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