� 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