The Influences of Gender, Crime, and Individual-Specific ...
The Influences of Sex, Crime, and Individuating Information on Jurors’ Assessments of Defendant Guilt
A Thesis Proposal Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Psychology
East Carolina University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts in Psychology
by
Seth Miller
January, 2007
The Influences of Sex, Crime, and Individual-Specific Information on Jurors’ Assessments of Defendant Guilt
Each day, countless decisions are made on a multitude of topics. The consequences of some decisions seem trivial while others may have obvious, far reaching and life altering consequences. The decisions reached by judges and jurors in the courtroom are likely to fall under the latter category. Therefore, it is important that such decisions be as well thought out, accurate, and as bias-free as possible. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the role of sex stereotypes and the effects of individuating information in the context of judicial decisions.
Stereotypes can be defined as attributes or concepts that are readily associated with a social category and its members. While such attributes are not adequate to define a social category, they, nonetheless, tend to be seen as typical of category members (Bodenhausen & Macrae, 1998). It has been suggested that stereotypes can have a potent impact on how positively or negatively one individual evaluates another or the work of another. One of the earliest researchers to examine this concept empirically was Philip Goldberg in 1968 when he examined sex stereotypes and their influence on how the work of another is perceived. He conducted an experiment in which a group of women were asked to evaluate identical articles that were supposedly written by either a male or a female professional. The results indicated that women rated the articles that were attributed to male authors more positively as compared to the identical articles attributed to female authors, especially when the article was related to stereotypically masculine fields such as law or city planning. However, when other researchers attempted to replicate this experiment in 1975 using a similar procedure, no significant differences were found (Levenson, Burford, Bonno, & Davis, 1975).
To examine these, and other, similar, conflicting findings, Swim, Borgida, Maruyama, and Myers (1989) conducted a meta-analysis of the literature in this field. This extensive meta-analysis examined the results of 123 studies conducted using Goldberg’s 1968 procedure or paradigmatically similar procedures. It was found that, averaged across studies, sex biases were virtually nonexistent as sex accounted for a very limited proportion of the variability in evaluations between the work of men and women. However, it was also found that the results of the studies, while averaging out to a finding of little or no effects based on sex, were heterogeneous with a substantial amount of variability in results from study to study. This suggests that there may be important factors that help to determine if or when sex stereotypes bias evaluations (Swim et al.).
One of these factors seems to be the presence or absence of additional, individuating information that is relevant to the stereotype in question (Barbera, 2003; Locksley, Hepborn, Borgida, & Brekke, 1980). Locksley et al. conducted a study examining ratings of predicted assertiveness in male and female targets. When participants were told only the sex of the target or were told the sex of the target and provided with a short description containing limited relevant information, men were rated as more assertive than women. However, when identical individuating information pertaining to assertiveness was provided for both male and female targets, no significant differences were found (Locksley et al.). More recent work by Barbera in 2003 has also illustrated that individuating information reduces stereotypical sex judgments even among children. However, when such information is not available, individuals may still classify others based on sex stereotypes (Barbera).
One theory concerning why this occurs has been presented by Kunda and Thagard (1996). Their parallel-constraint-satisfaction theory suggests that stereotypes and individuating information are processed simultaneously and work to constrain each other’s meaning. In this way, they work in conjunction to influence an individual’s impression of another person. This can occur when information conflicts with an activated stereotype or when individuating information activates another, more generic stereotype, which they termed the “ordinary, average person” stereotype (Kunda & Thagard, p. 297). Like the presence of conflicting information, this proposed stereotype is said to dilute the influence that an activated stereotype exerts on one individual’s impression of another person. It should be noted however, that this theory is geared most strongly towards impression formation and rapid judgments concerning whether or not a trait is possessed by an individual. Kunda and Thagard argue that judgments concerning whether or not an individual committed a certain action (such as a crime) is a more complex task that relies on causal reasoning and explanations. As a result, they recognize that their theory may not be as well suited to complex judicial decisions, since it is hoped that stereotypes will not play a strong role and there will be little for individuating information to constrain. They do assert, however, that more research is needed in this area to determine the veracity of the situation (Kunda & Thagard).
One related empirical study has yielded results that contradict the idea that complex tasks requiring reasoning dilute or eliminate the influences of stereotypes in the decision making process. A study conducted by Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987) assessed the effects of racial stereotypes on a complex task (determining the guilt of an individual in a criminal trial) and a simple task (assessing the aggressiveness of an individual). This was accomplished by providing respondents with a case summary and asking them to utilize the information contained within it to make an assessment concerning either guilt or aggressiveness. The results of the study revealed that stereotypes had a greater impact on the more complex task of determining guilt than they did on the simpler task of assessing aggressiveness (Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein). As a result, it seems plausible to accept that Kunda and Thagard’s (1996) theory of parallel-constraint could be relevant in determining the influence that stereotypes and individuating information could exert in a complex criminal trial.
When examining the court systems, two questions may come to mind: Are there sex-stereotypical crimes and do stereotypes influence jurors’ decisions? Unfortunately, there is little previous empirical research that can be used to answer the first question. The idea of sex-stereotypical crimes appears to be a neglected area in the discipline of psychology. However, there are archival data that suggest that some crimes are more strongly associated with one sex or the other. The United States Department of Justice is one source of such information. Their data indicate that men are much more likely to be arrested for a violent crime as compared to women. While men are also more likely to be arrested for a property offense, the difference in arrest rates for men and women in this area of crime is smaller, particularly when looking at larceny-theft or white collar crimes such as fraud or embezzlement (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004). The first part of this study has focused on trying to discern what particular crimes (if any) are seen as stereotypically more masculine or more feminine while the second portion of the study will assess whether or not sex stereotypes influence mock judicial decisions and, if so, whether or not individuating information can mitigate this influence.
For the purposes of this experiment, a pilot study was utilized to aid in identifying and choosing stereotypically masculine or feminine crimes. The results of this study (see Appendix A) revealed that some crimes are much more strongly associated with one sex than with the other. As could be expected, given the archival data on arrest rates, most crimes are more strongly associated with male offenders than female offenders. Some of the most notable among these crimes include aggravated assault, burglary, forcible rape, motor vehicle theft, and robbery. However, there were also a number of crimes that were seen as stereotypically feminine. These included prostitution, shoplifting, and running away (for minors). Additionally, some crimes, such as fraud, forgery, and simple assault were seen as being approximately equal in likelihood for both genders.
From the results of this study, two crimes, (burglary and shoplifting) were chosen as stereotypical or non-stereotypical offenses for each sex. Burglary was seen as stereotypical for male offenders, while shoplifting, a property crime that additional archival data suggests is especially common among younger women (Ogilvie, Lynch, & Bell, 2000), was seen as stereotypical for female offenders. These two crimes were chosen for their similar, but inversely corresponding percentages, and because they are both classified as property offenses.
Case studies, utilizing these crimes, will be used in the second part of this study in an attempt to answer another question concerning the court systems; whether or not criminal-gender stereotypes play a role in the formulation of judicial decisions. In the past, a number of studies have been conducted to assess the influence of ethnic and racial stereotypes in judicial decisions. A substantial number of studies have indicated that defendants are consistently judged more harshly when the alleged crime is congruent with a racial stereotype (Bodenhausen, 1988; Bodenhausen & Lichtenstein, 1987; Gordon, 1990; Gordon & Anderson, 1995; Gordon, Bindrim, McNicholas, & Walden, 1987; Jones & Kaplan, 2003). For example, white men accused of committing embezzlement and black men accused of committing burglary were judged more harshly as compared to situations in which the crimes were reversed and made stereotypically incongruent for members of each race. (Gordon & Anderson; Gordon et al.). In addition, stereotypical crimes such as these were seen as being due to internal attributions while non-stereotypical crimes were attributed more to external influences (Gordon; Jones & Kaplan). Mock jurors also indicated that they required a lesser amount of damaging information to reach a guilty verdict when the crimes were seen as stereotypical (Jones & Kaplan).
