1 / 8

Impact of Defendant's Physical Attractiveness on Mock Juror Verdicts: A Contingency Table Analysis

This analysis examines how the physical attractiveness of a defendant influences juror verdicts. Results indicate that mock jurors were significantly more likely to find an unattractive defendant guilty (75.7%) compared to an attractive one (65.0%). The findings suggest a strong relationship between attractiveness and perceived guilt, with an odds ratio of 2.45. Additionally, other significant results were found, such as the likelihood of individuals taking stairs based on direction and weight, with obese individuals using stairs less frequently than others.

early
Download Presentation

Impact of Defendant's Physical Attractiveness on Mock Juror Verdicts: A Contingency Table Analysis

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Presenting the Results of a Contingency Table Analysis

  2. Verdict x Defendant Physical Attractiveness • Mock jurors were significantly more likely to find the defendant guilty when he was unattractive (75.7%) than when he was attractive (65.0%), 2(1, N = 145) = 6.229, p = .013,  = .207, odds ratio = 2.45, 95% CI [1.20, 4.99]. • Please note that with significant results one should emphasize the direction of effect.

  3. Nonsignificant Results • One should NOT mention direction of effect, unless having tested directional hypotheses.

  4. Direction x Device • People were significantly more likely to take the stairs when going down (24.3%) than when going up (6.1%), 2(1, N = 3,217) = 217.22, p < .001,  = .26, odds ratio = 4.90, 95% CI [3.91, 6.13]. • SPSS gave me an odds ratio of .204 and a CI of [.163, .256]. I inverted these numbers to get ratios greater than one.

  5. Figure 1. Device x Weight

  6. Choice of device was significantly associated with weight of patron, 2(2, N = 3,217) = 11.752, p = .003,  = .06. As shown in Table 1, obese individuals used the stairs considerably less often than did others.

  7. Pairwise Comparisons • Use of the stairs did not differ significantly between overweight and normal individuals, 2(1, N = 2,907) = 1.034, p = .31, ,  = .02, odds ratio = 1.12, 95% CI [0.90, 1.38]. • Individuals of normal weight used the stairs significantly more often than did obese individuals, 2(1, N = 2,142) = 9.062, p = .003, ,  = .065, odds ratio = 1.94, 95% CI [1.25, 3.00].

  8. SPSS will mess up if you use a dichotomous predictor that is coded with numbers other than consecutive integers, such as Weight = 1 (obese) and 3 (normal). If you declare Weight to be categorical, SPSS works fine. • Overweight individuals used the stairs significantly more often than did obese individuals, 2(1, N = 1,385) = 11.815, p = .001,  = .092, odds ratio = 2.16, 95% CI [1.38, 3.38].

More Related