Effects of Physical Attractiveness on Evaluations of a Male Employee’s Allegation of Sexual Harass...
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 8

Research Question & Hypothesis PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 45 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Effects of Physical Attractiveness on Evaluations of a Male Employee’s Allegation of Sexual Harassment by His Female Employer By Karl L. Wuensch & Charles H. Moore. Research Question & Hypothesis. Research Question What effects of the sex of the juror and the

Download Presentation

Research Question & Hypothesis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Research question hypothesis

Effects of Physical Attractiveness on Evaluations of a Male Employee’s Allegation of Sexual Harassment by His Female EmployerBy Karl L. Wuensch & Charles H. Moore


Research question hypothesis

Research Question & Hypothesis

Research Question

What effects of the sex of the juror and the

physical attractiveness of the litigants where

sexual harassment of a male employee by

his female employer is occurring have on the

outcome, or verdict?

Hypothesis

Guilty verdicts would be more likely when the defendant (female employer) was unattractive and when the plaintiff (male employee) was attractive.


Participants

Participants

324 total subjects

  • 164 men

  • 160 women

    All were enrolled in

    the undergraduate psychology

    classes at a southern college.

    Statistics

    78% Caucasian

    19% African American

    3.5% Other (Native American, Asian American, Hispanic)


Procedures

Procedures

  • Put into 10 groups of 40 individuals in each

    2. Each was given a packet

    3. Plaintiff gave his testimony

    4.Defendant gave her testimony and denied all allegations

  • Given participant response forms

  • Asked to rate, on a

    9-point scale certainty

    of guilt and the

    attractiveness of each

    litigant.

    7.Jury asked for guilty

    or not guilty verdict


Variables of the study

Variables of the Study

  • Independent Variables

    • Sex of the participants

      • Male or female

    • Physical attractiveness of plaintiff

    • Physical attractiveness of defendant

      • 1=physically unattractive to 9=physically attractive

  • Dependent Variables

    • The verdict

      • guilty or not guilty

    • Participants own certainty of guilt or lack there of

      • 9-point scale from “definitely not guilty” to “definitely guilty”


The set up

The Set-Up

defendant

plaintiff

defendant

plaintiff

defendant

plaintiff

unattractive

unattractive

attractive

attractive

unattractive

attractive

58% guilty verdicts

78% guilty verdicts

85% guilty verdicts


Results

Results

  • Female jurors rendered a guilty verdict more often than males did

    • Females: 74% Males: 66&

  • When defendant was attractive and plaintiff not, female jurors gave out more verdicts (78%) compared to men (56%)

  • Plaintiff was attractive and defendant was not, female jurors were more likely to render a guilty verdict (85%) compared to men (68%)

  • Both unattractive, results were not very much different. (females 58%, males 63%)

  • Both attractive, no difference at all (78%)

  • “Only significant effect was that of the plaintiff attractiveness. With certainty of guilty being significantly greater when the plaintiff was attractive”


Limitations

Limitations

  • Limitation 1

    • College students and actual jury selection

  • Limitation 2

    • Verdict of this study compared

      to that of an actual trial

  • Limitation 3

    • Predeliberation verdicts


  • Login