Despite a wealth of articles addressing race stereotypes and crime, there do not appear to be any studies addressing the impact of sex stereotypes on individual assessments of guilt at present. Therefore, the purpose of the second portion of this study is to examine what, if any, impact sex stereotypes will have on individual decisions as they relate to legal verdicts. It is predicted that men accused of burglary, a stereotypical crime, will be seen as more culpable than men accused of shoplifting when only limited individuating information is available. On the other hand, women accused of shoplifting should be viewed as more culpable than women accused of burglary when limited individuating information is available. However, it is also predicted that the presence of additional individuating information will help to reduce the influence of existing sex stereotypes, resulting in accused individuals not differing from other members of their sex across types of crime.
Method
The first part of this study utilized a 23-item questionnaire which asked student volunteers (N = 78, with 20 being male and 58 being female) to assess the likelihood that randomly selected individuals convicted of committing certain crimes were male or female (see Appendix B). Definitions of each crime were also included to help eliminate any confusion about what a certain crime might entail. This questionnaire was made available online for students who decided to participate in the study. An informed consent form describing the study was provided to all participants and an indication of their comprehension and acceptance of the information contained within it was required before the questionnaire could be viewed (see Appendix C). Participants were asked to read this form and, if they agreed with the information presented within it, they were asked to indicate their acceptance of the terms by clicking on the appropriate button at the end of the document. Participants were also provided with the researcher’s contact information so that they could ask any questions that they might have before proceeding. They were told that all questions concerning the survey would be answered, although some questions might be addressed only after they completed the survey in order to avoid biasing their responses.
Afterwards, provided that the participants accepted the information contained in the informed consent form and had no further questions, they were given access to the survey and asked to complete it. Participants were asked to submit their responses by selecting from one of 11 possible options. Once they had finished, they were thanked for their participation and a debriefing form was provided (see Appendix D). This form outlined the purpose of the study and provided contact information that the participants could use to ask additional questions or to request information concerning the aggregated results of the study. They were thanked once more and told that the session was concluded unless they had any further questions.
The data obtained through this questionnaire was analyzed by obtaining the mean of all percentage scores for men convicted of each crime and the mean percentage score for women convicted of each crime (see Appendix A). This provided a list of crimes and a measure of how strongly each one was considered to be linked with male or female offenders. From this list, two crimes, (burglary and shoplifting) were chosen as stereotypical or non-stereotypical offenses for each sex. These crimes were then used to create case studies that are designed to be used in a second experiment related to this study.
This second experiment will attempt to discern whether or not sex stereotypes bias mock judicial decisions, and, if so, whether or not this bias can be reduced by the presence of additional individuating information. This portion of the study will make use of eight different case summaries (see Appendix E) and a questionnaire (see Appendix F). In the case summaries, all defendants deny allegations that they committed an alleged crime and all non-experimental factors such as age, race, and geographical region are held constant. Differences are present only for the defendant’s sex (indicated through names, nouns, and pronouns), type of crime, and the individuating information provided about him or her. The defendant can be either male or female, accused of burglary or shoplifting, and can have limited individuating information or more extensive individuating information provided about him or her.
Individuating information, when present, will consist of the person’s hobbies, job, family members, history, and some character information (not directly relating to the alleged crime) that is intended to be primarily neutral in nature, but may have slight positive and negative overtones. The information is not intended to sway the participants’ verdicts directly but is instead provided with the goal of presenting the defendant as an individual as opposed to a simply being a member of a group (e.g. man or woman). If the parallel-constraint theory suggested by Kunda and Thagard (1996) is accurate and applicable to a complex judicial task such as this, the individuating information should dilute the influence of criminal-gender stereotypes and result in lower levels of perceived culpability for the defendants. When present, individuating information will be identical for all defendants.
The questionnaire that is intended to follow the case summary consists of three demographic questions, three questions relating to the level of guilt that the participant ascribes to the defendant, and two additional questions designed to confirm that the participant did indeed read and consider the information presented in the case summary. Of the questions relating to culpability, one utilizes a seven point scale, while a second asks for a dichotomous decision about whether or not to convict the defendant. The third question asks for an open ended response about how and why the participant made his or her decisions.
The data obtained from the seven point Likert-type scale will be analyzed using a 2x2x2 (Sex x Crime x Information) factorial ANOVA to ascertain if differences exist across groups and determine if any significant interactions exist. Answers from the question concerning whether or not to convict the defendant will be analyzed by using a four-variable logit analysis utilizing the variables of verdict (guilty or not guilty), gender (male or female), stereotype (stereotypical crime or non-stereotypical crime), and information (limited or extended individuating information). The information obtained from the open ended question concerning how and why the participants reached their decisions may be useful in helping to interpret the results of the study although it is not intended to be quantified and empirically analyzed. The final two questions are not intended to be used in the analysis, but will instead serve to verify that the participant actually read and considered the information presented in the case summary.
This proposed experiment is intended to take place during several sessions in classrooms within the Rawl building. At the start of each session, all participants will be provided with an informed consent form (See Appendix G) that describes the purpose of the study as “examining mock judicial decisions”. They will be told that they will be asked to read a case summary and then complete a brief questionnaire. Each case summary and corresponding questionnaire will be identified using a number. (Names will be collected only on a sign-in sheet at the onset of the study in order to verify the individual’s presence and ensure that he or she receives any promised academic credit). References and hypotheses concerning sex, types of crime, and individuating information will be omitted until after the participants have completed the study.
Participants will be given a chance to ask any questions that they might have, although the answers to some questions may not be provided until after the participants have completed the session in order to avoid biasing their responses. They will then be asked to sign the informed consent form and begin reading their case summary. They will be given as much time as they need to read their summary and complete the questionnaire. After they have finished, the summaries and questionnaires (identified by numbers only) will be collected and the participants will be provided with a debriefing form (see Appendix H) that completely discloses the purpose of the study. Any additional questions will be answered at this time. After any additional questions have been addressed, a short quiz will be administered (as required by the department). The items in this quiz will cover the purpose of the research study, experimental design, and the variables involved in the study (see Appendix I). Following this, the participants will be thanked for their time and the session will be concluded.
References
Barbera, E. (2003). Gender schemas: Configuration and Activation Processes. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 35, 176-184.
Bodenhausen, G. V. (1988). Stereotypic biases in social decision making and memory: Testing process models of stereotype use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 726-737.
Bodenhausen, G. V., & Lichenstein, M. (1987). Social stereotypes and information-processing strategies: The impact of task complexity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 871-880.
Bodenhausen, G. V., & Macrae, C. N. (1998). Stereotype activation and inhibition. In R. S. Wyer, Jr. (Vol. Ed.), Advances in social cognition: Vol. 11. Stereotype activation and inhibition (pp. 1-52). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Goldberg, P. (1968). Are women prejudiced against women? Transaction, 5, 28-30.
Gordon, R. A. (1990). Attributions for blue-collar and white collar crime: The effects of subject and defendant race on simulated juror decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 971-983.
Gordon, R. A., & Anderson, K. S. (1995). Perceptions of race-stereotypic and race-nonstereotypic crimes: The impact of response-time instructions on attributions and judgments. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 455-470.
Gordon, R. A., Bindrim, T. A., McNicholas, M. L., & Walden, T. L. (1987). Perceptions of blue-collar and white collar crime: The effect of defendant race on simulated juror decisions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 191-197.
Jones, C.S. & Kaplan, M. F. (2003). The effects of racially stereotypical crimes on juror decision-making and information-processing strategies. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1-13.
Kunda, Z. & Thagard, P. (1996). Forming impressions from stereotypes, traits, and behaviors: A parallel-constraint-satisfaction theory. Psychological Review, 2, 284-308.
Levenson, H., Buford, B., Bonno, B., & Davis, L. (1975). Are women still prejudiced against women? A replication and extension of Goldberg’s study. Journal of Psychology, 89, 67-71.
Locksley, A., Borgida, E., Brekke, N., & Hepburn, C. (1980). Sex stereotypes and social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 821-831.
Ogilvie, E., Lynch, M., & Bell, S. (2000). Gender and official statistics: The juvenile justice system in Queensland, 1998-99. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 162, 1-6.
Swim, J., Borgida, E., Maruyama, G., & Myers, D. (1989). Joan McKay versus John McKay: Do gender stereotypes bias evaluations?, Psychological Bulletin 105, 409-429.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2004). Crime in the united states 2004. Retrieved March 19, 2006 from .
