Female Mock Jurors and the Child Victim: An Assessment of Age and Sex as Factors in Trial SentencingBackgroundBackground (cont’d)Slide 4HypothesisRationaleMethodSlide 8Method (cont’d)ResultsResults (cont’d)Slide 12AgeSexAge * SexDiscussionDiscussion (cont’d)Slide 18Slide 19Female Mock Jurors and the Child Victim: An Assessment of Age and Sex as Factors in Trial SentencingTheresa BardyAmanda DubsBeverly GuilbaultChristine ManigatBackground•Child witnesses are often seen as more honest but less accurate than older witnesses (Ross, Dunning, Toglia, & Ceci, 1990; Nightingale, 1993; McCauley & Parker, 2000).•Child witness ratings are susceptible to Contrast Effects (Ross et al, 1990).–Contrast effects occur when a stereotype is violated or shown to be completely false (e.g. A child giving a very “adult-like” testimony).–This has been thought to effect studies using the same testimony and changing only the age of the witnessBackground (cont’d)•Research has found that mock jurors rated children as more credible than other age groups such as adolescents, young adults and the elderly (Ross et al., 1990). •The effects of age on the rate of guilty verdicts has not been determined.–Some studies have shown no significant effects of age (Ross et al., 1990) .–Some studies have suggested that age has a significant effect (Nightingale, 1993) .Background (cont’d)•Sex of the defendant makes a difference in the jury’s verdict (Stephan, 1974) –A male defendant usually receives a more severe sentence than a female defendant (Mazzella & Feingold, 1994) –On the contrary, other researchers found that female defendants are given slightly harsher sentences than male defendants (Stephan, 1974)HypothesisMost severe sentence - male defendant and child victim Least severe sentence - female defendant and adult victim The child victim will elicit a significantly more severe sentence than the adult. Lastly, the male defendant will elicit a significantly more severe sentence than the female.RationaleWomen, more than men, tend to perceive a child as more credible (McCauley & Parker, 2001) A male defendant usually receives a more severe sentence than a female defendant (Mazzella & Feingold, 1994)Method•2 (Age: child vs. adult) X 2 (Sex: male vs. female) Independent groups designMethodParticipants:117 Mount Holyoke College students, ranging in age from 18-65.•30 in child/male condition•30 in child/female condition•28 in adult/male condition•29 in adult/female conditionRandomly assignedMaterials:Trial Case summaryOne dependent measure question and two questions concerning the independent variablesMethod (cont’d)Procedure:Written consent from each participantPackets were randomly distributed to the participantsInstructed not to turn back to previous pagesRead and completed the packet in approximately 10minsDebriefedResults•Dependent variable–Severity of sentence (scale: 1 – 10 years in prison)PredictionMost severe sentence - male defendant and child victim Least severe sentence - female defendant and adult victim The child victim always elicits a more severe sentence than the adult. The male defendant always gets more severe sentence than the female.Results (cont’d)~ Before conducting the study we specified that the following data would be eliminated:~ Those with an incorrect age estimate (more than two years)~ Those with an incorrect sex identification~ Those who did not answer the sentencing question~ The data from 17 participants was eliminated from analysis due to the above specifications.Results (cont’d)A two-way Analysis of Variance Significant differences ? No significant main effect for AgeSignificant Main effect was found for Sex No significant interaction effect between Sex and AgeAgeError Bars show 95.0% Cl of MeanBars show Meanschild adultage0.002.004.006.00sentencen =495.53n =514.61SexError Bars show 95.0% Cl of MeanBars show Meansmale f emalesex0.002.004.006.00sentencen=515.78n=494.31Age * SexchildadultageError Bars show 95.0% Cl of MeanBars show Meansmale f emalesex2.004.006.008.00sentencen=256.52n=265.08n=244.50n=254.12DiscussionSignificant differences ?No significant differences in sentencing between a child victim and an adult victimMales were given significantly more severe sentences than femalesNo significant interaction effect between Sex and AgeOur findings are both consistent and inconsistent with past researchConsistent with Ross et al. and Mazzella & FeingoldInconsistent with Nightingale and StephanDiscussion (cont’d) Implications based on our study:Stereotypes about Sex differences are likely to influence individuals, which could lead to biased decisions in trialStereotypes about Age differences are unlikely to influence individualsDiscussion (cont’d)Problems encounteredSome questions lacked clarity Case still lacked believabilityParticipants were not focused completely on the taskDiscussion (cont’d)Suggestions for Future Research:Modify this experiment Using a believable caseTesting participants in groups as well as individuallyUsing different types of crimesTesting guilt rates to verify that they co-vary with sentencing as predictedUse archival data to find evidence of differences in sentencing based on sex and ageSurvey individuals about sex and age