1
The Influences of Sex, Crime, and Individuating Information on Jurors’ Assessments of Defendant Guilt
A Thesis Proposal Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Psychology
EastCarolinaUniversity
In Partial Fulfillmentof the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts in Psychology
by
Seth Miller
January, 2007
The Influences of Sex, Crime, and Individual-Specific Information on Jurors’ Assessments of Defendant Guilt
Each day, countless decisions are made on a multitude of topics. The consequences of some decisions seem trivial while others may have obvious, far reaching and life altering consequences. The decisions reached by judges and jurors in the courtroom are likely to fall under the latter category. Therefore, it is important that such decisions be as well thought out, accurate, and as bias-free as possible. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the role of sex stereotypes and the effects of individuating information in the context of judicial decisions.
Stereotypes can be defined as attributes or concepts that are readily associated with a social category and its members. While such attributes are not adequate to define a social category, they, nonetheless, tend to be seen as typical of category members (Bodenhausen & Macrae, 1998). It has been suggested that stereotypes can have a potent impact on how positively or negatively one individual evaluates another or the work of another. One of the earliest researchers to examine this concept empirically was Philip Goldberg in 1968 when he examined sex stereotypes and their influence on how the work of another is perceived. He conducted an experiment in which a group of women were asked to evaluate identical articles that were supposedly written by either a male or a female professional. The results indicated that women rated the articles that were attributed to male authors more positively as compared to the identical articles attributed to female authors, especially when the article was related to stereotypically masculine fields such as law or city planning. However, when other researchers attempted to replicate this experiment in 1975 using a similar procedure, no significant differences were found (Levenson, Burford, Bonno, & Davis, 1975).
To examine these, and other, similar, conflicting findings, Swim, Borgida, Maruyama, and Myers (1989) conducted a meta-analysis of the literature in this field. This extensive meta-analysis examined the results of 123 studies conducted using Goldberg’s 1968 procedure or paradigmatically similar procedures. It was found that, averaged across studies, sex biases were virtually nonexistent as sex accounted for a very limited proportion of the variability in evaluations between the work of men and women. However, it was also found that the results of the studies, while averaging out to a finding of little or no effects based on sex, were heterogeneous with a substantial amount of variability in results from study to study. This suggests that there may be important factors that help to determine if or when sex stereotypes bias evaluations (Swim et al.).
One of these factors seems to be the presence or absence of additional, individuating information that is relevant to the stereotype in question (Barbera, 2003; Locksley, Hepborn, Borgida, & Brekke, 1980). Locksley et al. conducted a study examining ratings of predicted assertiveness in male and female targets. When participants were told only the sex of the target or were told the sex of the target and provided with a short description containing limited relevant information, men were rated as more assertive than women. However, when identical individuating information pertaining to assertiveness was provided for both male and female targets, no significant differences were found (Locksley et al.). More recent work by Barbera in 2003 has also illustrated that individuating information reduces stereotypical sex judgments even among children. However, when such information is not available, individuals may still classify others based on sex stereotypes (Barbera).
One theory concerning why this occurs has been presented by Kunda and Thagard (1996). Their parallel-constraint-satisfaction theory suggests that stereotypes and individuating information are processed simultaneously and work to constrain each other’s meaning. In this way, they work in conjunction to influence an individual’s impression of another person. This can occur when information conflicts with an activated stereotype or when individuating information activates another, more generic stereotype, which they termed the “ordinary, average person” stereotype (Kunda & Thagard, p. 297). Like the presence of conflicting information, this proposed stereotype is said to dilute the influence that an activated stereotype exerts on one individual’s impression of another person. It should be noted however, that this theory is geared most strongly towards impression formation and rapid judgments concerning whether or not a trait is possessed by an individual. Kunda and Thagard argue thatjudgments concerning whether or not an individual committed a certain action (such as a crime) is a more complex task that relies on causal reasoning and explanations. As a result, theyrecognize that their theory may not be as well suited to complex judicial decisions, since it is hoped that stereotypes will not play a strong role and there will be little for individuating information to constrain. They do assert, however, that more research is needed in this area to determine the veracity of the situation (Kunda & Thagard).