Appendix A
Results of Survey on Crime and Gender Stereotypes
The numbers presented below represent the average perceived likelihood that a person who committed the indicated crime would be a man or a woman.
Man Woman
1. Carrying/Possessing Illegal Weapons 68.1 31.9
2. Aggravated Assault 72.4 27.6
3. Arson 65.1 34.9
4. Burglary 68.9 31.1
5. Drug Law Violations 58.7 41.3
6. Embezzlement 53.3 46.7
7. Extortion 53.9 46.1
8. Forcible Rape 85.9 14.1
9. Forgery 49.0 51.0
10. Fraud 48.2 51.8
11. Illegal Gambling 63.1 36.9
12. Motor Vehicle Theft 75.6 24.4
13. Murder 66.7 33.3
14. Prostitution 15.5 84.5
15. Public Intoxication 53.3 46.7
16. Robbery 64.6 35.4
17. Running Away 36.2 63.8
18. Simple Assault 50.9 49.1
19. Shoplifting 36.7 63.3
20. Vandalism 63.9 36.1
Appendix B
Survey on Perceptions of Crime
Below is a list of crimes. For each crime, an individual convicted of committing that crime is randomly selected from a criminal population (assume that the individual was justly convicted). In your subjective opinion, please indicate the probability that the individual will be male or female by providing a percentage ranging from 0% to 100% for each gender in the table below. For each crime the two percentages should sum to 100. For example, if you respond 30% for the male probability, you should respond 70% for the female probability. Also, when making your assessment, please assume that men and women who commit a crime are equally likely to be caught, prosecuted, and convicted. The probability that you provide should reflect your belief concerning whether a man or woman would be more likely (or equally likely) to commit the indicated crime. Definitions are provided below if you are uncertain as to what a certain crime entails. Thank you very much for your time and help.
1. Aggravated Assault (An attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe injury. This type of assault usually is accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or injury).
[ ] Male probability = 0%, Female Probability = 100%
[ ] Male probability = 10%, Female Probability = 90%
[ ] Male probability = 20%, Female Probability = 80%
[ ] Male probability = 30%, Female Probability = 70%
[ ] Male probability = 40%, Female Probability = 60%
[ ] Male probability = 50%, Female Probability = 50%
[ ] Male probability = 60%, Female Probability = 40%
[ ] Male probability = 70%, Female Probability = 30%
[ ] Male probability = 80%, Female Probability = 20%
[ ] Male probability = 90%, Female Probability = 10%
[ ] Male probability = 100%, Female Probability = 0%
2. Arson (Any willful burning or attempt to burn a building, motor vehicle, aircraft, or personal property of another).
[ ] Male probability = 0%, Female Probability = 100%
[ ] Male probability = 10%, Female Probability = 90%
[ ] Male probability = 20%, Female Probability = 80%
[ ] Male probability = 30%, Female Probability = 70%
[ ] Male probability = 40%, Female Probability = 60%
[ ] Male probability = 50%, Female Probability = 50%
[ ] Male probability = 60%, Female Probability = 40%
[ ] Male probability = 70%, Female Probability = 30%
[ ] Male probability = 80%, Female Probability = 20%
[ ] Male probability = 90%, Female Probability = 10%
[ ] Male probability = 100%, Female Probability = 0%
3. Burglary (The unlawful entry of a structure [both residential and non-residential] with intent to commit a theft).
[ ] Male probability = 0%, Female Probability = 100%
[ ] Male probability = 10%, Female Probability = 90%
[ ] Male probability = 20%, Female Probability = 80%
[ ] Male probability = 30%, Female Probability = 70%
[ ] Male probability = 40%, Female Probability = 60%
[ ] Male probability = 50%, Female Probability = 50%
[ ] Male probability = 60%, Female Probability = 40%
[ ] Male probability = 70%, Female Probability = 30%
[ ] Male probability = 80%, Female Probability = 20%
[ ] Male probability = 90%, Female Probability = 10%
[ ] Male probability = 100%, Female Probability = 0%
4. Carrying/Possessing Illegal Weapons (Unlawfully possessing or transporting a weapon).
[ ] Male probability = 0%, Female Probability = 100%
[ ] Male probability = 10%, Female Probability = 90%
[ ] Male probability = 20%, Female Probability = 80%
[ ] Male probability = 30%, Female Probability = 70%
[ ] Male probability = 40%, Female Probability = 60%
[ ] Male probability = 50%, Female Probability = 50%
[ ] Male probability = 60%, Female Probability = 40%
[ ] Male probability = 70%, Female Probability = 30%
[ ] Male probability = 80%, Female Probability = 20%
[ ] Male probability = 90%, Female Probability = 10%
[ ] Male probability = 100%, Female Probability = 0%
5. Drug Law Violations (Included are all violations of state and local laws, specifically those related to the unlawful possession, sale, use, growing, and manufacturing of illegal drugs.)
[ ] Male probability = 0%, Female Probability = 100%
[ ] Male probability = 10%, Female Probability = 90%
[ ] Male probability = 20%, Female Probability = 80%
[ ] Male probability = 30%, Female Probability = 70%
[ ] Male probability = 40%, Female Probability = 60%
[ ] Male probability = 50%, Female Probability = 50%
[ ] Male probability = 60%, Female Probability = 40%
[ ] Male probability = 70%, Female Probability = 30%
[ ] Male probability = 80%, Female Probability = 20%
[ ] Male probability = 90%, Female Probability = 10%
[ ] Male probability = 100%, Female Probability = 0%
6. Extortion (The use of fear of death, injury, property loss, damage to one’s reputation, etc. to induce or compel another to deliver property or perform some act or omission).
[ ] Male probability = 0%, Female Probability = 100%
[ ] Male probability = 10%, Female Probability = 90%
[ ] Male probability = 20%, Female Probability = 80%
[ ] Male probability = 30%, Female Probability = 70%
[ ] Male probability = 40%, Female Probability = 60%
[ ] Male probability = 50%, Female Probability = 50%
[ ] Male probability = 60%, Female Probability = 40%
[ ] Male probability = 70%, Female Probability = 30%
[ ] Male probability = 80%, Female Probability = 20%
[ ] Male probability = 90%, Female Probability = 10%
[ ] Male probability = 100%, Female Probability = 0%
7. Embezzlement (Misappropriation of money or property entrusted to one’s care).
[ ] Male probability = 0%, Female Probability = 100%
[ ] Male probability = 10%, Female Probability = 90%
[ ] Male probability = 20%, Female Probability = 80%
[ ] Male probability = 30%, Female Probability = 70%
[ ] Male probability = 40%, Female Probability = 60%
[ ] Male probability = 50%, Female Probability = 50%
[ ] Male probability = 60%, Female Probability = 40%
[ ] Male probability = 70%, Female Probability = 30%
[ ] Male probability = 80%, Female Probability = 20%
[ ] Male probability = 90%, Female Probability = 10%
[ ] Male probability = 100%, Female Probability = 0%
8. Forgery and Counterfeiting (Forgery and counterfeiting are treated as allied offenses. In this classification are placed all offenses dealing with the making of, altering, or possessing, with intent to defraud, anything false in the semblance of that which is true).
[ ] Male probability = 0%, Female Probability = 100%
[ ] Male probability = 10%, Female Probability = 90%
[ ] Male probability = 20%, Female Probability = 80%
[ ] Male probability = 30%, Female Probability = 70%
[ ] Male probability = 40%, Female Probability = 60%
[ ] Male probability = 50%, Female Probability = 50%
[ ] Male probability = 60%, Female Probability = 40%
[ ] Male probability = 70%, Female Probability = 30%
[ ] Male probability = 80%, Female Probability = 20%
[ ] Male probability = 90%, Female Probability = 10%
[ ] Male probability = 100%, Female Probability = 0%
9. Forcible rape (The act of having sexual relations with a non-consenting partner by force. [Please assume that the crime takes place in a jurisdiction where women can be charged with this offense]).
