1	The Influence of a Defendant’s Status, Level of Community Involvement, and Severity of Crime upon Degree of Juror Sentencing Matt Moore and Dana Newton Hanover College
2	Research Objective The main goal of this study was to examine whether factors irrelevant to a court case influenced the decision-making process of jurors (e.g. sentencing).
3	Two ways defendant characteristics might impact sentencing Attitude heuristic: stored evaluation either good or bad of a person (Aronson, 2004) Halo Effect Use attitude towards a person as a shortcut to make other judgments about the person Distorts one’s logic and rationale Stereotyping Generalized belief about a group of people
4	Examined Defendant Characteristics Attractiveness and gender Socio-economic status Conviction phase (deciding guilt or innocence) High status (halo effect) à “not the type of person who would…” Unless status is associated with the crime (Vidmar, Lee, Cohen, & Stewart, 1994) Sentencing phase (guilty) Could still be halo effect “Should have known better” Envy
5	Community Involvement Moral overtones A person who is involved cares about his or her community and thus seems like a more moral person (Efran, 1974; Greene, Koehring, & Quiat, 1998; Landy & Aronson, 1969)
6	Hypotheses Status If halo effect is still operating high status defendant will receive a reduced sentence If not, high status defendant “should have known better” receiving a stricter sentence Community Involvement High involvement, reduced sentencing No involvement, strict sentencing
7	Crime Severity Past research suggests that different crime types have an impact on juror sentencing Sigall & Ostrove, 1973 Vidmar, Lee, Cohen, & Stewart, 1994 Manipulation check: are jurors paying attention?
8	Design 2 x 2 x 2 design Status (occupation, education, yearly income) High or Low Community Involvement High or Not mentioned Crime Severity Voluntary manslaughter or Involuntary manslaughter
9	Method Participants 188 participants 36% male, 64% female 86% Caucasian, 4% African-American Age 15+
10	Materials Participants completed the study on a popular website of online psychology experiments Vignette 8 conditions, 1 condition per participant Brief description of voluntary/involuntary manslaughter case All information was fictitious
11	Abstract Vignette “William Klein was driving home from an annual office party on the evening of May 11 when his automobile struck and killed a pedestrian by the name of John Owensby. The circumstances leading up to this event were as follows. The office party began around 7PM that evening and by 11PM; the guests at the party began to disperse. William Klein got into his (automobile type) and began his half hour drive home. At 11:16PM, Mr. Klein (involuntary/voluntary situation) and struck and killed Mr. Owensby. The defendant, 35-year old William Klein, who (status information) and (community involvement information), was found guilty of (voluntary/involuntary manslaughter).”
12	Vignette Conditions
13	Materials Sentencing sheet Participants selected a sentence off of the given form of one year to ten years Follow-up: Defendant Characteristics Participants answered eight follow-up questions Semantic Differential E.g. Generous _(1)_ _(2)_ _(3)_ _(4)_ Greedy Demographics Age, gender, ethnicity, occupation, location of employment (rural or urban), highest educational degree, and hours per month participating in community service Participant-defendant similarity may be a factor influencing sentencing
14	Procedure Participants read an informed consent received a random assignment to one of the eight conditions read a condition and then completed the sentencing sheet, follow-up questions, and demographics sent to a debriefing page
15	Results Conducted a 2 x 2 x 2 between-subjects analysis of variance on sentencing Significant main effects for crime severity and status No effect for community service No significant interactions
16	Community Service
17	Crime Severity
18	Status
19	Status High status is a double edged sword Status could produce a halo effect (lowering sentence – this did not happen) Could actually lead to more severe sentencing (this did happen) Participants might have associated high status defendant with negative attributes of material success and power Participants might have felt envious of the defendant’s material success Participants might have felt bad for low status defendants
20	Status Reversal of the typical status effect could be due to the type of crime E.g. negligent homicide rather than premeditated homicide Vehicular manslaughter, whether voluntary or involuntary, is a result of a common daily activity
21	Limitations Participants Not jury members therefore not concerned with outcome (Efran, 1994) No deliberation (Wuensch & Moore, 2004)
22	Conclusion Tested the effect of crime severity, community service, and socioeconomic status on sentencing Found harsher sentences for more severe crime Found harsher sentences for high-status than for low-status defendants Further research is needed to determine why high status led to harsher penalties and to examine how the effect of status changes across types of crime
23	QUESTIONS ?
24	References Aronson, E. (2004). The Social Animal. Ninth Edition. New York: Worth Publishing. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24(3), 285-290. Efran, G. (1974). The effect of physical appearance on the judgment of guilt, interpersonal attraction, and severity of recommended punishment in a simulated jury task. Journal of Research in Personality, 8, 45-54. Forster-Lee, L., Fox, G.B., & Forster-Lee, R. (2004). The effects of a victim impact statements and gender on juror information processing in a criminal trial: Does the punishment fit the crime? Australia Psychologist, 39(1), 57-67. Frances, D.C. & Wrightsman, L.S. (1982). Effects of defendants’ and victims’ characteristics on jurors’ verdicts. New York: Academic Press. Greene, E.; Koehring, H., & Quiat, M. (1998). Victim impact evidence in capital cases: does the victims’ character matter? Applied Social Psychology, 28(2), 145-156. Landy, D., & Aronson, E. (1969). The influence of the character of the criminal and his victim on the decisions of simulated jurors. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 5, 141-152. MacCoun, R.J. (1996). Differential treatment of corporate defendants by juries: An examination of the “deep pockets” hypothesis. Law & Society Review, 30(1), 121- 161. Sigall, H. & Ostrove, N. (1973). Beautiful but Dangerous: Effects of Offender attractiveness and nature of the crime on juridical judgement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(3), 410-414. Vidmar, N., Lee, J., Cohen, E., & Stewart, A. (1994). Damage awards and jurors’ responsibility ascriptions in medical versus automobile negligence cases. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 12(2), 149-153.
25	Follow-up characteristics “Good” Community service lowered perceptions of goodness (2.5 vs. 2.3) High status made defendant look more good (2.2 vs. 2.5) Voluntary manslaughter looked more good than involuntary (2.6 vs. 2.2) “Lazy/simple” High status seen as more lazy and simple (3.5) than low status (2.3)