One related empirical study has yielded results that contradict the idea that complex tasks requiring reasoning dilute or eliminate the influences of stereotypes in the decision making process. A study conducted by Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987) assessed the effects of racial stereotypes on a complex task (determining the guilt of an individual in a criminal trial) and a simple task (assessing the aggressiveness of an individual). This was accomplished by providing respondents with a case summary and asking them to utilize the information contained within it to make an assessment concerning either guilt or aggressiveness. The results of the study revealed that stereotypes had a greater impact on the more complex task of determining guilt than they did on the simpler task of assessing aggressiveness (Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein). As a result, it seems plausible to accept thatKunda and Thagard’s (1996) theory of parallel-constraint could be relevant in determining the influence that stereotypes and individuating information could exert in a complex criminal trial.
When examining the court systems, two questions may come to mind:Are there sex-stereotypical crimes and do stereotypes influence jurors’ decisions? Unfortunately, there is little previous empirical research that can be used to answer the first question. The idea of sex-stereotypical crimes appears to be a neglected area in the discipline of psychology. However, there are archival data that suggest that some crimes are more strongly associated with one sex or the other. The United States Department of Justice is one source of such information. Their data indicate that men are much more likely to be arrested for a violent crime as compared to women. While men are also more likely to be arrested for a property offense, the difference in arrest rates for men and women in this area of crime is smaller, particularly when looking at larceny-theft or white collar crimes such as fraud or embezzlement (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004). The first part of this study has focused on trying to discern what particular crimes (if any) are seen as stereotypically more masculine or more feminine while the second portion of the study will assess whether or not sex stereotypes influence mock judicial decisions and, if so, whether or not individuating information can mitigate this influence.
For the purposes of this experiment, a pilot study was utilized to aid in identifying and choosing stereotypically masculine or feminine crimes. The results of this study (see AppendixA)revealed that some crimes are much more strongly associated with one sex than with the other. As could be expected, given the archival data on arrest rates, most crimes are more strongly associated with male offenders than female offenders. Some of the most notable among these crimes include aggravated assault, burglary, forcible rape, motor vehicle theft, and robbery. However, there were also a number of crimes that were seen as stereotypically feminine. These included prostitution, shoplifting, and running away (for minors). Additionally, some crimes, such as fraud, forgery, and simple assault were seen as being approximately equal in likelihood for both genders.
From the results of this study, two crimes, (burglary and shoplifting) were chosen as stereotypical or non-stereotypical offenses for each sex. Burglary was seen as stereotypical for male offenders, while shoplifting, a property crime that additional archival data suggests is especially common among younger women (Ogilvie, Lynch, & Bell, 2000), was seen as stereotypical for female offenders. These two crimes were chosen for their similar, but inversely corresponding percentages, and because they are both classified as property offenses.
Case studies, utilizing these crimes, will be used in the second part of this study in an attempt to answer another question concerning the court systems; whether or not criminal-gender stereotypes play a role in the formulation of judicial decisions. In the past, a number of studies have been conducted to assess the influence of ethnic and racial stereotypes in judicial decisions. A substantial number of studies have indicated that defendants are consistently judged more harshly when the alleged crime is congruent with a racial stereotype (Bodenhausen, 1988; Bodenhausen & Lichtenstein, 1987; Gordon, 1990; Gordon & Anderson, 1995; Gordon, Bindrim, McNicholas, & Walden, 1987; Jones & Kaplan, 2003). For example, white men accused of committing embezzlement and black men accused of committing burglary were judged more harshly as compared to situations in which the crimes were reversed and made stereotypically incongruent for members of each race. (Gordon & Anderson; Gordon et al.). In addition, stereotypical crimes such as these were seen as being due to internal attributions while non-stereotypical crimes were attributed more to external influences (Gordon; Jones & Kaplan). Mock jurors also indicated that they required a lesser amount of damaging information to reach a guilty verdict when the crimes were seen as stereotypical (Jones & Kaplan).
Despite a wealth of articles addressing race stereotypes and crime, there do not appear to be any studies addressing the impact ofsex stereotypes on individual assessments of guilt at present. Therefore, the purpose of the second portion of this study is to examine what, if any, impact sex stereotypes will have on individual decisions as they relate to legal verdicts. It is predicted that men accused of burglary, a stereotypical crime, will be seen as more culpable than men accused of shoplifting when only limited individuating information is available. On the other hand, women accused of shoplifting should be viewed as more culpable than women accused of burglary when limited individuating information is available. However, it is also predicted that the presence of additional individuating information will help to reduce the influence of existing sex stereotypes, resulting in accused individuals not differing from other members of their sex across types of crime.
