster, B.T. Florence, N.E. Fontes, J. Hocking, and H. Nicholson. "The Effects of Videotape Testimony in Jury Trials." Brigham Young Universipy Law Review, 2 (1975), 331—373. Miller, G.R., N.E. Fontes, J. Bauchner, D. Brandt, F. Boster, 8. Carmen, R. Halbert, L. Haight, E. Kaminski, M. Sunnafrank, E. Werner. "The Effects of Videotaped Court Materials on Juror Response: Preliminary Report." Unpublished Monograph. Michigan State University, (1977). Mitchell, H.E., and D. Byrne. "The Defendant's Dilemma: Effects of Jurors' Attitudes and Authoritarianism on Judicial Decisions." Journal of Personalipy and Social Psycholggy, 25 (1973), 123-129. Novak, D.W., and M.J. Lerner. "Rejection as a Consequence of Perceived Similarity." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8 (1968), 197-152. Orne, M.T. "On the Social Psychology of the Experiment: With Particular Reference to Demand Characteristics and Their Implications." American Psychologist, 17 (1962), 776-783. ll6 Sigall, H., and N. Ostrove. "Beautiful but Dangerous: Effects of Offender Attractiveness and Nature of the Crime on Juridic Judgment." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31 (1975), 910—919. Waller, W. "The Rating and Dating Complex." American Sociological Review, 1937. Walster, E. "Assignment of Responsibility for an Accident." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3 (1966), 73-79. "IllllllllfllllllllI