tomo

Tomosuke Hasegawa

� Cognitive process that uses schemas of traits, values, beliefs and behaviour

Influencing our cognition (Saddichha, Kumar & Pradhan, 2012).

� This process may thereby cause cognitive biases (Eysenck & Keane, 2013).

Thus leading to an impression being formed (Asch, 1946) which dictates

what we think of an individual.

� Aim of the study: To examine the effect of physical attractiveness and trait

centrality on judgement of criminality.

� Asch’s (1946) Central trait theory

The interpretation of one trait can change our overall view of an entire personality

(Asch, 1946; Moskowitz, 2005).

Asch divided these central traits into two common dimensions; “warm” and “cold”

• “Warm” encompassed words like generous and sociable (Asch,1946)

• “Cold” covered words calculating and unsympathetic (Asch,1946)

� “warm” were known as kind and sociable

� “Cold” were known as ignorant and lack empathy (McCarthy & Skowronski, 2011).

�Halo effect (Thorndike, 1920)

� The natural tendency for individuals to make undue inferences on character,

a brand or object based on another irrelevant trait, which is most usually

incongruent (Forgas, 2011).

� Appear naturally during evaluation (Palmer & Peterson, 2012)

� A person’s physical appearance can alter our perception about their

internal traits (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991)

� Nesbit & Wilson (1977), Wetzel,Wilson & Kort (1981)

� Impressions were dependent on the collective interpretation of the words as a

whole (Nauts, Langner, Huijsmans, Vonk, & Wigboldus, 2014)

� “warm/ cold” traits were affected by the psychological distance of the perceiver to

the target (McCarthy & Skowronski ,2011)

� A positive mood led to more “halo” biases(Forgas, 2011).The negative moods that

eliminated halo effects (Forgas).

� coldness is a predictor of social isolation, aggression and psychopathy (Boyd,

Bresin, Ode & Robinson, 2013). “Warm” people are more moral, communal and

accommodative (Boyd, Bresin, Ode & Robinson).

� In criminal proceedings

�Least severe punishment given to more attractive people (Darby and

Jeffers,1988), lesser bail (Downs and Lyons,1991)

�Unattractive criminals had a higher probability of getting

recommendations for psychiatric treatment (McKelvie & Coley, 1993)

�If crime perceived as related to attractiveness, it would lead to

harsher punishment. (Sigall & Ostrove ,1975).

�Representation by an attractive lawyer or expert, saw the positive

outcomes of their attractiveness rub off on case (Gross, 1991).

� When treated as separate variables physical attractiveness and trait

centrality can affect a persons’ overall decision (Asch, 1946; Widmeyer &

Loy, 1988; Forgas, 2011).

� Nesbit & Wilson (1977) work on the premise of manipulating the Warm and

cold, but fail to manipulate physical attractiveness but is a pre- existing

variable and not a key measure.

� Do not use Asch’s multi dimensional model and can be open to

interpretation . More conscious change than unconscious.( The word vs the

demenour)

� Clear link exist – but there’s no research on its interaction

�“How does physical attractiveness and trait centrality

affect an individual’s judgement of crime?”

� Hypothesis 1 – Significant main effect of Physically attractiveness on Judgement of criminality

� Darby & Jeffers (1988) Downs & Lyons(1991) the researcher hypothesize that the more unattractive an individual is the more likely he is to found guilty.

� Hypothesis 2- Significant main effect of trait centrality on judgement of criminality

� Asch (1946), Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, (2008) & (Boyd, Bresin, Ode & Robinson, 2013) description of “Warm or Cold” can change the overall impression formed on a personality.

� Hypothesis 3-Significant interaction effect between Physically attractiveness and trait centrality on Judgement of criminality

�Nesbit & Wilson (1977), Asch, 1946; Widmeyer & Loy, 1988; Forgas, 2011

� Design

� 2x2 between-subjects design

� IV 1 - Physical attractiveness –

Attractive, Unattractive manipulated by

pictures

� IV 2 – traits centrality – warm ,Cold

manipulated by character referral

� DV - Judgment of crime measured by

7-point likert scale

� Participants

� 25 participants – preliminary and actual

study

� Recruited through convenience and

haphazard sampling

� Time, availability of voluntary of

participants.