[ ] Male probability = 0%, Female Probability = 100%
[ ] Male probability = 10%, Female Probability = 90%
[ ] Male probability = 20%, Female Probability = 80%
[ ] Male probability = 30%, Female Probability = 70%
[ ] Male probability = 40%, Female Probability = 60%
[ ] Male probability = 50%, Female Probability = 50%
[ ] Male probability = 60%, Female Probability = 40%
[ ] Male probability = 70%, Female Probability = 30%
[ ] Male probability = 80%, Female Probability = 20%
[ ] Male probability = 90%, Female Probability = 10%
[ ] Male probability = 100%, Female Probability = 0%
10. Fraud (Fraudulent conversion and obtaining money or property by false pretenses).
[ ] Male probability = 0%, Female Probability = 100%
[ ] Male probability = 10%, Female Probability = 90%
[ ] Male probability = 20%, Female Probability = 80%
[ ] Male probability = 30%, Female Probability = 70%
[ ] Male probability = 40%, Female Probability = 60%
[ ] Male probability = 50%, Female Probability = 50%
[ ] Male probability = 60%, Female Probability = 40%
[ ] Male probability = 70%, Female Probability = 30%
[ ] Male probability = 80%, Female Probability = 20%
[ ] Male probability = 90%, Female Probability = 10%
[ ] Male probability = 100%, Female Probability = 0%
11. Illegal Gambling (All offenses which relate to illegally promoting, permitting, or engaging in gambling are included in this category).
[ ] Male probability = 0%, Female Probability = 100%
[ ] Male probability = 10%, Female Probability = 90%
[ ] Male probability = 20%, Female Probability = 80%
[ ] Male probability = 30%, Female Probability = 70%
[ ] Male probability = 40%, Female Probability = 60%
[ ] Male probability = 50%, Female Probability = 50%
[ ] Male probability = 60%, Female Probability = 40%
[ ] Male probability = 70%, Female Probability = 30%
[ ] Male probability = 80%, Female Probability = 20%
[ ] Male probability = 90%, Female Probability = 10%
[ ] Male probability = 100%, Female Probability = 0%
12. Motor Vehicle Theft (The theft or attempted theft of a motor vehicle; includes motorcycles).
[ ] Male probability = 0%, Female Probability = 100%
[ ] Male probability = 10%, Female Probability = 90%
[ ] Male probability = 20%, Female Probability = 80%
[ ] Male probability = 30%, Female Probability = 70%
[ ] Male probability = 40%, Female Probability = 60%
[ ] Male probability = 50%, Female Probability = 50%
[ ] Male probability = 60%, Female Probability = 40%
[ ] Male probability = 70%, Female Probability = 30%
[ ] Male probability = 80%, Female Probability = 20%
[ ] Male probability = 90%, Female Probability = 10%
[ ] Male probability = 100%, Female Probability = 0%
13. Murder (The willful [non-negligent killing] of one human being by another [excluding instances of self-defense]).
[ ] Male probability = 0%, Female Probability = 100%
[ ] Male probability = 10%, Female Probability = 90%
[ ] Male probability = 20%, Female Probability = 80%
[ ] Male probability = 30%, Female Probability = 70%
[ ] Male probability = 40%, Female Probability = 60%
[ ] Male probability = 50%, Female Probability = 50%
[ ] Male probability = 60%, Female Probability = 40%
[ ] Male probability = 70%, Female Probability = 30%
[ ] Male probability = 80%, Female Probability = 20%
[ ] Male probability = 90%, Female Probability = 10%
[ ] Male probability = 100%, Female Probability = 0%
14. Prostitution (Sex offenses of a commercialized nature).
[ ] Male probability = 0%, Female Probability = 100%
[ ] Male probability = 10%, Female Probability = 90%
[ ] Male probability = 20%, Female Probability = 80%
[ ] Male probability = 30%, Female Probability = 70%
[ ] Male probability = 40%, Female Probability = 60%
[ ] Male probability = 50%, Female Probability = 50%
[ ] Male probability = 60%, Female Probability = 40%
[ ] Male probability = 70%, Female Probability = 30%
[ ] Male probability = 80%, Female Probability = 20%
[ ] Male probability = 90%, Female Probability = 10%
[ ] Male probability = 100%, Female Probability = 0%
15. Public Intoxication (Being intoxicated on public property).
[ ] Male probability = 0%, Female Probability = 100%
[ ] Male probability = 10%, Female Probability = 90%
[ ] Male probability = 20%, Female Probability = 80%
[ ] Male probability = 30%, Female Probability = 70%
[ ] Male probability = 40%, Female Probability = 60%
[ ] Male probability = 50%, Female Probability = 50%
[ ] Male probability = 60%, Female Probability = 40%
[ ] Male probability = 70%, Female Probability = 30%
[ ] Male probability = 80%, Female Probability = 20%
[ ] Male probability = 90%, Female Probability = 10%
[ ] Male probability = 100%, Female Probability = 0%
16. Robbery (Taking or attempting to take anything of value from a person or persons by force or threat of force).
[ ] Male probability = 0%, Female Probability = 100%
[ ] Male probability = 10%, Female Probability = 90%
[ ] Male probability = 20%, Female Probability = 80%
[ ] Male probability = 30%, Female Probability = 70%
[ ] Male probability = 40%, Female Probability = 60%
[ ] Male probability = 50%, Female Probability = 50%
[ ] Male probability = 60%, Female Probability = 40%
[ ] Male probability = 70%, Female Probability = 30%
[ ] Male probability = 80%, Female Probability = 20%
[ ] Male probability = 90%, Female Probability = 10%
[ ] Male probability = 100%, Female Probability = 0%
17. Running Away (A minor leaving the custody of his or her parents or guardians without their consent).
[ ] Male probability = 0%, Female Probability = 100%
[ ] Male probability = 10%, Female Probability = 90%
[ ] Male probability = 20%, Female Probability = 80%
[ ] Male probability = 30%, Female Probability = 70%
[ ] Male probability = 40%, Female Probability = 60%
[ ] Male probability = 50%, Female Probability = 50%
[ ] Male probability = 60%, Female Probability = 40%
[ ] Male probability = 70%, Female Probability = 30%
[ ] Male probability = 80%, Female Probability = 20%
[ ] Male probability = 90%, Female Probability = 10%
[ ] Male probability = 100%, Female Probability = 0%
18. Simple Assault (Assaults which are limited to the use of physical force and result in little or no injury to the victim).
[ ] Male probability = 0%, Female Probability = 100%
[ ] Male probability = 10%, Female Probability = 90%
[ ] Male probability = 20%, Female Probability = 80%
[ ] Male probability = 30%, Female Probability = 70%
[ ] Male probability = 40%, Female Probability = 60%
[ ] Male probability = 50%, Female Probability = 50%
[ ] Male probability = 60%, Female Probability = 40%
[ ] Male probability = 70%, Female Probability = 30%
[ ] Male probability = 80%, Female Probability = 20%
[ ] Male probability = 90%, Female Probability = 10%
[ ] Male probability = 100%, Female Probability = 0%
19. Shoplifting (The unlawful and intentional taking of a store’s property without force or threat of force during store hours).
[ ] Male probability = 0%, Female Probability = 100%
[ ] Male probability = 10%, Female Probability = 90%
[ ] Male probability = 20%, Female Probability = 80%
[ ] Male probability = 30%, Female Probability = 70%
[ ] Male probability = 40%, Female Probability = 60%
[ ] Male probability = 50%, Female Probability = 50%
[ ] Male probability = 60%, Female Probability = 40%
[ ] Male probability = 70%, Female Probability = 30%
[ ] Male probability = 80%, Female Probability = 20%
[ ] Male probability = 90%, Female Probability = 10%
[ ] Male probability = 100%, Female Probability = 0%
20. Vandalism (Consists of the willful destruction, or defacement of property).
[ ] Male probability = 0%, Female Probability = 100%
[ ] Male probability = 10%, Female Probability = 90%
[ ] Male probability = 20%, Female Probability = 80%
[ ] Male probability = 30%, Female Probability = 70%
[ ] Male probability = 40%, Female Probability = 60%
[ ] Male probability = 50%, Female Probability = 50%
[ ] Male probability = 60%, Female Probability = 40%
[ ] Male probability = 70%, Female Probability = 30%
[ ] Male probability = 80%, Female Probability = 20%
[ ] Male probability = 90%, Female Probability = 10%
[ ] Male probability = 100%, Female Probability = 0%
21. What is your sex/gender?
[ ] Male
[ ] Female
22. What is your age?
23. What is your academic rank?
[ ] Freshman
[ ] Sophomore
[ ] Junior
[ ] Senior
[ ] Graduate Student
[ ] Adult Studies Student
[ ] Other
A note of thanks to the Portland Police. Many of the definitions listed above were obtained through their web page:
Oregon Law Enforcement Data System & Portland Police Data System (2006). Crime definitions. Retrieved July 5, 2006, from .
