Dixon et al (2002) Flashcards
What was the aim of Dixon et al (2002)?
To investigate whether accent had an influence on the perception of suspects likelihood of being guilty.
- More specifically whether a ‘Brummie’ suspect would be viewed as more guilty than a standard accented suspect.
Who were the participants in Dixon et al (2002)’s study?
119 White University students at University of Worcester
What Method was used in Dixon et al (2002)’s study?
Lab experiment design, Independent measures
List the IVs and DVs measured in Dixon et al (2002)’s study?
The IVs
The suspect’s accent (Birmingham/standard)
The suspect’s race (Black/white)
Type of crime (Blue collar: armed robbery, White collar: cheque fraud)
The DV - the participant’s vote on whether they thought the suspect was guilty or not
What was the procedure of Dixon et al (2002)’s study?
Participants listened to a recorded conversation of the transcript of a real 2-minute interview that took place in a British police station (1995).
The interview involved a Middle-aged male police inspector interviewing a young male suspect, who said he was innocent. In the study, these roles were played by a standard-accented student in his mid-40s (as the police officer) and a natural code-switcher student in his early 20s (as the suspect).
How was data gathered in Dixon et al (2002)’s study?
Once participants had listened to the interview, they then completed two rating-scale questions.
- The first scale rated the suspect’s guilt on a 7-point scale from innocent to guilty
- The second rating scale was a Speech Evaluation Instrument (SEI). This measures language attitudes on superiority, attractiveness and dynamism.
What were the results found in Dixon et al (2002)’s study?
The results of the first rating scale question found…
- The ‘Brummie’ suspect was rated as more guilty compared to the standard English accent
- Race & type of crime had no effect
The results of the SEI found…
The ‘Brummie’ suspect was rated lower on superiority on the Speech Evaluation Instrument. ‘Superiority’ and ‘Attractiveness’ predicted guilt, but dynamism did NOT.
What can be concluded about the findings of Dixon et al (2002)’s study?
A range of social psychological factors can influence perception of a suspect’s guilt including accent, race and type of crime.
Attributions of guilt may be affected by accent: Non-standard (English) speakers are perceived as guiltier than standard speakers; those with a Brummie accent are more likely to be perceived as guilty of an offence compared to the standard accent suspects.
How useful is the research found in Dixon et al (2002)’s study?
This study provides significant evidence that accent, race and type of crime committed by a particular individual all have an impact on whether someone is perceived as guilty or not. It is important that judges and juries are aware of these useful findings and that they are not affected by these factors when making a decision.
The findings are also useful for lawyers, who should emphasise the importance of appearance on their clients in order to create a positive impression. This may be in the way that they dress and/or in the way that they speak.
How valid is Dixon et al (2002)’s study?
The ecological validity of this study is low: playing a tape recording of a police interview in which the race of the suspect is suggested and no other evidence is presented is not representative of a fuller picture that real life legal proceedings would present in a case.
There are clear generalisability issues with these findings. However, the methodology was high in internal validity due to careful matching of the accents.
How was the reliability of the study increased?
Before the study, 95% of the participants successfully identified the Brummie accent, thus increasing the reliability of the study
