Dixon Flashcards
What does the study involve?
How does accent and race affect jury decisions?
Aim:
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
How many independent variables did they look at?
3
What were the three independent variables they looked at?
Black/ white
Blue collar/ white collar crime
Brummie accent/ standard accent
What is a blue collar crime?
These included theft, assault, burglary and sex crimes (emotional driven but outbursts)
What is a white collar crime?
These include fraud/ forgery and are non- violent crimes
Where did the study take place?
University College, Worcester
How many in the sample?
119
24 male, 95 female
Mean age of pps:
25.2 years
How many conditions ?
8, pps were randomly assigned
What did pps listen to?
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
What was manipulated in the recordings?
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
How did pps know what the suspect looked like?
Officer in recording gave description of suspect, informing pps of his race.
What happens after recording?
Pps rated suspect on 7 point rating scale:
Innocent- guilty
Speech evaluation that measured: superiority, attractiveness and dynamism
Results: Who was rated more guilty?
Brummie
Results: Which condition was rated guiltiest?
Brummie, black suspect, blue collar crime
Results relating to speech:
Non- standard speakers are perceived as guiltier- less trustworthy and shifty
Good points:
- 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
Bad points:
- 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
Usefulness of research:
- 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
Ethnocentrism:
- 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
