Can the physical attractiveness of a defendant lead to differing sentences

Can the physiological cunningness of a suspect strain to differing doomsAbstractThe purpose of the investigation was to perk up if the physical good-naturedness of a defendant has an influence of the severity of prison sentences devoted for a villainy of fraud.An probability sample consisting of 10 males and 10 females taken from sixth form students at school aged 16-18 was use. A offensive activity vignette was disposed to histrions with a depiction of the physically attractive defendant or physically un attractive defendant attached. Participants had to state whether they thought the defendant was culpable or not guilty. Participants were then told that the defendants were consummation guilty and were asked to assign a prison term that they felt the defendant deserved.The Chi-Squ ar and T-Test were employ to analyse the results. Observed Value of T= 30.88 Critical value at pProject BriefPB1The aim is to see if Sigall Ostroves (1975) findings that the physical a ttractiveness of a defendant and the nature of the crime gage start to differing sentences argon applicable to this current time period.Alternative guesswork The more than attractive defendant will receive a lower sentence for burglary than the less attractive defendant. vigor Hypothesis There will be no inconsistency in length of sentences condition to the attractive defendant and the non attractive defendant.PB2A directional hypothesis is being apply as past question by Sigall Ostroves (1975) has sh experience that physical attractiveness does have an effect on the length of a sentence give to the defendant.PB3The chosen research method will be experimental using an nonsymbiotic measures design. So each aggroup will be tested in a diametrical condition unitary group will be shown a picture with a physically attractive defendant and the new(prenominal) group will see a picture with a non attractive defendant.PB4AdvantagesCon puting variables minimisedStudy is in a co ntrolled environment so the variables can be manipulatedDisadvantagesNo control of participant variables as collectable to individuals differences the participants whitethorn not find the pictures attractive.There maybe a social desirability bias as participants may put what they think is the norm or socially desirable rather than what they actually think.There maybe investigator and participant effects.PB5Demand CharacteristicsParticipants may react in accordance to experimenters desired response i.e. the experimenter may influence the participant in the way in which he states the scenario of the crime or by unconscious gestures.Age Group BiasAll participants be between the age of 16-18 so results may not be external valid as new(prenominal) age groups may have different results and respond differently.Participant BiasParticipants may give into social norms and may no give there consecutive opinion when rating. They may rate pictures higher or lower than they really feel.PB6 Single BlindThe participants and the experimenter will be told that the sketch is on studying something other than what there doing so the participants and the experimenter wont be able to guess the aim of the study.Standardise InstructionsAll conditions of the study are given the same standardize instructions so investigator bias is eliminated.Social Desirability BiasThe results will be anonymous and confidential, giving the chance for the participants a option to absent at any time so the participants may not feel the need to put what the experimenter may see as the norm.PB7 5% train of significationPB8DeceptionNot telling the participants the true nature of the study by using a single blind technique. This will be overcome by debriefing the participants at the end of the study to ensure that the participants are happy.PrivacyThe pictures will be taking from websites which are on public domains so anyone can access them.Informed ConsentParticipants will be asked if they requ ire to participate and told the basic procedures as well i.e. giving the right to withd stinging etc. disengagementParticipants will be able to withdraw at any time during the study and will be told this throughout the study.DebriefThe participants will be amply debriefed as to the true aims of the study has been completed after the study.ObservationThe participants will not be observed.ConfidentiallyNone of the participants names will be taken and they will not be observed during the study so the results will remain anonymous.IntroductionThe Halo effect (Dion Walster, 1972) is the tendency of a characteristic such(prenominal) as physical attractiveness to influence an individuals perception of persons qualities such as intelligence, social status and personal traits. Research has engraft that attractive state are attri justed with more positive characteristics due to the Halo Effect. Dion Walster (1972) conducted an experiment called What is Beautiful is Good and found that i ndividuals who are seen as physically attractive are assumed by particpants to have more socially desirable personalities than those who are less attractive, and it is in addition assumed that attractive individuals lives will be more successful and enjoyable than individuals who are less attractive. So attractive individuals are assumed to be more sociably desired. Dion et als (1972) findings indicate that stereotyping due to individuals physical attractiveness does occur as physical attractive individuals were regarded to have more socially desired qualities and personalities, and were expected to have greater personal success in there life. These results have also been supported by Griddin Langlois (2006) and Feingold (1992) who found that homely people are perceived to hold more negative attributes.The Halo effect has been applied in research into other areas of society. For example in school or workplaces. As a study on attractiveness in school found by Clifford Walster (19 73) and Landy Sigall (1974) found that two essays which had exactly the same content were marked differently. This was belived to be due to them having pictures of the students on the essays and the more attractive person received a higher check even though the essays were the same. This shows that physical attractiveness does affect peoples way of thinking in real life settings. Another study has shown that the halo effect has an effect in job interviews as it has been found by Dipboye, Arvey, Terpstra, (1977) and Landy Sigall, (1974) that the more attractive individuals where more likely to provoke the jobs offered than the unattractive individuals even though they did the same on the working classs to get the interviews.Baron and Byrne (1997) found that attractive defendants are more likely to receive lighter sentences and gain the sympathy of the jurors rather than unattractive individuals. This is believed to be due to the Halo