Method
The first part of this study utilized a 23-item questionnaire which asked student volunteers (N = 78, with 20 being male and 58 being female) to assess the likelihood that randomly selected individuals convicted of committing certain crimes were male or female (see Appendix B). Definitions of each crime were also included to help eliminate any confusion about what a certain crime might entail. This questionnaire was made available online for students who decided to participate in the study. An informed consent form describing the study was provided to all participants and an indication of their comprehension and acceptance of the information contained within it was required before the questionnaire could be viewed (see Appendix C). Participants were asked to read this form and, if they agreed with the information presented within it, they were asked to indicate their acceptance of the terms by clicking on the appropriate button at the end of the document. Participants were also provided with the researcher’s contact information so that they could ask any questions that they might have before proceeding. They were told that all questions concerning the survey would be answered, although some questions might be addressed only after they completed the survey in order to avoid biasing their responses.
Afterwards, provided that the participants accepted the information contained in the informed consent form and had no further questions, they were given access to the survey and asked to complete it. Participants were asked to submit their responses by selecting from one of 11 possible options. Once they had finished, they were thanked for their participation and a debriefing form was provided (see Appendix D). This form outlined the purpose of the study and provided contact information that the participants could use to ask additional questions or to request information concerning the aggregated results of the study. They were thanked once more and told that the session was concluded unless they had any further questions.
The data obtained through this questionnaire was analyzed by obtaining the mean of all percentage scores for men convicted of each crime and the mean percentage score for women convicted of each crime (see Appendix A). This provided a list of crimes and a measure of how strongly each one was considered to be linked with male or female offenders. From this list, two crimes, (burglary and shoplifting) were chosen as stereotypical or non-stereotypical offenses for each sex. These crimes were then used to create case studies that are designed to be used in a second experiment related to this study.
This second experiment willattempt to discern whether or not sex stereotypes bias mock judicial decisions, and, if so, whether or not this bias can be reduced by the presence of additional individuating information. This portion of the study will make use of eight different case summaries (see Appendix E) and a questionnaire (see Appendix F). In the case summaries, all defendants deny allegations that they committed an alleged crime and all non-experimental factors such as age, race, and geographical regionare held constant. Differences are present only for the defendant’s sex (indicated through names, nouns, and pronouns), type of crime, and the individuating information provided about him or her. The defendant can be either male or female, accused of burglary or shoplifting,and can havelimited individuating information or more extensive individuating information provided about him or her.
Individuatinginformation, when present, will consist of the person’s hobbies, job, family members, history, and some character information (not directly relating to the alleged crime) that is intended to be primarily neutral in nature, but may have slight positive and negative overtones. The information is not intended to sway the participants’ verdicts directly but is instead provided with the goal of presenting the defendant as an individual as opposed to a simply being a member of a group (e.g. man or woman). If the parallel-constraint theory suggested by Kunda and Thagard (1996) is accurate and applicable to a complex judicial tasksuch as this, the individuating information should dilute the influence of criminal-gender stereotypes and result in lower levels of perceived culpability for the defendants. When present, individuating information will be identical for all defendants.
The questionnaire that is intended to follow the case summary consists of three demographic questions,three questions relating to the level of guilt that the participant ascribes to the defendant, and two additional questions designed to confirm that the participant did indeed read and consider the information presented in the case summary. Of the questions relating to culpability, one utilizes a seven point scale, while a second asks for a dichotomous decision about whether or not to convict the defendant. The third question asks for an open ended response about how and why the participant made his or her decisions.
The data obtained from the seven point Likert-type scale will be analyzed using a 2x2x2 (Sex x Crime x Information) factorial ANOVA to ascertain if differences exist across groups and determine if any significant interactions exist. Answers from the question concerning whether or not to convict the defendant will be analyzed by using a four-variable logit analysis utilizing the variables of verdict (guilty or not guilty), gender (male or female), stereotype (stereotypical crime or non-stereotypical crime), and information (limited or extended individuating information). The information obtained from the open ended question concerning how and why the participants reached their decisions may be useful in helping to interpret the results of the study although it is not intended to be quantified and empirically analyzed. The final two questions are not intended to be used in the analysis, but will instead serve to verify that the participant actually read and considered the information presented in the case summary.