Appendix C
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
Student Perceptions of Crime and Gender
(Consent Document from Online Survey)
CONSENT DOCUMENT
Title of Research Study: Student Perceptions of Crime and Gender
Principal Investigator: Seth Miller
Institution: East Carolina University
Address: 800 Heath St. Apt. 6, Greenville, NC 27858
Telephone #: (330) 206-8617
INTRODUCTION
You have been asked to participate in a research study being conducted by Seth Miller. This research study is part of a larger study examining mock judicial decisions. This particular portion of the study is designed to examine individual’s perceptions of criminal activities as they relate to a person’s biological sex.
PLAN AND PROCEDURES
You will be provided with a brief, 23-item questionnaire and asked to complete it. The entire process should take no more than 30 minutes.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
You may find the subject matter slightly unsettling as it relates to criminal activity. You may not be given a complete description of the research question prior to participation in order to prevent your responses from being biased by such information. You will be given a complete explanation after your participation is complete.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS
This study has the potential to benefit those in the legal field by better informing all parties involved about the manner in which potential jurors perceive criminal events. I also hope that you, as participants, will derive some benefits from the study in terms of learning more about the process of psychological research.
SUBJECT PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS
During the study, no names or other personal identifiers will be connected with your answers. Academic credit will be assigned through an automated system which will keep your personal identifiers separate from your responses so that the researcher will not know who provided specific answers. Only the researcher and his advisors will have access to the data.
COSTS OF PARTICIPATION
There will be no cost to you, the participant, aside from the time that you invest in this study.
COMPENSATION
There is no monetary compensation for participating in this study. However, professors may offer compensation in the form of credit or extra credit for your participation in this study.
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION
Participating in this study is voluntary. If you decide not to be in this study after it has already started, you may stop at any time without losing benefits that you should normally receive. However, you must complete the questionnaire in order to receive academic credit.
PERSONS TO CONTACT WITH QUESTIONS
The investigator will be available to answer any questions concerning this research, now or in the future. You may contact the investigator, Seth Miller at phone numbers (330) 206-8617 (days) or (330) 206-8617 (nights and weekends) or via email at millerse@. If you have questions about your rights as a research subject, you may call the Chair of the University and Medical Center Institutional Review Board at phone number 252-744-2914 (days) and/or the ECU Risk Management Office at 252-328-6858.
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE
Title of research study: Student Perceptions of Crime and Gender
I have read all of the above information, asked questions and have received satisfactory answers in areas I did not understand.
If the above statement is true and you still voluntarily wish to participate in this study, please proceed to the survey and complete it by checking the appropriate box below and clicking the confirm button. Otherwise, please do not continue. Please print a copy of this consent form for your records.
Appendix D
Debriefing Form for “Student Perceptions of Crime and Gender”
DEBRIEFING FORM
Thank you for participating in this study examining individual’s perceptions of crime and biological sex. If you participated in this study for academic credit, your credit has been automatically assigned to the class that you designated. Your answers will be used to help design stimulus materials for an additional study concerning the influences of sex, crime, and individual-specific information on mock judicial decisions. If you have any questions concerning the study or would like to see the results of the survey when it is concluded, you may contact me via email at millerse@ and I will be happy to answer your questions or provide you with that information when it is available. Thank you once again for your time and participation.
Sincerely,
Seth Miller
Appendix E
Case Summaries
Sex: Female
Crime: Shoplifting
Individuating information: Limited
On October 17th at 6 PM, Sara Hudson, a 22-year old woman, was arrested at the local Wal-Mart in Keystone, Ohio on charges of shoplifting. Thomas Phelps, a store employee, stated that he saw Sara place a moderately expensive watch (of approximately $70 in value) from the jewelry department in her coat pocket. According to Thomas, she then reclaimed a shirt and a pair of pants that she had temporarily placed on a nearby countertop while she looked at the watch. She then proceeded to another section of the store. Thomas continued to observe her actions while another employee informed the store manager that there might be a theft in progress. According to Thomas, the defendant continued to shop for approximately 20 minutes. During that time period, she picked up and carried several additional items from other areas of the store (the defendant never used a shopping cart or basket). She then proceeded to the check-out and paid for all of her items with the exception of the watch in her pocket. Afterwards, Sara exited the store and was promptly arrested for shoplifting. When the police arrested the defendant, she claimed that she had placed the watch in her pocket only out of convenience and she had simply forgotten about it as she continued shopping. The defendant insisted that she had never had any intentions of stealing the watch and she offered to pay for it. However, the store manager believed that she had intended to steal the watch and decided to press criminal charges.
For this study, when considering the crime of shoplifting, please use the following definition:
Shoplifting: The unlawful and intentional taking of a store’s property without force or threat of force during store hours. Please note that the intent to steal is being considered a necessary component of this crime.
Sex: Female
Crime: Burglary
Individuating Information: Limited
On October 17th at approximately 10 AM, Sara Hudson, a 22-year old woman, was arrested on charges of burglary. Steve Knox, a local resident of the Keystone, Ohio community, states that he saw an individual matching her description fleeing the home of Ralph and Susan Cole at approximately 3:20 AM that morning. He says that he awoke to the sound of breaking glass followed by the ringing of an alarm. He went to the window and saw a young woman dressed in a dark long-sleeved shirt or coat with blonde hair running away from the Coles’ residence. He was not able to get a clear look at her face due to the heavy rain which had been falling for the past 12 hours, but believed that he recognized her as someone from the neighborhood. He also, noted that a window on his neighbors’ house had been broken and that their burglary alarm and security lights had been activated. After seeing this, he promptly called the police.
Steve informed the police of what he had seen and told the police that his neighbors, the Coles, were vacationing in Florida for the week. He also provided the police with the appropriate telephone numbers so that they would be able to contact the Coles in the morning. Later, after being questioned about the appearance of the suspect, Steve also told the police that he thought he knew who it was. He told the police that he thought it must have been Sara Hudson, a relatively new resident of the Keystone community, whom he had seen fleeing the area.
The police investigated the crime scene but could not obtain any useful fingerprints. They did, however, find an empty jewelry box had been discarded in the bush directly below the broken window. Mrs. Cole, after talking to the police, revealed that the jewelry box had been empty at the time of the attempted theft since she kept her jewelry in a small dresser drawer located several yards away from the broken window. After the house was searched, it was determined that no possessions had actually been taken. The police reasoned that the burglar had been scared off by the alarm system and only had the time to grab a single item (an empty jewelry box) before running away.
During their investigations outside of the house, the police found a pair of muddy footprints, apparently made by boots, leading away from the broken window. Due to the heavy rain, distinct features of the boot prints could not be discerned. However, a general size was obtained.
Later that morning, the police visited the apartment of Sara Hudson. While they were there, they found a pair of muddy boots with soles that were similar in size and design to the prints found at the crime scene. They also found a damp, dark-gray, hooded sweatshirt and damp jeans. When asked about these items, she told the police that they had gotten wet and muddy when she took her two dogs for a walk earlier that morning in the rain, an activity that she is commonly seen doing in the neighborhood. When the police examined the dogs, they were found to be warm and dry with no signs of mud or dirt. The defendant explained that she dried the dogs off upon returning to the apartment. The police considered what they had found as well as the testimony of Steve Knox. In the end, decided to arrest her on charges of burglary.
For this study, when considering the crime of burglary, please use the following definition:
Burglary: The unlawful entry of a structure (both residential and non-residential) with intent to commit a theft. Please note that no possessions actually need to be stolen in order for burglary to have taken place. There must be intent to steal, however.