Effect What is beautiful is good. Sigall Os trove (1975) also found that participants who were shown an attractive word picture of a defendant charged with burglary recommend almost half the average sentence of those show no photo or an unattractive photo. Stewart (1980) also found that attractive defendants tended to receive lighter sentences and were less likely to receive prison sentences than unattractive individuals. These results were further supported by Efrans (1974) study as Efran (1974) found that juries were not as certain about the guilt of attractive defendants, and therefore gave them lighter sentences/ punishments. further it has been found that there were different factors which influence the sentence giving to an attractive individual. For example the attractiveness of an individual didnt have much of an effect on sentences when the crime was seen as very serious. Sigall Ostrove (1975) also found that attractive defendants were charged with a higher average sentences when fraud was the crime rather than th e unattractive individuals or defendant with no photo. Their results showed that when the crime committed wasnt related to physical attractiveness (e.g. burglary) the participants would give lighter sentences to the attractive defendant rather than to the unattractive defendant. In contrast when the crime was related to attractiveness (e.g. swindle), the physically attractive defendant would receive a worse sentence. The Halo Effect explains these findings in that when crimes are not related to attractiveness, the attractive participants may be seen as good due to the Halo Effect and positive stereotyping. For the physically attractive crimes the juror may feel that the attractive individuals used there attractiveness as a natural advantage to further promote themselves in society. Fraud is regarded as deceitful and is related to attractiveness therefrom more attractive defendants would be punished more severely.Aim This study will replicate Sigall Ostroves (1975) study to provide further support for previous findings see if the physical attractiveness of a defendant and the nature of the crime can lead to differing sentences in this current time period.Alternative hypothesis The more attractive defendant will receive a lower sentence for burglary than the less attractive defendant.Null Hypothesis There will be no difference in length of sentences given to the attractive defendant and the non attractive defendant.MethodMethod and designIn the experiment the IV is the physical attractiveness of the defendants and the DV was the perspicaciousness that the participants gave the photos of the physically attractive defendant and unattractive defendant i.e. guilty or not guilty. An independent group design is being used so one group of participants will be tested with the physically attractive photo of the defendant and the other group will be tested with the unattractive photo of the defendant. A questionnaire was given to the male participants so ratings of the photographs of the females could be collected and so the best voted picture would be used as the physically attractive defendant and the worse would be used for the unattractive defendant.ResearchersOne A level student collected entropy.Target population and sampleAn opportunity sample consisting of 10 males and 10 females taken from sixth form students at school. The students who were available at the time were asked to participate in the study. All participants took part in the study and none of them declined.Apparatus/materialsPilot StudyTen photographs were selected from the websites Hot or Not and RatePeople.com labelling them 1 10. All photographs were put on to A4 pieces of paper (one per page of paper). All photos were of passing shots so the defendants were looking at straight at the camera and the defendants were between the ages of 20-40. This was controlled so the participants view of the defendants didnt change due to the pose the defendant was doing or because the y thought the defendant was to old and frail to go to jail or to young etc. There was as little jewellery or clothing in the pictures as possible so it wouldnt distort the participants view on the pictures as it may afford the participant think the defendants were more or less attractive in the photos creating extraneous variable so this was done so it was only the defendants attractiveness being taken into account.Main StudyIn the main study a scenario was given to participants (see Appendix 1) and the participants had to state whether they thought the defendant was guilty or not on the participant response sheet (see Appendix 2). Two photos were used in the main study from the pilot study (the best rated photo and the worst rated photo) which were used as defendants. The best voted picture was used as the physically attractive defendant and the worse was used for the unattractive defendant.An example of one of the photographs use is shown in Appendix 3.Standardised proceduresPilo t StudyThe participants were taken into different rooms when completing the task so they werent distracted from other students.The evaluate instructions (see Appendix 4) were read to participants and consent was given.Male participants were shown the photographs of the females, and the females were shown the photographs of the men. The participants were asked to rate each of the photographs on a scale of 1 10, with 10 being most attractive and 1 being not very attractive. The participants wrote their ratings on some paper with spaces for the ratings for the 10 photographs No names were asked for. An example of a participant response is shown in Appendix 5.Main StudyThe best rated photo and the worst rated photo were than used as defendants. The best voted picture was used as the physically attractive defendant and the worse was used for the unattractive defendant.A different set of participants where given scenarios and asked if they would give a sentence to the defendant given to them and told to right down there answer on the participant response sheet.One group was given the physically attractive photo whereas the other group was given the unattractive photo.Participants after the task were thanked and debriefed (see Appendix 6).ControlsInvestigator bias was minimised by using standardised instructions.The Single blind technique was used so researcher bias, participant bias and demand characteristic were avoided by asking someone else to observe the participants during the task and telling the observer not to look at the participants while theyre doing the task to avoid participant reactivity.Participant bias was avoided by telling the participants to rate members of a opposite sex because the males may find it more difficult men in terms of physical attractiveness.EthicsInformed consent was gained as participants were given standardised instructions and told that they had the right to withdraw