Dixon

Question 1

What does the study involve?

Answer 1

How does accent and race affect jury decisions?

Question 2

Aim:

Answer 2

Test the hypothesis that brummie-accents would produce stronger attributions of guilt than someone with a standard accent. Also looked at race and the type of crime

Question 3

How many independent variables did they look at?

Answer 3

3

Question 4

What were the three independent variables they looked at?

Answer 4

Black/ white
Blue collar/ white collar crime
Brummie accent/ standard accent

Question 5

What is a blue collar crime?

Answer 5

These included theft, assault, burglary and sex crimes (emotional driven but outbursts)

Question 6

What is a white collar crime?

Answer 6

These include fraud/ forgery and are non- violent crimes

Question 7

Where did the study take place?

Answer 7

University College, Worcester

Question 8

How many in the sample?

Answer 8

119

24 male, 95 female

Question 9

Mean age of pps:

Answer 9

25.2 years

Question 10

How many conditions ?

Answer 10

8, pps were randomly assigned

Question 11

What did pps listen to?

Answer 11

A recording based in a transcript of a real interview in 1995 (young male pleading his innocence).
Hired actors play the roles in these interviews

Question 12

What was manipulated in the recordings?

Answer 12

Suspect having Brummie accent and one where he did not
Also two different crime types: blue collar (armed theft) and white collar (cheque fraud).
Race

Question 13

How did pps know what the suspect looked like?

Answer 13

Officer in recording gave description of suspect, informing pps of his race.

Question 14

What happens after recording?

Answer 14

Pps rated suspect on 7 point rating scale:
Innocent- guilty

Speech evaluation that measured: superiority, attractiveness and dynamism

Question 15

Results: Who was rated more guilty?

Answer 15

Brummie

Question 16

Results: Which condition was rated guiltiest?

Answer 16

Brummie, black suspect, blue collar crime

Question 17

Results relating to speech:

Answer 17

Non- standard speakers are perceived as guiltier- less trustworthy and shifty

Question 18

Good points:

Answer 18

• Dixon-high control of extraneous variables (ensures accent was affecting decisions)
• Dixon- allowed pps to talk in groups (like real jury)- increasing ecological validity slightly
• Stewart- observed may trials from public gallery- broad results
• consideration of a shadow jury that watched from gallery and then talks like jury would
• Dixon few ethical considerations

Question 19

Bad points:

Answer 19

• Dixon-ecological validity
• Dixon- sample was only psychology (not representative) students, also didn’t eliminate pps from Birmingham (would have skewed)
• Stewart- only 60 trails observed, too small to generalise (4 female defendants)
• Dixon-Socially sensitive research, may have upset ppl from Birmingham

Question 20

Usefulness of research:

Answer 20

• shows defendant should be clean, tidy and neat (makes jury like them more)
• speaking clearly and avoid hesitation
• maybe trails should be conducted so jury can’t see defendant?
• Broeder- inadmissible evidence could be used as an advantage

Question 21

Ethnocentrism:

Answer 21

• most research into jury decisions has been conducted in US or UK (ethnocentric to publish and generalise results)
• also assuming people have certain characteristics because of accent and race could be ethnocentric