Sex: Male
Crime: Shoplifting
Individuating information: Limited
On October 17th at 6 PM, Mike Hudson, a 22-year old man, was arrested at the local Wal-Mart in Keystone, Ohio on charges of shoplifting. Thomas Phelps, a store employee, stated that he saw Mike place a moderately expensive watch (of approximately $70 in value) from the jewelry department in his coat pocket. According to Thomas, he then reclaimed a shirt and a pair of pants that he had temporarily placed on a nearby countertop while he looked at the watch. He then proceeded to another section of the store. Thomas continued to observe his actions while another employee informed the store manager that there might be a theft in progress. According to Thomas, the defendant continued to shop for approximately 20 minutes. During that time period, he picked up and carried several additional items from other areas of the store (the defendant never used a shopping cart or basket). He then proceeded to the check-out and paid for all of his items with the exception of the watch in his pocket. Afterwards, Mike exited the store and was promptly arrested for shoplifting. When the police arrested the defendant, he claimed that he had placed the watch in his pocket only out of convenience and that he had simply forgotten about it as he continued shopping. The defendant insisted that he had never had any intentions of stealing the watch and he offered to pay for it. However, the store manager believed that he had intended to steal the watch and decided to press criminal charges.
For this study, when considering the crime of shoplifting, please use the following definition:
Shoplifting: The unlawful and intentional taking of a store’s property without force or threat of force during store hours. Please note that the intent to steal is being considered a necessary component of this crime.
Sex: Male
Crime: Burglary
Individuating Information: Limited
On October 17th at approximately 10 AM, Mike Hudson, a 22-year old man, was arrested on charges of burglary. Steve Knox, a local resident of the Keystone, Ohio community, states that he saw an individual matching his description fleeing the home of Ralph and Susan Cole at approximately 3:20 AM that morning. He says that he awoke to the sound of breaking glass followed by the ringing of an alarm. He went to the window and saw a young man dressed in a dark long-sleeved shirt or coat with blonde hair running away from the Coles’ residence. He was not able to get a clear look at his face due to the heavy rain which had been falling for the past 12 hours, but believed that he recognized him as someone from the neighborhood. He also, noted that a window on his neighbors’ house had been broken and that their burglary alarm and security lights had been activated. After seeing this, he promptly called the police.
Steve informed the police of what he had seen and told the police that his neighbors, the Coles, were vacationing in Florida for the week. He also provided the police with the appropriate telephone numbers so that they would be able to contact the Coles in the morning. Later, after being questioned about the appearance of the suspect, Steve also told the police that he thought he knew who it was. He told the police that he thought it must have been Mike Hudson, a relatively new resident of the Keystone community, whom he had seen fleeing the area.
The police investigated the crime scene but could not obtain any useful fingerprints. They did, however, find an empty jewelry box had been discarded in the bush directly below the broken window. Mrs. Cole, after talking to the police, revealed that the jewelry box had been empty at the time of the attempted theft since she kept her jewelry in a small dresser drawer located several yards away from the broken window. After the house was searched, it was determined that no possessions had actually been taken. The police reasoned that the burglar had been scared off by the alarm system and only had the time to grab a single item (an empty jewelry box) before running away.
During their investigations outside of the house, the police found a pair of muddy footprints, apparently made by boots, leading away from the broken window. Due to the heavy rain, distinct features of the boot prints could not be discerned. However, a general size was obtained.
Later that morning, the police visited the apartment of Mike Hudson. While they were there, they found a pair of muddy boots with soles that were similar in size and design to the prints found at the crime scene. They also found a damp, dark-gray, hooded sweatshirt and damp jeans. When asked about these items, he told the police that they had gotten wet and muddy when he took his two dogs for a walk earlier that morning in the rain, an activity that he is commonly seen doing in the neighborhood. When the police examined the dogs, they were found to be warm and dry with no signs of mud or dirt. The defendant explained that he had dried the dogs off upon returning to the apartment. The police considered what they had found as well as the testimony of Steve Knox. In the end, decided to arrest him on charges of burglary.
For this study, when considering the crime of burglary, please use the following definition:
Burglary: The unlawful entry of a structure (both residential and non-residential) with intent to commit a theft. Please note that no possessions actually need to be stolen in order for burglary to have taken place. There must be intent to steal, however.
Sex: Female
Crime: Shoplifting
Individuating information: Extended
On October 17th at 6 PM, Sara Hudson, a 22-year old woman, was arrested at the local Wal-Mart in Keystone, Ohio on charges of shoplifting. Thomas Phelps, a store employee, stated that he saw Sara place a moderately expensive watch (of approximately $70 in value) from the jewelry department in her coat pocket. According to Thomas, she then reclaimed a shirt and a pair of pants that she had temporarily placed on a nearby countertop while she looked at the watch. She then proceeded to another section of the store. Thomas continued to observe her actions while another employee informed the store manager that there might be a theft in progress. According to Thomas, the defendant continued to shop for approximately 20 minutes. During that time period, she picked up and carried several additional items from other areas of the store (the defendant never used a shopping cart or basket). She then proceeded to the check-out and paid for all of her items with the exception of the watch in her pocket. Afterwards, Sara exited the store and was promptly arrested for shoplifting. When the police arrested the defendant, she claimed that she had placed the watch in her pocket only out of convenience and she had simply forgotten about it as she continued shopping. The defendant insisted that she had never had any intentions of stealing the watch and she offered to pay for it. However, the store manager believed that she had intended to steal the watch and decided to press criminal charges.
Sara is 22 years old and has been a resident of the Keystone community for the past three years. She currently works as a bank teller and has an associate’s degree in financing from Keystone community college. She is currently unmarried and lives alone. Her immediate family, as well as much of her extended family, lives approximately 45 miles away in the small community of Westover, Ohio. She visits them on a regular basis and is on good terms with them.
By all available accounts, Sara had a normal childhood. She lived with both of her parents and two younger siblings until she was 19. Raised in a middle-class, semi-rural environment, she attended classes in the Westover public school system and graduated in the spring of 2002. She moved to the city of Keystone approximately 10 months later and began attending Keystone Community college in pursuit of an associate’s degree in the field of financing.
Sara has been described by her neighbors as being somewhat reclusive and is not heavily involved in the local community. She does, however, appear to have a couple of close friends from that work that she socializes with on occasion. She spends much of her free time playing guitar, a hobby that she has enjoyed for the past five years.
For this study, when considering the crime of shoplifting, please use the following definition:
Shoplifting: The unlawful and intentional taking of a store’s property without force or threat of force during store hours. Please note that the intent to steal is being considered a necessary component of this crime.
Sex: Female
Crime: Burglary
Individuating Information: Extended
On October 17th at approximately 10 AM, Sara Hudson, a 22-year old woman, was arrested on charges of burglary. Steve Knox, a local resident of the Keystone, Ohio community, states that he saw an individual matching her description fleeing the home of Ralph and Susan Cole at approximately 3:20 AM that morning. He says that he awoke to the sound of breaking glass followed by the ringing of an alarm. He went to the window and saw a young woman dressed in a dark long-sleeved shirt or coat with blonde hair running away from the Coles’ residence. He was not able to get a clear look at her face due to the heavy rain which had been falling for the past 12 hours, but believed that he recognized her as someone from the neighborhood. He also, noted that a window on his neighbors’ house had been broken and that their burglary alarm and security lights had been activated. After seeing this, he promptly called the police.
Steve informed the police of what he had seen and told the police that his neighbors, the Coles, were vacationing in Florida for the week. He also provided the police with the appropriate telephone numbers so that they would be able to contact the Coles in the morning. Later, after being questioned about the appearance of the suspect, Steve also told the police that he thought he knew who it was. He told the police that he thought it must have been Sara Hudson, a relatively new resident of the Keystone community, whom he had seen fleeing the area.
The police investigated the crime scene but could not obtain any useful fingerprints. They did, however, find an empty jewelry box had been discarded in the bush directly below the broken window. Mrs. Cole, after talking to the police, revealed that the jewelry box had been empty at the time of the attempted theft since she kept her jewelry in a small dresser drawer located several yards away from the broken window. After the house was searched, it was determined that no possessions had actually been taken. The police reasoned that the burglar had been scared off by the alarm system and only had the time to grab a single item (an empty jewelry box) before running away.