� Materials

� Case summary

� Character referral

� Questionnaire

� Procedure

� Preliminary study

�Informed consent, personality test

(deception),case summary, character

referral and questionnaire. rated

attractiveness from 10 pictures, debrief

� Actual Study

�Informed consent, personality test

(deception),case summary and picture of

attractive of unattractive suspect, character

referral and Questionnaire, debrief

� Overall score- measured by a 7 point Likert Scale.

� Lowest: 1 – Less likely to be a criminal

� Highest: 7- more likely to be a criminal

� Stats test and justification

�Design-between-subjects factorial ANOVA.

�Scales of measurement- Nominal IV ,Interval DV

�Hypotheses- Non directional, two-tailed basis

� Highest: Unattractive, cold condition scored (M= 5.0, SD =1.22)

� Lowest: Attractive, cold condition scored the lowest (M= 3.2, SD = 1.10) overall.

� Physical Attractiveness, F (1, 16) =2.40, p > .05.

� Trait Centrality, F (1,16) = 0.50, p> .05.

� Physical Attractiveness & Trait Centrality, F (1,16) = 5.90, p = .027

� Hypothesis 1- Null hypothesis accepted

� “There was no significant main effect of physical attractiveness on judgement of criminality” F (1, 16) = 2.39, P > .05

� Results didn’t confirm

�Darby & Jeffers (1988) & Downs & Lyons(1991)- Physical attractiveness affects jury verdicts.

� Hypothesis 2- Null hypothesis accepted

� “There was no significant main effect of trait centraility on judgement of criminality” F (1,16) = 0.50, p> .05.

� Results didn’t confirm

�Asch (1946), Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, (2008) & Boyd, Bresin, Ode & Robinson, (2013)- Warm and cold traits play a significant role in the way an individual is percieved

� Hypothesis 3- Null hypothesis rejected

�“There was a significant interaction effect of physical attractiveness and trait centrality on

judgement of criminality” F (1,16) = 5.90, p = .027

�Means show when the unattractive individual is described with “cold” as a trait, he is more

likely to be viewed in harsher light. The word “warm” he is more likely to get a positive

verdict than initially expected.

�It had the opposite effect with attractive people.

� Criminal face effect

�categorize people’s faces into two different sub categories. -criminal faces and non-criminal faces (Bull & Green 1980, as cited in Valla, Ceci, & Williams, 2011).

�causes a person to discriminate a face along on the lines of “can commit the crime or cant” (MacLin, Malpass, & Herrera,).

�Confounding variable in our research -possibility that the participant might have perceived that the suspect was “criminal looking” and the actual case summary would have only intensified that bias.

�Variance between the means shows that the mean score ranged from 3.2 to 5.0 in 7 point Likert scale

�These are considered rather neutral and as “on the fence” figures

�There was not enough of variance in each level of IV to achieve a significant main effect

� There was no manipulation check – neutral faces, warm/cold manipulation

� Neutral “on-the-fence marking” – scores only ranged from 3-5

� Possible cohort effect-needed a wider variety of participants

� Weak deception

� Trait centrality tested as a moderator of physical attractiveness on crime

� Another IV to existing design - type of facial expression

�The pictures of attractive or unattractive faces can embody expressions

such contempt, anger, happiness and disgust and used to investigate

how it affects impression formed.

� Gender differences - would females participants be lenient ? Cross-cultural

Experiment – Will results stay the same ?

� Two DV’s - IV’s significantly affect severity of crime or sentencing along

with measuring for judgement of criminality.

� Platform in which Asch’s central trait is used to understand if impression of

perpetrators can be changed.

� Impression formation on those already in a negative light.

� Insight to the relevance of seemingly inconsequential characteristics and its

role in the criminal justice system.

� Highlights the need to use interventions in the ongoing process of

judgements and verdicts- eliminate pre-existing stereotyping mind set.

� More be discovered and delved into when it comes to examining the

effect of how physically attractiveness and trait centrality impact the

way in which an individual’s judgement is impeded.

� More results and studies are needed to address cognitive bias