Sandie Taylor1 & Megan Butcher1 Extra-legal Defendant Characteristics & Mock Juror Ethnicity Re-examined Sandie Taylor1 & Megan Butcher1 School of Social Sciences, Bath Spa University Introduction Kaplan & Kemmerick’s(1974) assertion that jurors utilise both evidential and non-evidential evidence to inform their decision-making was an important revelation to court procedure and the deliberation process. Understanding the reliability of evidential information such as forensic evidence is merely one facet of deciding a defendant’s guilt. There is a host of non-evidential information such as a defendant’s physical and/or social attractiveness, sex and ethnicity, known collectively as extra-legal defendant characteristics, which also inform a juror’s decision of guilt. This social cognitive process has been studied by numerous researchers. More recently, Stewart (2001) and Rector & Bagby (1993) found that defendant attractiveness correlated significantly and negatively with levels of punitiveness, demonstrating the attraction-leniency effect. Race however, did not significantly correlate with crime seriousness. Like Ugwuegbu (1978) and Foley & Chamblin (1982), Abwender & Hough (2001) demonstrated an interactive effect of race of defendant and mock juror. Black and Hispanic mock jurors were more lenient to White defendants, unlike White mock jurors who showed no discrimination. Pfeiffer & Ogloff’s (2003) findings also support this. They found that mock jurors gave a higher rating of guilt if the defendant was presented as having a different racial heritage to their own. Results Key Picture = defendant attractiveness; Srace = ethnicity of mock juror; Picrace = ethnicity of defendant Using MANOVA significant effects for defendant attractiveness on extent of guilt (F(1,88)=9.369, p<0.01), sentencing (F(1,88)=7.386, p<0.01) and verdict (F(1,88)=8.836, p<0.01) and an interaction between defendant attractiveness and race of defendant on sentencing (F(1,88)=4.439, p<0.05) were uncovered. Ethnicity of the defendant narrowly missed significance for the sentencing variable (F(1,88)=3.470, p>0.05). Backward Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis showed the best predictor variables of verdict were extent of guilt (beta=0.324, p<0.01) and sentencing (beta=0.538, p<0.001) ratings. Results suggest that the dependent variables co-vary, such that a guilty verdict goes with a higher rating of extent of guilt and sentence. Defendant attractiveness clearly contributes the most effect on mock jurors decision making, although attractiveness and ethnicity of the defendant exerts a combined effect for decisions of sentence. Hypotheses Attractive defendants will be rated more leniently for extent of guilt and sentence. Black defendants will be rated more punitively for extent of guilt and sentence. There should be an interaction between ethnicity of the mock juror, of the defendant and the defendant’s attractiveness on the dependent variables. Method Design 3 independent variables: level of facial attractiveness of the defendant; Black or White defendant depicted in an attached photo and Black and White mock jurors. Differing combinations of the independent variables resulted in 8 conditions. 3 measures of dependent variable were used: verdict; extent of guilt and sentence. Participants 96 (45 male, 51 female; 48 White, 48 Black) undergraduates from 4 British universities with a good standard of English took part in this study. Materials Participants were given a fictitious court case transcript to read. The defendant in the court case is accused of mugging an elderly lady: stealing her handbag containing a gold necklace. Attached to the transcript was a photo of either an attractive Black or White defendant or a ‘homely’ looking Black or White defendant. Procedure Participants after reading the transcript circle their responses to the questions of verdict (guilty or not guilty), extent of guilt (ranging on a scale from 0% to 100%) and sentence (ranging on a scale of 0 to 10 months). Discussion Findings confirm previous research on the effects of extra-legal defendant characteristics, such as physical attractiveness, on deliberation. As with previous research in this area, there is support for Kaplan & Kemmerick’s division of evidential and non-evidential information in decision making of a defendant’s guilt. Consequently, attractive defendants are rated less harshly than ‘homely’ defendants (Rector & Bagby 1993; Stewart 2001). Support for Ugwuegbu (1978), Foley & Chamblin (1982) and Abwender & Hough’s (2001) interactive effects of defendant and mock juror ethnicity was not found in this study. The only significant interactive effect found was between attractiveness and ethnicity of the defendant for the sentencing variable: where ‘homely’ Black defendants are rated more punitively on the sentence scale. This is interesting as it suggests two extra-legal defendant characteristics having a cumulative effect on the sentencing variable only. Attractiveness of the defendant exerts a more robust effect on mock jurors’ decision making as the significant findings for verdict, extent of guilt and sentence deliberations demonstrate. The influence of defendant ethnicity manifests itself in the decision making process once mock jurors have decided that a defendant is guilty and not before. Thus it appears from this study that the attractiveness of the defendant exerts its effect pre-deliberation and the defendant’s ethnicity post-deliberation. A physically attractive defendant will experience the attractive-leniency effect to the extent of being perceived as less likely to be guilty. A Black defendant is more likely to be sentenced harshly once it has been decided that they are guilty, but this effect is more robust when combined with physical unattractiveness. References Abwender, D.A. & Hough, K. (2001) Interactive effects of characteristics of defendant and mock juror on U.S. participants’ judgements and sentencing recommendations. Jn. of Social Psychology, 141 (5). Foley, L.A. & Chamblin, M.H. (1982) The effect of race and personality on mock jurors’ decisions. The Jn. of Psychology. Kaplan, M.F. & DeArment Kemmerick, G. (1974) Juror judgement as information integration: Combining evidential and non-evidential information. Jn. of Personality & Social Psychology, 30(4). Pfeiffer, J.E. & Ogloff, J.R.P. (2003) Mock juror ratings of guilt in Canada: Modern racism and ethnic heritage. Social Behaviour & Personality. Rector, N. & Bagby, R.M. (1993) The effect of prejudice and judicial ambiguity on defendant guilt ratings. Jn. of Social Psychology, 133(5). Stewart, J.E. (2001) Appearance and punishment: The attraction-leniency effect in the courtroom. Jn. of Social Psychology, 125(3). Ugwuegbu, D.C.E. (1979) Racial and evidential factors in juror attribution of legal responsibility. Jn. of Experiemntal Social Psychology, 15.