During their investigations outside of the house, the police found a pair of muddy footprints, apparently made by boots, leading away from the broken window. Due to the heavy rain, distinct features of the boot prints could not be discerned. However, a general size was obtained.
Later that morning, the police visited the apartment of Sara Hudson. While they were there, they found a pair of muddy boots with soles that were similar in size and design to the prints found at the crime scene. They also found a damp, dark-gray, hooded sweatshirt and damp jeans. When asked about these items, she told the police that they had gotten wet and muddy when she took her two dogs for a walk earlier that morning in the rain, an activity that she is commonly seen doing in the neighborhood. When the police examined the dogs, they were found to be warm and dry with no signs of mud or dirt. The defendant explained that she dried the dogs off upon returning to the apartment. The police considered what they had found as well as the testimony of Steve Knox. In the end, decided to arrest her on charges of burglary.
Sara is 22 years old and has been a resident of the Keystone community for the past three years. She currently works as a bank teller and has an associate’s degree in financing from Keystone community college. She is currently unmarried and lives alone. Her immediate family, as well as much of her extended family, lives approximately 45 miles away in the small community of Westover, Ohio. She visits them on a regular basis and is on good terms with them.
By all available accounts, Sara had a normal childhood. She lived with both of her parents and two younger siblings until she was 19. Raised in a middle-class, semi-rural environment, she attended classes in the Westover public school system and graduated in the spring of 2002. She moved to the city of Keystone approximately 10 months later and began attending Keystone Community college in pursuit of an associate’s degree in the field of financing.
Sara has been described by her neighbors as being somewhat reclusive and is not heavily involved in the local community. She does, however, appear to have a couple of close friends from that work that she socializes with on occasion. She spends much of her free time playing guitar, a hobby that she has enjoyed for the past five years.
For this study, when considering the crime of burglary, please use the following definition:
Burglary: The unlawful entry of a structure (both residential and non-residential) with intent to commit a theft. Please note that no possessions actually need to be stolen in order for burglary to have taken place. There must be intent to steal, however.
Sex: Male
Crime: Shoplifting
Individuating information: Extended
On October 17th at 6 PM, Mike Hudson, a 22-year old man, was arrested at the local Wal-Mart in Keystone, Ohio on charges of shoplifting. Thomas Phelps, a store employee, stated that he saw Mike place a moderately expensive watch (of approximately $70 in value) from the jewelry department in his coat pocket. According to Thomas, he then reclaimed a shirt and a pair of pants that he had temporarily placed on a nearby countertop while he looked at the watch. He then proceeded to another section of the store. Thomas continued to observe his actions while another employee informed the store manager that there might be a theft in progress. According to Thomas, the defendant continued to shop for approximately 20 minutes. During that time period, he picked up and carried several additional items from other areas of the store (the defendant never used a shopping cart or basket). He then proceeded to the check-out and paid for all of his items with the exception of the watch in his pocket. Afterwards, Mike exited the store and was promptly arrested for shoplifting. When the police arrested the defendant, he claimed that he had placed the watch in his pocket only out of convenience and that he had simply forgotten about it as he continued shopping. The defendant insisted that he had never had any intentions of stealing the watch and he offered to pay for it. However, the store manager believed that he had intended to steal the watch and decided to press criminal charges.
Mike is 22 years old and has been a resident of the Keystone community for the past three years. He currently works as a bank teller and has an associate’s degree in financing from Keystone community college. He is currently unmarried and lives alone. His immediate family, as well as much of his extended family, lives approximately 45 miles away in the small community of Westover, Ohio. He visits them on a regular basis and is on good terms with them.
By all available accounts, Mike had a normal childhood. He lived with both of his parents and two younger siblings until he was 19. Raised in a middle-class, semi-rural environment, he attended classes in the Westover public school system and graduated in the spring of 2002. He moved to the city of Keystone approximately 10 months later and began attending Keystone Community college in pursuit of an associate’s degree in the field of financing.
Mike has been described by his neighbors as being somewhat reclusive and is not heavily involved in the local community. He does, however, appear to have a couple of close friends from that work that he socializes with on occasion. He spends much of his free time playing guitar, a hobby that he has enjoyed for the past five years.
For this study, when considering the crime of shoplifting, please use the following definition:
Shoplifting: The unlawful and intentional taking of a store’s property without force or threat of force during store hours. Please note that the intent to steal is being considered a necessary component of this crime.
Sex: Male
Crime: Burglary
Individuating Information: Extended
On October 17th at approximately 10 AM, Mike Hudson, a 22-year old man, was arrested on charges of burglary. Steve Knox, a local resident of the Keystone, Ohio community, states that he saw an individual matching his description fleeing the home of Ralph and Susan Cole at approximately 3:20 AM that morning. He says that he awoke to the sound of breaking glass followed by the ringing of an alarm. He went to the window and saw a young man dressed in a dark long-sleeved shirt or coat with blonde hair running away from the Coles’ residence. He was not able to get a clear look at his face due to the heavy rain which had been falling for the past 12 hours, but believed that he recognized him as someone from the neighborhood. He also, noted that a window on his neighbors’ house had been broken and that their burglary alarm and security lights had been activated. After seeing this, he promptly called the police.
Steve informed the police of what he had seen and told the police that his neighbors, the Coles, were vacationing in Florida for the week. He also provided the police with the appropriate telephone numbers so that they would be able to contact the Coles in the morning. Later, after being questioned about the appearance of the suspect, Steve also told the police that he thought he knew who it was. He told the police that he thought it must have been Mike Hudson, a relatively new resident of the Keystone community, whom he had seen fleeing the area.
The police investigated the crime scene but could not obtain any useful fingerprints. They did, however, find an empty jewelry box had been discarded in the bush directly below the broken window. Mrs. Cole, after talking to the police, revealed that the jewelry box had been empty at the time of the attempted theft since she kept her jewelry in a small dresser drawer located several yards away from the broken window. After the house was searched, it was determined that no possessions had actually been taken. The police reasoned that the burglar had been scared off by the alarm system and only had the time to grab a single item (an empty jewelry box) before running away.
During their investigations outside of the house, the police found a pair of muddy footprints, apparently made by boots, leading away from the broken window. Due to the heavy rain, distinct features of the boot prints could not be discerned. However, a general size was obtained.
Later that morning, the police visited the apartment of Mike Hudson. While they were there, they found a pair of muddy boots with soles that were similar in size and design to the prints found at the crime scene. They also found a damp, dark-gray, hooded sweatshirt and damp jeans. When asked about these items, he told the police that they had gotten wet and muddy when he took his two dogs for a walk earlier that morning in the rain, an activity that he is commonly seen doing in the neighborhood. When the police examined the dogs, they were found to be warm and dry with no signs of mud or dirt. The defendant explained that he had dried the dogs off upon returning to the apartment. The police considered what they had found as well as the testimony of Steve Knox. In the end, decided to arrest him on charges of burglary.
Mike is 22 years old and has been a resident of the Keystone community for the past three years. He currently works as a bank teller and has an associate’s degree in financing from Keystone community college. He is currently unmarried and lives alone. His immediate family, as well as much of his extended family, lives approximately 45 miles away in the small community of Westover, Ohio. He visits them on a regular basis and is on good terms with them.
By all available accounts, Mike had a normal childhood. He lived with both of his parents and two younger siblings until he was 19. Raised in a middle-class, semi-rural environment, he attended classes in the Westover public school system and graduated in the spring of 2002. He moved to the city of Keystone approximately 10 months later and began attending Keystone Community college in pursuit of an associate’s degree in the field of financing.
Mike has been described by his neighbors as being somewhat reclusive and is not heavily involved in the local community. He does, however, appear to have a couple of close friends from that work that he socializes with on occasion. He spends much of his free time playing guitar, a hobby that he has enjoyed for the past five years.
For this study, when considering the crime of burglary, please use the following definition:
Burglary: The unlawful entry of a structure (both residential and non-residential) with intent to commit a theft. Please note that no possessions actually need to be stolen in order for burglary to have taken place. There must be intent to steal, however.