at any time and that their answers would remain anonymous.The re was minor deception as the participants werent told the aim of the study but this was dealt with as the participants were debriefed at the end of the study.The ethical issue of using photos of people without there consent was dealt with as the photos used were put on websites where the people want there photos to be rated thus are available to the public.Results Descriptive StatisticsSummary table of the data to show the total number of guilty verdicts given to physically attractive and physically non-attractive defendants. Participants had to state whether they found the defendant given to them guilty or not guilty. A bar chart was drawn to display the results visually. The raw data given is in Appendix 7.The Sentences Given To The DefendantsPhysically AttractivePhysically Non-AttractiveGuilty78Not Guilty32Bar chart to show the difference between the number of guilty verdicts given to attractive and non-attractive defendants in getting sentences or not.Summary table of the data to show mean prison sentences in months awarded to the attractive and non-attractive defendants by the participants. A bar chart was drawn to display the results visually. The raw data given is in Appendix 7.The Mean Length Of The Sentences Given To The DefendantsPhysically AttractivePhysically Non-AttractiveAverage21.9 Months = 1.8 Years63.6 Months = 5.3 YearsBar chart to show the difference in the length of sentences given to the attractive and physically non-attractive defendants.Results Inferential StatisticsThe Chi-Square Test and T-Test were used to analyse the results.The Chi-Square Test was appropriate for the data at a nominal level of measurement in a from of categories and the data collected from independent measures.Chi Square = 0.26Degrees of freedom = 1Critical value at pAs the observed value of chi-square was smaller than the comminuted value at a 5% level of significance, we cannot reject the null hypothesis and so it must be retained.The T-Test was appropriate for the data that was at a interval level of measurement in the form of numerical data as the data collected was from independent measures.Observed value of T = 30.88Degrees of freedom = 1Critical value at pAs the observed value of T is higher than the critical value of T at a 5% level of significance the null hypothesis can be rejected.DiscussionExplanation of findingsThe findings of this investigation found that the physical attractiveness of a defendant can lead to differing sentences. Overall the physically attractive defendant received a lighter sentence than the physically unattractive defendant. The T-Test was significant at the 0.05 level of significance supporting the assumption that the Halo effect will effect peoples views on whether a defendant is guilty or innocent.Relationship to background researchThere has been lots of research into whether the physical attractiveness can influence an individuals perception of persons qualities. Early research such as Stewart (1980) foun d that attractive defendants tended to receive lighter sentences and were less likely to receive prison sentences than unattractive individuals. Baron and Byrne (1997) also found that attractive defendants are more likely to receive lighter sentences and gain the sympathy of the jurors rather than unattractive individuals. This study supports these earlier findings and in addition shows that this bias can lead to differing prison sentences being awarded to defendants even when the crime committed is the same.This could be due to the halo effect which gives the tendency of a characteristic such as physical attractiveness to influence an individuals perception of persons qualities such as intelligence, social status and personal traits. This creates beautiful stereotypes which doesnt fit with the criminal stereotype such as scars, looking dirty etc.Although the results could be because the participants generally believed that the physically attractive defendant was guilty and the phys ically unattractive defendant wasnt.Limitations and modificationsThe study lacks ecological validity as in real life the participants would be in a instrument panel and so there would be a discussion between 12 people of varying ages on what the punishment the defendant should receive. In this experiment 6th form students were used aged between 16-18 and they made the decisions on there own rather than discussing the defendants punishment. To improve this a simulated jury could be used where the experimenter asks 12 participants to act as a jury and discuss the sentence.Due to the participant sample used there was an sample bias as the study was on an opportunity sample of 6th form students. So the results can not be generalised to the whole population. There may have also been a problem due to demand characteristics as participants may have guessed the aims of the study and may have known what results were expected and answered accordingly. Another confinement of the study was tha t the experimenter knew the participants, so this may have lead the participants to write down what they thought the convention answer would be and not what they actually thought. So there may have been an social desirability bias. This could be dealt with by using a different target population and sample.Another limitation of this study is that some participants didnt find the unattractive defendant guilty as they didnt believe that she would be able to get people into bed and so voted her not guilty. Some participants also stated that they didnt believe that there as enough evidence to charge the defendants.Another limitation of the study was individual differences as the study used independent measure design and some participants said they found the unattractive defendant guilty as they didnt like her whereas some participants said they found the attractive defendant guilty as she was attractive whereas some said it was because she looked more promiscuous.Another way to make fut ure results more reliable is to do the study again but make the participants be in groups of 12 like a real jury and see if the same results are found. This will be more reliable as in a real life juries would discuss the punishment earlier given defendants sentences.Implications and ideas for future researchTo make the results more reliable a larger sample size could be used as this would mean that more data could be analysed and this may leads to different results. Also a different age range may also lead to different results as the one-time(a) people may take it more seriously.The important implications of this research shows that there is a bias in sentences given to defendants and to get rid of this bias juries may have to make there decisions by just looking at the research and maybe not be able to see the defendant in court as theres a screen in front of them and there voice is changed.