Appendix F
Questionnaire for “Examining Mock Judicial Decisions in a Student Population”
1. What is your age? __________________
2. What is your sex/gender? (Please circle one) Male Female
3. What is your class rank? (Please circle one)
a. Freshman
b. Sophomore
c. Junior
d. Senior
e. Graduate Student
f. Adult Studies Student
g. Other
For the following questions please consider the case summary and the definition for the alleged crime provided at the end of the case summary. Furthermore, please consider the questions and your answers carefully. Although this scenario is not representative of a criminal trial in terms of the quantity of information presented or in terms of your ability to deliberate with your peers, please do your best to treat your decisions with the same level of seriousness that you would in an actual trial. Additionally, please address each question individually and do not adjust or alter your answers to one question in response to other questions.
1. On a scale of 1 to 7 (with 1 representing the least amount of guilt and 7 representing the greatest amount of guilt), how guilty do you see the defendant as? Please circle a number on the scale below.
_____________________________________
(Least amount of guilt) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (Greatest amount of guilt)
2. Would you vote to convict the defendant of the alleged crime?
Yes No
3. How did you arrive at your decision concerning whether or not to convict the defendant?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. Please list the evidence/information that you considered to be favorable to the defendant’s case.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5. Please list the evidence/information that you considered to be unfavorable to the defendant’s case.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Appendix G
Consent Document for Second Study
Examining Mock Judicial Decisions in a Student Population
CONSENT DOCUMENT
Title of Research Study: Examining Mock Judicial Decisions in a Student Population
Principal Investigator: Seth Miller
Institution: East Carolina University
Address: 800 Heath St. Apt. 6, Greenville, NC 27858
Telephone #: (330) 206-8617
INTRODUCTION
You have been asked to participate in a research study being conducted by Seth Miller. This research study is designed to examine mock judicial decisions made within a student population.
PLAN AND PROCEDURES
You will be provided with a brief summary of a criminal event and will then be asked to individually render a verdict and complete a short questionnaire. The entire process should take no more than 20 minutes.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
You may find the subject matter slightly unsettling as it relates to criminal activity. You may not be given a complete description of the research question prior to participation in order to prevent your responses from being biased by such information. You will be given a complete explanation after your participation is complete.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS
This study has the potential to benefit those in the legal field by better informing all parties involved about the manner in which potential jurors perceive criminal events and make decisions within a judicial context. I also hope that you, as participants, will derive some benefits from the study in terms of learning more about the process of psychological research.
SUBJECT PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY OF RECORDS
During the study, no names or other personal identifiers will be connected with your answers. Any personal identifiers (such as your name) will be kept separate from your responses so that the researcher will not know who provided specific answers. Only the researcher and his advisors will have access to the information you provide in its non-aggregated form.
COSTS OF PARTICIPATION
There will be no cost to you, the participant, aside from the time that you invest in this study.
COMPENSATION
There is no monetary compensation for participating in this study. However, professors may offer compensation in the form of credit or extra credit for your participation in this study.
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION
Participating in this study is voluntary. If you decide not to be in this study after it has already started, you may stop at any time without losing benefits that you should normally receive. However, you must complete the questionnaire in order to receive academic credit for it.
PERSONS TO CONTACT WITH QUESTIONS
The investigator will be available to answer any questions concerning this research, now or in the future. You may contact the investigator, Seth Miller at phone numbers (330) 206-8617 (days) or (330) 206-8617 (nights and weekends) or via email at millerse@. If you have questions about your rights as a research subject, you may call the Chair of the University and Medical Center Institutional Review Board at phone number 252-744-2914 (days) and/or the ECU Risk Management Office at 252-328-6858.
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE
Title of research study: Examining Mock Judicial Decisions in a Student Population
I have read all of the above information, asked questions and have received satisfactory answers in areas I did not understand. (A copy of this signed and dated consent form will be given to the person signing this form as the participant or as the participant authorized representative.)
_____________
Participant's Name (PRINT) Signature Date Time
If applicable:
_____________
Guardian's Name (PRINT) Signature Date Time
PERSON ADMINISTERING CONSENT: I have conducted the consent process and orally reviewed the contents of the consent document. I believe the participant understands the research.
Person Obtaining consent (PRINT) Signature Date
Principal Investigator's (PRINT) Signature Date
Appendix H
Debriefing form for “Examining Mock Judicial Decisions in a Student Population”
DEBRIEFING FORM
Thank you for participating in this study examining mock judicial decisions. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of criminal-gender stereotypes and individuating information in judicial decisions. You were asked to read one of eight case studies that described either a man or a woman who was allegedly involved in a crime that is seen as stereotypical or non-stereotypical for his or her sex. (Previous work has indicated that burglary is seen as more stereotypical for male offenders, while shoplifting is seen as more stereotypical for female offenders). Additionally, each case summary also had either a limited or an extended amount of individuating information. This is information that did not pertain directly to the alleged offense, but, instead, was intended to reveal more information about the suspect and differentiate him or her from conceptions of a stereotypical man or woman. It is hypothesized that women and men accused of a stereotypical offense for their sex will be seen as more culpable than those accused of a non-stereotypical offense. However, the presence of additional individuating information is expected to mitigate ratings of guilt for those accused of stereotypical crimes for their genders.
If you participated in this study for academic credit, your status on Experimentrak will be updated and credit will be assigned to the class that you designated (following your successful completion of the required quiz). If you have any questions concerning the study I will be happy to answer them. Additionally, if you have any questions in the future concerning this study or would like to see the results of the study when it is concluded, you may contact me via email at millerse@ and I will be happy to answer your questions or provide you with that information when it is available. After you leave here, please do not talk about the content or purpose of the study with other potential participants, as doing so may influence their answers and bias the results of the study. Thank you once again for your time and participation.
Sincerely,
Seth Miller
Appendix I
Quiz
Name ___________________
1) What was the purpose of this study?
A. To examine the impact of criminal-gender stereotypes and individuating information in judicial decisions.
B. To examine how deliberations influence judicial decisions.
C. To examine a correlation between confidence in the evidence and confidence in an individual verdict.
D. To evaluate the accuracy of eye-witness testimony.
2) How many different versions of case studies were used in this experiment?
A. 2
B. 4
C. 6
D. 8
3) Previous work (as mentioned in the debriefing form) has indicated that this crime is seen as stereotypical for men.
A. Shoplifting
B Burglary
C. Fraud
D Extortion
4) Previous work (as mentioned in the debriefing form) has indicated that this crime is seen as stereotypical for women.
A. Shoplifting
B Burglary
C. Fraud
D Extortion
5) The dependent variable in this study was ______.
A. The type of crime that a defendant allegedly committed.
B. Participants’ ratings of guilt for the defendant.
C. How much individuating information was provided about the defendant.
D. The defendant’s sex.
6) Men and women accused of stereotypical offenses are expected to be seen as ______ than men and women accused of non-stereotypical offenses.
A. Having a greater level of guilt.
B. Having a lesser level of guilt.
C. Having the same level of guilt.
7) Additional individuating information is expected to _______ ratings of guilt for those accused of stereotypical crimes for their genders.
A. Lower (mitigate)
B. Increase
C. Have no effect upon
8) What was the intended purpose of adding additional individuating information?
A. It was intended to distract the reader from the evidence.
B. It was intended to reveal more information about the suspect and differentiate him or her from conceptions of a stereotypical man or woman.
C. It was only added to lengthen the case summary.
9) Why is it requested that you not talk to other potential participants about this study?
A. Because it would be rude to spoil the experience for them by telling them too much.
B. Because doing so may influence their answers and bias the results of the study.
C. There is no reason. You may talk to other potential participants about the study.
10) Can you contact the researcher in the future if you have additional questions concerning this study?
A. Yes
B. No
Key For Quiz
1. A
2. D
3. B
4. A
5. B
6. A
7. A
8. B
9. B
10. A
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
Related searches
- the importance of gender equality
- the importance of gender identity
- the causes of gender inequality
- the effects of gender roles
- the benefits of gender equality
- twice the difference of a number and 4 is at least 16
- 70 is the product of hans savings and 5
- eight times the sum of a number and 22 is at least 29
- seven increased by the product of a number and 5 is greater than 20
- seven times the sum of a number and 16
- three times the sum of a number and 15 is at most 16
- ten subtracted from the quotient of a number and 7 is less than 6